Are bio-fuels really the answer to combatting the problem of pollution?

Question

I am thinking that it is not because imagine if every car ran using bio-fuel (or whatever this environmentally friendly fuel is) then wouldn't we need to cut down more trees to make room to grow more crops for this bio-fuel?? Which is just as harmful to the environment.

I know the fuel comes from crops, but if more bio-fuel is needed then we would have to cut down trees in order to make room to be able to grow more crops!!

Answer 1

Sugar cane prices have doubles in 18 months! Afforestation is increasing to grow it for fuel!

Corn and bread prices are rising as that is used for fuel. The corn used to produce one tank of bio fuel would feed a person for a year. The greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is produced by the nitrogen fertiliser used in growing corn. If the US diverted its entire current corn harvest to bio fuels it would meet only 11 per cent of its current gasoline demand and just 10 per cent of the world's transport fuels would require 9 per cent of the planet's agricultural land

At present it is likely to lead to disaster.

BUT - there are a number of ways bio fuel could be made such as using cellulose which would use fast growing weed crops and compost-able materiel. Experiments are going on with using Algi and many other things. The answer is out there but it will take a little time yet.

In the mean time the best use of bio fuel is adding it to the petrol and diesel we already use rather than as a stand alone product.

Answer 2

No, Population reduction is the answer to pollution, Nuke China, get India to Nuke Pakkistan and Bangla, and Pakkistan to nuke India and Iran and Iraq can kill each other that would be a start,
But already the US grain mountain has gone, replaced by Bio Fuel crops so Eithiopians will die so Yanks can drive, Africa must be the bio fuel crop escource for the world so the sooner Blair and Bush take it over the sooner we can have sensibly low fuel prices and if we feel bad we can buy the next "Bob and his has bin mates Aid" CD where after expenses 28 p is sent to some African Dictator to buy AK47 spares or bullets

Answer 3

no they are not ( just a supplement )

they do not and will not come from trees but renewable fuel CROPS ( currently corn )

we would not cut down trees to make room for crops - at the moment we don't even cut down trees to make room for FOOD crops ( we would use land that is currently unused - but even if we plant every available acre there would not be enough )

bio-fuel would actually be GOOD for the environment because we would keep more land in use during the growing season ( more production of oxygen - less solar heat gain - more mulch like material for other use - less loss of topsoil to wind and water )

CUTTING TREES - we have already established a balance in the US between trees and crops - the land we have in trees is optimum for lumber-wildlife-recreation and is unlikely to change

even though i mentioned that we could not supply our energy demands with the available land that is not really a factor since the economic ( profit ) processing ( refineries ) and transportation ( alcohol "bio fuel" has to be trucked it doesn't take well to pipelines ) are the real limitations

Answer 4

There is no single answer to pollution. It is WAY more complicated than just using bio fuel, or solar panels or hydrogen or fuel cells or anything. Every energy source has positive and negative consequences. Even coal has positive consequences, as in we don't have to cut down trees to produce it. There were laws enacted in the middle ages forbidding the use of wood charcoal to smelt iron because it was causing deforestation. Now we use coke made from coal to smelt iron and that has saved trees and given us cheap iron. It does cause air pollution though, which is the obvious negative consequence. But wood fires cause air pollution too.

Answer 5

The bio. diesel doesn't produce less CO2 and ethanol will do about the same. There is a problem that is not a problem. CO2 is not a pollutant,and here is why. Mother nature has been recycling our air for several million years and continues today. The CO2 is recycled through plants in a process called photosynthesis. The plants Use the CO2 to produce their food and give us back oxygen.

Answer 6

i think of biofuels are a available answer short-term. by employing which I advise biodiesel, by way of fact ethanol sucks, as does any distilled alcohol gasoline which must be distilled, at exteremely severe skill value. they are no longer 25% extra effective than petroleum by employing nature, that only occurs to be costs in the present day. day after today they'd be 0.5 the value of fossil. different than that OPEC intentionally manipulates oil costs to undercut possibilities. the best-ever low of oil costs got here approximately after the Nineteen Eighteen Nineties electric-motor vehicle flow, and now this is an all-time severe. Longer-term, I assume us to apply electricity for extremely very nearly each little thing, or a surrogate of electricity such as hydrogen. Hydrogen gasoline cellular is, in spite of everything, only yet differently of storing electricity on the motor vehicle. Hydrogen would be electrolyzed from water, carried in severe rigidity tanks, then used in a gasoline cellular to make electricity. a tactics much less effectual than batteries, so batteries would desire to win. What concerning the upward thrust in nutrition costs? examine "The Omnivore's capture 22 subject" and you will see why consistent with possibility this isn't any vast loss. Corn and soy are no longer stable for you, nor are the starchy, fried products created from them.

Answer 7

Biofuel will not be any easier on the environment. Until we get past combustion we going to have the sam problem over and over again. Fussion and fission reactions are the only real solution because the world is not going to cut back on its energy use no matter how much anybody talks about it. Use will continue to climb.