Thursday, October 4, 2007

Clark's biofuel blunder worsens - "eco-friendly" fuels pump up "global warming'

It cannot get any worse for Dearer Leader and woolly-minded environmentalism, can it?

First, when Helen Clark lent her personal support to Gull's launch of biofuels came an amazing revelation:

The new fuel was unsuited to most New Zealand cars and may make them catch fire or at least invalidate their warranties!

Then, biofuels were identified as causing rising food prices, such as eggs and pork, as the NZ Herald noted today.

Even Helengrad's house journal, the Sunday Star-Times recently noted the problem- biofuels means dearer food..

But if it all helps the Great God Gaia, it's all in a good cause , eh?

Yet, the production of biofuels actually worsens 'global warming' because such producing 'green' fuels releases more damaging greenhouse gases than conventional diesel.

Stuff today noted this Reuters report from a Nobel prize-winning scientist which must put yet another nail into the coffin of mainstream 'greenery.'

Using biodiesel derived from rapeseed would produce between 1 and 1.7 times more greenhouse gas than using conventional diesel, the study estimated. Biofuels derived from sugar cane, as in Brazil, fared better, producing between 0.5 and 0.9 times as much greenhouse gases as petrol, it found.
Maize is the main biofuels feedstock used in the US, and produced between 0.9 and 1.5 times the global warming effect of conventional petrol, it said.
"As it's used at the moment, bioethanol from maize seems to be a pretty futile exercise," Smith said.

It all makes me wonder of the hot air over global warmning really is a con dreamt up by Enron accountants, devised to bring us all under socialist slavery as Not PC's Peter Cresswell often claims.


Barnsley Bill said...

They originally looked at fuel from rape seed oil as a way of reducing their dependency on the oil that they are forced to buy from the seventh century death cult adherents.
This is in my opinion a good thing, how the fucktard end of the worlders decided it would be less damaging for the environment is a mystery.
If you burn something it will release carbon.


Exactly. If you burn carbon then you will produce carbon dioxide.
What about clean green nuclear power as an alternative to funding the muzzies.

scrubone said...

You might be interested in this link.

BB: Yes, but burning plants only releases back carbon that was in the air recently. That, in theory "doesn't change the climate".

Coal contains carbon that was in the atmosphere quite some time ago, so burning it means the total amount in the air goes up.

Not that I care how much CO2 gets released.

ZenTiger said...

Exactly BB. Biofuels was proposed by the doom sayers as a solution to peak oil supply. Somehow, the Greens have got the idea that because it has the word 'bio' in it, it is better.

JC said...

Ethanol from cellulose is 80 "cleaner" than petrol, so that's fair enough.

It's also a feedstock that we have in screaming abundance (wood) and at around $36/tonne delivered is cheap enough. We've had the technology for decades and it makes sense to build a few pilot plants and produce ethanol for blending against the day we want to give the fingers to Araby.