mark99 writes: We all know that Biofuels have lots of problems, yet they seem to be the best bet for converting our economy to renewable enery without massive technical changes to our infrastructure. This article
seems to disaggree, but it also seems full of logical fallicies, like implying that if there is no "net new crops", then there will be no carbon gain.
However conversion of biomass that would not have been eaten, but will be disposed of and turned into CO2 anyway reducing the amount of oil we dig out of the ground and vaporize would surely be a huge gain would it not? Or does this senario rely on tech that we do not have?
And it seems to imply that you have to put non-renewable energy in to get biomass generated energy out, that can't be right, since then it would never be profitable, but we know that it is once oil hits a certin cost.
Is this worth discussing again, or have we beat this horse to death already?