Bio fuels and inefficiency [30 May 2008|01:37pm] This is what my organic chem professor told us today about the use of carbohydrates, food like corn for bio fuels, which I believe bears repeating.  Corn which is being used right now for the production of bio fuels (which has hiked up the price of bread and who knows, maybe gas too), has only 1/7 of the sugar/energy that is found in sugar cane/suger beets, corn is *not* ideal for creating bio fuels.  Corn is not genetically ideal for production of carbohydrates/sugar. The use of sugar beets and sugar cane is by far more efficient, and there have been successful production of fuels from sugar beets. He also said to us, quite honestly, the whole reason why they're even using corn for fuel is because lobbyists in the US have been pushing for it. And that any scientist can tell you that the use of corn to create fuel is crap, inefficient, basically corn (and probably grains) shouldn't have come into consideration at all, since it is too low in energy to use, when compared to other sources with higher sugar content.  ■ So is the production of bio fuels right now really as environmentally friendly as they say it is? And is it necessary to do it this way, with corn? Are food and gas prices being hiked up for a legitmate reason? Do not just believe what you hear from the media about things like this, especially if it is being promoted by the US. I'm not trying to be discriminating here, the facts are leading to this conclusion, if you live in the US, or whatever, it's about time to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't trust the media blindly, just because it seems like everyone is saying it. Especially when everyone is saying it, because it's probably been advertised by the US- ie. american companies.  American companies don't usually promote anything unless there is some kind of benefit to them (and screw the consequences for anyone else), even if it's only to a small group of people. They're only pushing environmentally friendly products right now because there is going to be huge profits. If something is *really* environmentally friendly it's likely that most people wouldn't even know about it, because its going to cost a lot just to implement and the profits are not going to be great, at least not in the beginning.  Ex. electically powered cars- there has been a lot of research done on them, but it's only recently that we've been hearing about producing anything like that, and we're still using mostly fuel. Why? Probably because american companies having been buying up these research projects and shutting them down, a lot more profit is made from fuel. I've been hearing a lot about clothing made from environmentally friendly materials like bamboo and such, but it's questionable as to just how eco-friendly it is. To make something like bamboo fibres into fabric probably takes a lot of processing, if it's going through so much processing in the first place, it's not likely to be as eco-friendly as its said to be.  People always love some kind of controversial issue to support, but make sure you're not being doped into thinking you're supporting the 'controversial' side. If mainstream (american) media is siding with it, it is definitely not an issue of minority vs. majourity. It's majourity trying to disguise itself as an issue that targets and focuses on minorities. post comment

navigation [ viewing | May 30th, 2008 ] [ go | previous day|next day ]