Comments for "Biofuel From Trees. A better alternative than using our food" Video at VideoSift.com

By srd

srd (http://videogames.videosift.com/member/srd) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:50:54 -0700

"A sustainable use of trees and other non-edible plant material could supply 60% of the nations gasoline."

That's rather vague, isn't it? How many kilograms of cellulose does he need to create one liter of gasoline? How does he define sustainable? How much more additional logging will be needed? (Not to mention that this doesn't do anything to cut the CO2 footprint). I'm dubious.

By radioRaheem

radioRaheem (http://videogames.videosift.com/member/radioRaheem) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:17:37 -0700

I agree. Let's not lose our focus on green alternatives. Nevertheless, I'm sure this guy's team isn't going to find it hard getting piles of NSF funding.

By syncron

syncron (http://videogames.videosift.com/member/syncron) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:45:54 -0700

Oh thanks guys! We can save the world for sure now by turning our trees into gasoline -.-

By Crosswords

Crosswords (http://videogames.videosift.com/member/Crosswords) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:14:04 -0700

I remember seeing an article awhile ago about turning orange peels and other waste products from foods into biofuels. Sounds like a much better dealing than using not so quickly renewable resources like trees.

By rottenseed

rottenseed (http://rottenseed.videosift.com) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:30:08 -0700

so we're going to continue to increase our CO2 emissions while lowering the one way the earth converts CO2 back to oxygen? Wise move.

By Nerune

Nerune (http://videogames.videosift.com/member/Nerune) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:11:44 -0700

Wood, the fuel of the ~~past~~ future!

If using the entire empty land mass of the US to grow the trees & brush needed only produces 60% of the gasoline requirements, one wonders where the other 40% comes from. Better than corn-ethanol, but not even close to a solution.