On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur wrote:

[...]

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

Cheers,
James Arthur

What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap real
estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just transport
problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and turn it into
methane gas.

-Bill

Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.

Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive them
*less!* That works with zero technical risk, current technology,
saves money and saves the planet. ;-)

Cheers,
James