I found your 'evidence' and after I stopped laughing, I cut and paste it below
A little more info is available in this article from sciencemag.org which, although published in 2006 and a little early for algae data, it still shows the benefits of switchgrass which, as demonstrated in the quote is also carbon negative and does not compete for arable lands.
Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass
Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.
please note specifically where the spankees negative emision stuff comes from
LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1)
Yes they are carbon negative DURING the agricultural prioduction phase, a certain thicko has FORGOTTEN to add the BURNING FOR FUEL stage
so I will now answer the questions I asked you as you may be unable to for some reason
1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?
Spankees Scientist Answer) Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials
can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions,
and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels[u][b][color=#FF0000] can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction[/i]
Translation - Biofuels can provide energy and greater reductions than oil and less pollution per hectacre THAN CORN or SOYBEAN BIODEISEL -
They are negative emission during the growing phase, HOWEVER when you burn them as fuel - YOU ARE EMITTING ONLY 60% less than oil.
If we switch to them TODAY, we would have NO space for growing crops AT ALL BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT TODAYS BIOFUELS produce energy for 2,000 miles in one car per hectacre (10,000 square meters) compared to 2.6 MILLION miles in one car per hectacre of land for FREE solar charging
So TODAY we cannot even think about replacing oil with biofuels EVEN if they are theoretically zero emission WHICH THEY ARE NOT
Big Fail SPANKEE
2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?
Spankees Scientist Answer) Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials
can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions,
and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade.
Translation - To replace oil with bio fuels today would deliver only a small reduction advantage over oil because of the vast amounts of farmland needed and the energy needed plus they would still emit. Food prices would go up and we would have many many more problems - we cannot turn over all farmland to growing crops
Big Fail Spankee
3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission
Answer - Because the biggest dumbarses on the planet today say so