🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <000e1a0c.a4e94f4c@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com>,
  MaxMar <smmarlowNOsmSPAM@ciena.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Biodiesel is also carbon-neutral since the carbon released from
> the burn comes from plants that pull it from the air.  There is
> no net increase in the carbon levels as there is with pulling
> fossil fuels from the ground.

The above is not true.  Producing biofuels uses vast amounts of energy
in the form of gasoline, diesel, electricity, etc.  It takes energy to
plow fields, fertilize fields, water crops, control weeds, produce
seeds, harvest crops, operate farm equipment, haul plants, and squish
plants up and process the oil from the plants.  In fact, many studies
have already been done (see Pimental, etc.) which show rather
conclusively that it takes more energy to produce each gallon of
biofuel than was used to produce it in the first place from start to
finish. All the systems used at the farm spew out carbon emissions as
hydrocarbon fuels get converted into CO2 and energy.

There is further evidence that biofuel is a crockoshit considering that
there are 0 (zero) bioplants operating anywhere at a profit without
government subsidies.

Even great government programs with happy farming groups like ADM don't
change basic laws of chemistry and physics.

If the biofuel is so great why aren't there any farms powering all their
equipment with the biofuel they produce?

Besides, hydrocarbon fuels, no matter HOW they are produced produce
hydrocarbon emissions, UHC's, and when you burn them you still get the
same NOx, CO2, CO, etc.

Yuck!

Jed Checketts
President
Powerball Technologies, LLC

*to reduce carbon emissions
*don't use carbon in the fuel




> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.