Biofuels fanatics just don’t get it.

So here’s a wide eyed stupid item about how corn waste doesn’t do well on producing energy and avoiding producing carbon dioxide.

Guess what, morons, ethanol, the big product of corn biofuels produces to much carbon dioxide for too little energy per pound too.

So there–get your head examined.

8 responses to “Biofuels fanatics just don’t get it.

  1. “An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100% better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Big Biofuels paid for the study.

    “The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.”

    Government agents will watch farmers removing corn residue from fields. Fascism incarnate. Government agents won’t be able to tell poke berry or goldenrod or ragweed from corn, but will direct removal of corn waste. Washington is completely insane. The program is idiotic; their belief they can manage it is idiotic.

  2. That darned CO2 should have shut down the wine and beer industries by now, but politics is involved.

  3. James W. Everts

    This is great!! So now Dupont is Big Biofuels, but when it blocks labelling of GMOs, it is using Sound Science?

    To cite our most balanced and learned debater, john1282: “Guess what, morons, (-) get your head examined.”

  4. “an AP investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.”

    EPA secret science FAIL!

  5. Biofuel was just gaining popularity when I was in college. I remember talking about it in one of my sophomore engineering classes and none of us could figure out why everyone was so crazy about it, not when petroleum-based fuel burns cleaner and is more efficient. Now, because so many drank the biofuel Kool-Aid, the cost of meat (among other things) has jumped way up. People just don’t think about the way these things can snowball.

  6. What a load of gobbledegook…………………………


    Fossil fuel: CH2 + 1.5 O2 >>> CO2 + H2O

    Biofuel: CH2O + O2 >>> CO2 + H2O

    NB the differences are:
    1.There is less energy released from the biofuel because the reaction H2 + 0.5 O2 >>> H2O has already occurred in the formation of the biofuel.
    2. The advantage of the biofuel is that the CO2 released has been photosynthesized out of the atmosphere a negligible time before the combustion, but the C in the CO2 from the fossil fuel has been in the ground for millions of years and now adds to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
    It doesn’t matter whether you are a skeptic or a warmist………….
    For all practical purposes the only difference between fossil and bio is that the biofuels cost more per vehicle mile.

    • Bio fuels which cost more that petrochemical fuels are a none starter anyway.
      Other important factors are that biofuels are work with existing engines. Replacing (even “converting”) would be an expensive and slow process.
      There’s also the ability too mix bio and petro fuels in any ratio. Whilst a fleet of buses might able to always be fueled from one source that is never going to be the case with a fleet of Airbuses.

      Interestingly the prototypes of both Diesel and gas turbine engines ran on vegetable oil. But the spark ignition engine was designed to use what was, in the late 19th century, an otherwise useless petroleum byproduct. Ethanol being rather different from this hydrocarbon mix.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s