- Local time
- Today, 15:40
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,121
This little article is the perfect example of how government policy-makers should NEVER be allowed to make policy until they have studied science.
You would have to agree that the concept of biofuels as a source of renewable energy sounds good, right? But the collateral effects overwhelm the benefit if the biofuel is corn-based. I knew the basic chemistry but didn't consider the collateral effects of farming. Short answer: Relying on corn-based biofuels is a mistake of the highest order. It gives the appearance of doing something good but when you take production costs and agricultural costs into account, we get a net 2% carbon benefit over a period of 28 years. At that rate, presuming that the greenhouse gas studies from 2005 are 100% correct, we just blew 16 1/2 years for a minuscule effect.
You would have to agree that the concept of biofuels as a source of renewable energy sounds good, right? But the collateral effects overwhelm the benefit if the biofuel is corn-based. I knew the basic chemistry but didn't consider the collateral effects of farming. Short answer: Relying on corn-based biofuels is a mistake of the highest order. It gives the appearance of doing something good but when you take production costs and agricultural costs into account, we get a net 2% carbon benefit over a period of 28 years. At that rate, presuming that the greenhouse gas studies from 2005 are 100% correct, we just blew 16 1/2 years for a minuscule effect.