"sno" wrote in message ...


kryppy wrote:

On 25 Sep 2005 12:26:02 -0700, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article aahZe.249043$9A2.73762@edtnps89, "JoeSixPack"
wrote:

Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil
fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for
biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down

Nonsense -- of course it will. The carbon which those plants
incorporate as
they grow comes from atmospheric CO2.

But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the
air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same
level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then
take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.

How many blocks of dry ice do we need to eject into space to fix all
this?

More practical...grow bamboo...turn into charcoal....bury in mine
shafts...

thank you for listening to my thoughts....sno


Do a little mental math. How any tons of carbon would you need to handle to
make a significant difference to the atmosphere?

We are putting 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually, so
to just to hold the levels static, you would have to handle about 2500 lbs
of bamboo for every man, woman and child on earth. How practical is that
scheme?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?

Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make
more sense.

You sound like someone who finds the hardest possible way to do a task.