Bad Biofuels?

[Micah 16]

The UN says that the increase in ethanol use could potentially make situations worse. From increases in the price of food for the poor and a worsening condition of the rainforest (via biofuels) could spark a new debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18551000/

[coolotter88 2]

ethanol is dumb, it raises food prices, outputs more O3 into the atmosphere therefore creating smog and more cases of asthma, it reduces the amount of food the US can send out to poor countries for foreign aid, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my opinion.

[Barbarossa 51]

I think this just shows that devising alternate fuels is a tricky business. There are pluses and minuses to everything.

Fossil fuel = somewhat abundant (for now), but a heavy polluter

Bio-fuel = abundant and cleaner, but with economic impact

Solar = plenty of sun, but expensive to implement

Wind = plenty of wind, but more fiscal issues

Nuclear = a somewhat clean source, but catastrophic should anything go wrong

Hydrogen = promising, but a ways off

Gee, what else...? I am brain dead this week...

Anyway, I hope you all get where I am coming from. The path to energy-independence isn't as simple as we would like it to be.

Barbarossa

[hamsterTK 93]

Yeah, ethanol demand is what caused the great mexican tortilla crisis(which sounds a joke but in fact was a big mess)

Here's my idea:

Since it can be used as an additive to stretch fuel, I think the US(which uses roughly 25% of the worlds oil) oughta use it and then pass a embargo banning any foreign grown ethanol (or the  crops destined for production of it) from being imported from poor countries that can't handle producing it for the reasons outlined in the article

Just the US alone doing this would probably cause the world's supply of oil to last a lot longer and give more time to develop a good permanent alternative

[coolotter88 2]

ozone is poopy, more smog, more asthma, just reiterating it for emphasis.