FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Have you seen the irreparable damage done to Indonesia because of Palm oil production for biofuels? Endangered species of animals under threat, people driven from their homes, rare plants lost and worst of all MASSIVE RELEASE OF CO2. How does that help with lowering emissions?? This is our world damaged beyond repair and in the process Indonesia is third highest producer of greenhouse gasses behind China and the USA.

[darwin dali]

Have you seen the irreparable damage done to Indonesia because of Palm oil production for biofuels? Endangered species of animals under threat, people driven from their homes, rare plants lost and worst of all MASSIVE RELEASE OF CO2. How does that help with lowering emissions?? This is our world damaged beyond repair and in the process Indonesia is third highest producer of greenhouse gasses behind China and the USA.

BOOOOM!!

Yes, the palm oil production is a disgrace. One reason why Orang-utans won't survive in the wild much longer

[CookinFlat6]

:rofl:
1) Biofuel removes 1 unit of GHG in creation. Biofuel takes 0.575 units of GHG to create and use. 0.85 units of GHG have been removed from the atmosphere. GHG in the atmosphere are now LESS than they were before the biofuel was used. God help the people you advise based on any number system
2) Biofuels are created today. They conform to the above equation - yes, I know you can't do the math, but others can Compare to the electricity used "today" in an electric car recharged in the UK. Today, about 80% of that electricity is generated by fossil fuels, meaning you are "adding" to GHG in the atmosphere. SO, today, your electricity "adds" to GHG while today a litre of biofuel used "subtracts" from GHG in the atmosphere.
3) See question 1) ... and please keep asking me to explain simple math, I love how you don't get it

Biofuel removes 1 unit of GHG in creation

ok so far so good

Biofuel takes 0.575 units of GHG to create and use

0.575 units to create NOT TO USE AS FUEL BURNT IN THE CAR

0.85 units of GHG have been removed from the atmosphere.

Good maths, bad brain

GHG in the atmosphere are now LESS than they were before the biofuel was used

No they are not, WHEN BURNT AS FUEL YOU NEED TO ADD THE EMISSIONS

READ CAREFULLY SPANKEE

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)

you really are the biggest ever!!

[CookinFlat6]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???

He really thinks that it is even remotely possible that a plant can do its natural function of removing carbon AND produce vast energy for transport when burnt BUT emmitting less carbon than it consumed

is it possible to have people like this after being educated?

If Spankee eats something that is neither created nor destroyed he has removed it from the atmosphear - If I then burn Spankee - Spankee thinks the Carbon has magically vanished!!

Wow, wow, wow, wow - I thought every school pupil knew this

Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged among the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface as it is both produced and absorbed by many microorganisms, plants, and animals. However, emissions and removal of CO2 by these natural processes tend to balance. Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.

[darwin dali]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???

He really thinks that it is even remotely possible that a plant can do its natural function of removing carbon AND produce vast energy for transport when burnt BUT emmitting less carbon than it consumed

is it possible to have people like this after being educated?

If Spankee eats something that is neither created nor destroyed he has removed it from the atmosphear - If I then burn Spankee - Spankee thinks the Carbon has magically vanished!!

Wow, wow, wow, wow - I thought every school pupil knew this

Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged among the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface as it is both produced and absorbed by many microorganisms, plants, and animals. However, emissions and removal of CO2 by these natural processes tend to balance. Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.

Anything happening on land is mostly a zero-sum game (unless we take fossil fuel and add them to the equation by burning them as we've been doing for too long already). Where most of the CO2 sequestration happens is in the oceans. Algae trap CO2 and then get incorporated into the ocean floor sediments, effectively sequestering the CO2.

[CookinFlat6]

I am truly shocked

Plants absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, humans absorb oxygen and produce carbon dioxide

Human transportation produces Carbon MONOXIDE so the balance of carbon is building up - anyone knows this shirley?

Oil production causes carbon, oil burning produces carbon

Biofuels produce less carbon than oil during production, done properly they could even be carbon negative DURING PRODUCTION - so better than oil for net carbon emission, if we are clever with biofuels they emit less carbon than oil when burnt

but they use up vast swathes of farm land - if we are clever we can grow them on waste land

The overall net saving of carbon of switching partially to biofuel/oil mixes is a bit better and a token towards saving the planet but keeps the oil companies around and useless idiots with something to try sound clever about

For mass transportation the mass transportation providers are unanimously throwing the kitchen sink at electric

yet price have the nerve to tell us electric is no good because it has to be charged from coal stations and is therefore still adding carbon when the latest research from the oil companies suggest that biofuels are negative emission TO PRODUCE and 60% emissions to burn. And that in the future they will produce algae that can actually be negative carbon in production as well as AVAILABLE on the huge scale required without impacting farmland but they will still emit carbon and other harmful stuff we will deal with in the future
And they sometimes make simple math errors

And we allow these people to censure posts on a forum?

[sagi58]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???...

...is it possible to have people like this after being educated?...

Personally, I can't help but feel pity for you.

[Hammer278]

I cant stop laughing

We have wasted all this time because the forum spankee really thought biofuels removed more carbon during their production than when they are burnt as fuel

OMG this is the level of intellect allowed to post on a pulblic forum???...

...is it possible to have people like this after being educated?...

Personally, I can't help but feel pity for you.

Another lame pot shot. Do you have anything worthwhile at all to contribute? For once spanked had grown some balls and taking a debate to Cookin which I was enjoying very much and just reading through....until your post. If you don't understand sh!t, just be silent and read the debate instead of taking potshots at one of the guys engaged in debate. I doubt you even know the chemical symbol for Carbon. (Yes, go google it)

[spankyham]

So in summary, cookin, you can't grasp simple math, no matter how many times it's spelled out for you.
Despite not being able to grasp the most fundamental part of what multiple Professors have written about - you still don't believe in the negative emissions formula, and possibly that the world really is round.

You just keep selling that charging toxic batteries with fossil fuel powered electricity is the solution. Don't believe what the IEA, Google and countless others have said is viable, practical and safe, I'm sure you know better. Perhaps biofuels will be dust in a few years along with F1

I wonder if we'll be treated to a few more epic posts of rage and frustration

[CookinFlat6]

I am glad you are showing your 'attributes' so clearly
when sagi and f2004 and 1heartkimi all showup to pledge support, thats the clearest indicator of which way its gone

you still don't believe in the negative emissions formula

Seeing as I have shredded your credibility with your maths mistake, why dont you post a different formula on here, explaining how it works, oh, I bet you CANT (you will pretend you WONT)
We are waiting

ok so we need 2 versions, ! for the grade A and another for other members

So lets start by learning about the basics

http://www.uptownoil.co.uk/co2_biodiesel.html



For members of normal intelligence lets start with wiki, please note that it is easy for to CONFUSE biofuels with theses methods that involve production AND CARBON CAPTURE - the carbon must be removed for neutrality or negativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel

Carbon-neutral fuels can refer to a variety of energy fuels or energy systems which have no net greenhouse gas emissions or carbon footprint. One class are synthetic fuel (including methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel or ammonia[1]) produced from sustainable or nuclear energy used to hydrogenate waste carbon dioxide recycled from power plant flue exhaust gas or derived from carbonic acid in seawater. Other types can be produced from renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric power plants.[2][3][4][5] Such fuels are potentially carbon-neutral because they do not result in a net increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.[6][7] Until captured carbon is used for plastics feedstock, carbon neutral fuel synthesis is the primary means of carbon capture and utilization or recycling.[8]

To the extent that carbon-neutral fuels displace fossil fuels, or if they are produced from waste carbon or seawater carbonic acid, and their combustion is subject to carbon capture at the flue or exhaust pipe, they result in negative carbon dioxide emission and net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, and thus constitute a form of greenhouse gas remediation. Such power to gas carbon-neutral and carbon-negative fuels can be produced by the electrolysis of water to make hydrogen used in the Sabatier reaction to produce methane which may then be stored to be burned later in power plants as synthetic natural gas, transported by pipeline, truck, or tanker ship, or be used in gas to liquids processes such as the Fischer–Tropsch process to make traditional fuels for transportation or heating.[12][13][14]

Carbon-neutral fuels are used in Germany and Iceland for distributed storage of renewable energy, minimizing problems of wind and solar intermittency, and enabling transmission of wind, water, and solar power through existing natural gas pipelines. Such renewable fuels could alleviate the costs and dependency issues of imported fossil fuels without requiring either electrification of the vehicle fleet or conversion to hydrogen or other fuels, enabling continued compatible and affordable vehicles.[12] A 250 kilowatt synthetic methane plant has been built in Germany and it is being scaled up to 10 megawatts.[15]

Simply put a biofuel plant stores carbon which is released back in the atmosphere when burnt so its impossible to have carbon removal, IT will always add carbon because carbon is produced in the manufacturing process. get the maths wrong by thinking the plant removing and storing Carbon is negative (which it is) but the carbon is released when burnt, when added to the production is POSITIVE carbon

[CookinFlat6]

Because I'm such a nice guy, I have searched hard to make this easiest to understand for grade A

Simply put claims from 8 - 10 years ago are all discredited, so if you are enough to get excited by old links without wondering why there is nothing newer or you rely on the oil companies then you are really a part of the problem by using up our oxygen and giving back co2

The carbon negative stuff was the last stand for the after getting a spanking on the vast amount of land needed, then the fact they still emit, then the fact the world has problems enough - Here is the conclusion of this friendly debate

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/biochar-the-key-to-carbon-negative-biofuels

The world is losing its battle against global warming. Even in Europe, where they have valiantly fought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the imbalance gets worse every day. Biofuels are the biggest disappointment. They still emit CO2 when burned and require fertilizer, processing and transportation which all emit even more CO2. The justification for biofuels is that the growing plants take CO2 out of the air. However, plants growing on the land before planting were already capturing CO2, so only the increase in CO2 capture (if any) should be counted.


The natural balance of the earth has always included carbon storage in the plants and soil. The problem is that we have disrupted that balance. We have burned in one century much of the carbon that nature sequestered over millions of years. Coal is almost pure carbon, gathered by plants and sequestered by natural processes. We need to stop burning it!

There is nothing more to say after this. Now would be the time for any onlookers to make a recommendation or statement so we can put this to bed and get some help for those that need it

Apart from the usual moaning because they can't follow.

[spankyham]

the carbon must be removed for neutrality or negativity

I'm keeping that one along with F1 being dust and F1 being replaced by Forumla E in a few years. So now your idea is we remove carbon from our planet. Does this somehow involve David Copperfield and a giant sheet?

You've just added neon signs to your sandwich-board

Seeming as you like demanding yes/no answers, here's one for you, please confirm that you are right and Professors Holmes, Hill, Lehman and Tilman (to name a few) are all wrong about biofuels. Please, just a yes/no answer is all I need for yet another good laugh.

[CookinFlat6]

the carbon must be removed for neutrality or negativity

I'm keeping that one along with F1 being dust and F1 being replaced by Forumla E in a few years. So now your idea is we remove carbon from our planet. Does this somehow involve David Copperfield and a giant sheet?

Yes is the answer, you oxygen consuming person
It's called sequestration you human person, it was removed from the atmosphere and stored in the fossil fuels and algae and plants

We don't want it back in the atmosphere by burning it to release it you human person, that's the job plants and fossil fuels have done for ever till got the maths wrong

sagi agrees with you

[CookinFlat6]

Seeming as you like demanding yes/no answers, here's one for you, please confirm that you are right and Professors Holmes, Hill, Lehman and Tilman (to name a few) are all wrong about biofuels. Please, just a yes/no answer is all I need for yet another good laugh.

They are right that plants remove carbon
They are right that growing and fertilising a plant can produce less carbon emission than the plant absorbs

But Darwin Award winning, oxygen wasters like Dr get it wrong by not realising that the stored carbon is released when the plant is burnt for fuel

[spankyham]

The carbon negative stuff was the last stand for the thickos .......
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/biochar-the-key-to-carbon-negative-biofuels

Do you even read what you quote I'm in stitches. You've added neon and now a second floor to your sandwich-board. From title of the article you quoted is "Biochar: The Key to Carbon-Negative Biofuels" Just let me highlight that for you mate "The Key to Carbon-Negative Biofuels"

Excellent article, clearly laying out how biofuels can be carbon negative - thanks for going to the trouble of proving yourself wrong. Here's a hint, try reading something first

Here's another quote from your link "Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has studied with Glaser and worked with Sombroek. He estimates that by the end of this century terra preta schemes, in combination with biofuel programmes, could store up to 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon a year — more than is emitted by all today’s fossil-fuel use

Yes is the answer, you pathetic specimen of an oxygen consuming organism

But Darwin Award winning, oxygen wasters like dr thicko of imbecile farm

Poor boy, starting to crack under pressure yet again. Never mind, we're used to it from you. F1 being dust in 3 years, Formula E taking over. And now your master plan to "remove" (yes you used the word "remove" not sequester) Nice attempt at backpedaling, but you do get a lot of practice there.

Only sagi agrees with you

Sagi, the IEA, all the professors and scientist you have claimed are wrong, plus the new ones you found all have something in common - we all agree that the right biofuels are part of the solution and can be carbon negative. Of course, as you've just claimed, they are all wrong and you are right