Are biofuels a better alternative to fossil fuels?
Biofuels are sources of energy which come from living, renewable sources, such as crops, trees and even animal manure. Fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, on the other hand, come from the earth from decaying vegetation many millions of years ago, and cannot be renewed. In recent years biofuels have come to mean fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel which can be burned in engines to drive vehicles in place of fossil fuels like petroleum and diesel. Ethanol can be made from a variety of crops, such as maize or sugarcane, while biodiesel is often made from palm oil, soya or rapeseed (canola).
As the price of oil has soared in the past few years and biofuel production methods have improved, the price gap has narrowed considerably although levels of subsidy are an important part of the economic equation. Biofuels have also been promoted as a way of reducing carbon emissions and so of tackling global climate change. Over forty countries now offer some sort of subsidy to encourage the production and use of biofuels instead of fossil fuels.
Yes
Side Score: 13
|
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
I think biofuels are a better alternative in general to fossil fuels, but we have to be careful on the type of biofuels that the US promotes and subsidises. Different biofuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are, and some might be worse or the same as fossil fuels. Some studies found that the best biofuel alternatives are biofuels from residual products, such as recycled cooking oil and ethanol from grass or wood. Side: yes
absolutely. For instance, ethanol has been proven a complete scam. It technically uses more energy than it produces (the same will be said for petroleum someday), and is more polluting than petrol. The only reason it was considered viable in our public sphere is that the Corn Refiners of America is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Yep, you have them to thank for our obesity. Corn is our largest crop = powerful corn lobby = subsidized corn + tariffs on competitors = High Fructose Corn Syrup is cheaper than sugar. HFCS causes some obesity. Great Job, America :] Side: yes
Well, in your statement, I'll say biofuels are better than fossil fuels only because they're renewable. Most of things in life are about being recycled, so why would we want to use something up until it was completely gone? That's the same thing as killing every tiger in order to produce as much fur coats as possible. Those coats may benefit the people who buy them, just like gas will benefit those that buy it right now, but it doesn't do anything great about extincting the tigers and using all the oil til the last drop. Ultimately, I do think we should take advantage of the alternatives and leave the fossil fuels alone... better sooner than later. Cars are man-made, so perhaps the oil to make the cars run should be man-made too. The fossil fuels probably exist for something else, but I'm not entirely sure of their natural purpose on Earth. Side: yes
I do believe that bio fuels are a better alternative. We can't keep on depending on fossil fuels as our main source of energy forever. As scientists (and my science teacher) would say, fossil fuels can be exhausted and sooner or later, gone...until a few thousand years or so. Our population increases as minutes pass by, and that means more demands for electricity. With bio fuels like using water, geothermal, wind and others, we'll probably be able to last longer without the use of fossil fuels. At least we can have more reserves for the future right? If energy were to stop all of a sudden, can we really survive or adapt that quickly? For the ones who never lived with it in the first place yes, but admit it: If we're in this site right now, that means we tend to use the internet (computer) quite often...which equates to the use of energy. Our only problem would be for the poorer countries to afford such machinery to build the necessary equipment to gain access to these bio fuels. Side: yes
1
point
|
1
point
I believe that bio-fuel could be the fuel of the future but there is another way out of it. Hydrogen and other elements are the same they could take the place of bio-fuels, and fossil fuels. Their are many agrument even if I know bio-fuel is better than fossil fuel I thinkt that h2o and hydrogen would be a better supstitue. Side: No
1
point
well yea bio fuels are better and we have lots of corn but at the same time you must think of other problems like the growing factore of starvashion in third rate countries. So we should maybe use some corn to help because there is England that is growing tons of corn for the bio fuels and they might be makeing to much but at the same time they could give some of what they are growing to third rate countries Side: No
That's kind of ironic, because the origin of the term "third rate" came from a class of British ship-of-the-line that embodied the optimal combination of speed, fire power, and cost. So you see, it's actually a compliment to tell them to go back to their country ;) Side: No
They are better for businesses only. If they perfect the process they wouldn't have to drill anymore (or as much), which is good all around, but mainly for business. I'm pretty sure though, that having a steady supply of fuel that doesn't have to be found and drilled would keep the habit around longer. Solar energy would be best in my opinion. Wind power, sure, but even that causes a lot of problems (health issues caused by subsonic vibration, dead birds, the transfer of flowing air to mechanical parts is inefficient, etc). If only solar panels were required by state and socialized. A lot of homes that use solar panels produce more electricity than they use, so they sell it, and they're low maintenance (no moving parts). People often forget that power plants produce a lot of the carbon emissions that we curse the car for producing, so having every rooftop act as a node to a socially owned power plant... would save us even more. Electric can't do everything though, some applications require combustion engines, so we wouldn't be completely rid of fuels... but it would be a HUGE step forward. Especially if it was a requirement. People are already sorting out the electric car infrastructure too (which will be socialized or subsidized), so if we pair up both systems... eh, I don't know, I often think that whoever has their hands in the matter (GE, PG&E;, Shell, Mobile, etc.) they'll find some way to rip us off. Nothing can ever be good. :( Side: No
As a response to the debate description: "In recent years biofuels have come to mean fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel which can be burned in engines to drive vehicles in place of fossil fuels like petroleum and diesel." Yes, but they are the same if not worse for the environment as petroleum based combustibles. "Ethanol can be made from a variety of crops, such as maize or sugarcane, while biodiesel is often made from palm oil, soya or rapeseed (canola)." You forgot corn. Take all of these crops and make fuel and the price of food goes up. More people need more food than they do fuel... I don't even have a car, but I still pay (in my taxes) for corn crops. They are subsidized because it's mixed in fuel. It lowers the price at the pump, but costs the people without cars more... which means, when I'm riding my bike to work I'm partly paying for the assholes in the cars that don't care to watch out for me. Good to know... "As the price of oil has soared in the past few years and biofuel production methods have improved, the price gap has narrowed considerably although levels of subsidy are an important part of the economic equation. Biofuels have also been promoted as a way of reducing carbon emissions and so of tackling global climate change. Over forty countries now offer some sort of subsidy to encourage the production and use of biofuels instead of fossil fuels." And still we are promoting these crops for... fuel. They should be used as food, not fuels. We cannot eat electricity, but we can eat these crops. Why can't we ever just do what is least complicated and most reasonable!? Also, the idea that biofuels will be "healthier" is wrong, as I've said before. I've heard the argument both ways a million times but people aren't paying attention to the institutes saying that it might actually be a bad idea. We all want a good fuel, and we keep jumping on things that are only slightly better in some respects and claiming they are GREAT! A quick google: Here's a graph showing the carbon emissions produced per megajoule of energy. Look at Corn (USA)... It's higher than diesel and gasoline! This means for how much power you get from burning corn (ethanol), you make more emissions than if you were getting the same power out of petroleum based fuels! Also look at sugar cane. One reason the United States has so much High Fructose Corn Syrup is because we have to import most of our sugar... we don't grow much sugar cane in the United States... HFCS is a cheap sweetener made from corn, so there's nothing to import... My point is that we'd still be using fuel to transport fuel... raising the cost both in dollars spent and emissions created to get your biofuels to you. Side: No
1
point
Hey, I'm in favor of alternative fuels. Creative is good. But, the time, resources, expense, and environmental impact of both creating them and cleaning up after all factor in. I don't understand why we spray oil byproduct fertilizer so we can grow plants to turn into fuel which we then mix as a small percentage into fossil fuels. I don't understand why we automatically assume batteries are good but we already don't properly dispose the right way of even the basic household batteries we have now. Yes these things CAN be better. And someday they WILL be better. They aren't necessarily there yet. And our choices right now, particularly with the ubiquitous spread of massive battery banks for cars and such, may end up in future Superfund sites instead of a nice green planet. Side: No
|