Using Biofuel In Cars 'may Accelerate Loss Of Rainforest'

[bellyup]

Then there's hot air easily produced by waffling windbags.

Would be a lot easier burning the money of people who make greedy stupid investments.

 

I trust you are not talking about people who put their money in the IOM?

Would you call that a greedy stupid investment?

 

Would you say this on TV ?

 

Back to the topic methane can be considered plenty is produced by people speaking out of their rear ends.

1. No I am refering to KSF in general.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Good idea, let's get all the KSF investors together.

 

 

Why bother when the Spit and Sawdust philosophers can do it all by themselves.

[jimbms]

No sawdust would come more under biomass units.

[Slim]

Slightly OT, but then so's the last exchange, thought this was an interesting slide:

 

 

 

[jimbms]

On a similar subject, by sheear coincidence I am at this very moment doing some calculations on some very efficient uses of high flow liquid shit to put it plainly, for some reason it made me think of the KSF debates on here.

[bellyup]

On a similar subject, by sheear coincidence I am at this very moment doing some calculations on some very efficient uses of high flow liquid shit to put it plainly, for some reason it made me think of the KSF debates on here.

 

 

Your contribution to the debates had been noted Jim.

[Terse]

Another 'Thumbs Down' for Biofuels

 

Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.

 

The findings show that the Department for Transport’s target for raising the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission.

 

Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.

[gazza]

Another 'Thumbs Down' for Biofuels

 

Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.

 

The findings show that the Department for Transport’s target for raising the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission.

 

Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.

 

but what is the reduction if it is grown on what was farm land.

 

plus that increase in emissions must only be on year 1, if you take it over 10 years it be the other way round.

[kevster]

but what is the reduction if it is grown on what was farm land.

If you use farmland to grow biofuels - where do you graze your cows, sheep, etc and grow your food crops?

[gazza]

but what is the reduction if it is grown on what was farm land.

If you use farmland to grow biofuels - where do you graze your cows, sheep, etc and grow your food crops?

 

you dont grow crops simple as that.

if growing crops makes you say £50 an acre profit

and growing bio-fuels makes £100 an acre profit which do you think will be grown.

which would lead us in to a situation that is long over due

[kevster]

but what is the reduction if it is grown on what was farm land.

If you use farmland to grow biofuels - where do you graze your cows, sheep, etc and grow your food crops?

 

you dont grow crops simple as that.

if growing crops makes you say £50 an acre profit

and growing bio-fuels makes £100 an acre profit which do you think will be grown.

which would lead us in to a situation that is long over due

And what do we eat?

[gazza]

but what is the reduction if it is grown on what was farm land.

If you use farmland to grow biofuels - where do you graze your cows, sheep, etc and grow your food crops?

 

you dont grow crops simple as that.

if growing crops makes you say £50 an acre profit

and growing bio-fuels makes £100 an acre profit which do you think will be grown.

which would lead us in to a situation that is long over due

And what do we eat?

 

well you would have to pay extra for the food as there would be less supply.

which inturn would push the price of crops up then more ppl would go back to growing food.

 

But then as so many have said theres plenty of food in the world so no need to worry if a few million acres get taken out of food use as it wont effect them

[gazza]

more food to fuel plant

 

when this plant is up and running in 2013 it with the other 3 plants it has running will remove all surplus wheat of the uk market plus imports from the EU.

so who ever said food will allways be about and its not there problem better wake up to the times we live in.