"It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel."
"The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel."
"Scientists found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline"
Love IT!!! California needs to invest more in Green Tech!!! Prop 23 is down in the polls, but the Yes on 23 campaign just got a new influx of hot, anonymous cash, so we'll need to fend them off in the home stretch to Election Day.
Hit me back if you'd like to talk Prop 23. We're coming out with a bunch of great No on Prop 23 videos soon!
Central America isn't the only region where cattle ranching occurs. In Brazil, cattle ranches occupy somewhere around 8.4 million hectares (20.7 million acres), averaging 24,000 hectares (59,300 acres) each, with some as large as 560,000 hectares (1,383,760 acres). You would think that the government would be making a lot of money from these cattle ranches, since the U.S. is such a major consumer, but surprisingly, the overall mean output from these ranches averaged only 9% of projections .
I invented a breakthrough energy source which violates the law of energy conservation. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena violating the law of energy conservation. I am looking for $30000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents. In mass production it will cost $1200 to make a 15 kW generator, value of energy produced YEARLY about $10000.
@1tmop1 Brazil uses less then 2 % of there prime crop lands to produce all the bio fuel the country needs as well as exports , and over 85% of there cars run on bio fuel , most of the rain forest is cleared for cattle ranches , so americans can eat cheap hamburgers !
theoretically, there will be a zero net CO2 gain in the long run (if everything will be powered using alternative fuels). But there was a study by a Nobel prize winner indicating that first generation biofuels production may exacerbate the greenhouse effect through increased NO2 levels in the atmosphere; since smaller crops like corn releases more NO2 compared to larger plants. So researches today are concentrating to 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation biofuels. Try to search for it in Wikipedia.
What you don't understand is that when they grow these crops, the plants take in C02. If you know anything about carbon cycle you would understand this.
When all the plants are gone, what's next?
JinKazama92 10 months ago
"It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel."
"The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel."
"Scientists found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline"
Cosmo1093 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love IT!!! California needs to invest more in Green Tech!!! Prop 23 is down in the polls, but the Yes on 23 campaign just got a new influx of hot, anonymous cash, so we'll need to fend them off in the home stretch to Election Day.
Hit me back if you'd like to talk Prop 23. We're coming out with a bunch of great No on Prop 23 videos soon!
- prop23FAIL
prop23FAIL 1 year ago
lol southern yank cowboy!
mynameisnotearl3 1 year ago
Central America isn't the only region where cattle ranching occurs. In Brazil, cattle ranches occupy somewhere around 8.4 million hectares (20.7 million acres), averaging 24,000 hectares (59,300 acres) each, with some as large as 560,000 hectares (1,383,760 acres). You would think that the government would be making a lot of money from these cattle ranches, since the U.S. is such a major consumer, but surprisingly, the overall mean output from these ranches averaged only 9% of projections .
mikehanoo33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I invented a breakthrough energy source which violates the law of energy conservation. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena violating the law of energy conservation. I am looking for $30000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents. In mass production it will cost $1200 to make a 15 kW generator, value of energy produced YEARLY about $10000.
H. Tomasz Grzybowski
tel. +48-512-933-540
henrykay01 1 year ago
Bio fuels are worse than oil. The reason is that rain forests are being cleared in Brazil, Indonesia & Malaysia for growing these crops.
Bio fuels are doing more harm than good to the environment.
UT should not be pushing for this, it is highly irresponsible of them
1tmop1 1 year ago
@1tmop1 Brazil uses less then 2 % of there prime crop lands to produce all the bio fuel the country needs as well as exports , and over 85% of there cars run on bio fuel , most of the rain forest is cleared for cattle ranches , so americans can eat cheap hamburgers !
mikehanoo33 1 year ago
theoretically, there will be a zero net CO2 gain in the long run (if everything will be powered using alternative fuels). But there was a study by a Nobel prize winner indicating that first generation biofuels production may exacerbate the greenhouse effect through increased NO2 levels in the atmosphere; since smaller crops like corn releases more NO2 compared to larger plants. So researches today are concentrating to 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation biofuels. Try to search for it in Wikipedia.
morhelm 3 years ago
noooo it doesnt it has less green house gas :P but you need more energy to produce energy that sucks it doesnt have much power to produce
sandycandy4 3 years ago
they didnt mention that it produces more green house emission than standard fuel.
tazmaniainc 3 years ago
What you don't understand is that when they grow these crops, the plants take in C02. If you know anything about carbon cycle you would understand this.
jenksmaster 3 years ago 5
But i dont see that You understand the green house logic
if you do then why we wont plant more trees and plants to limit the greenhouse instead of worrying about co2 emissions?
tazmaniainc 3 years ago
Pipe dream
shmickeyd 3 years ago