You stop growing the plants, you stop producing the fuel.

To cause net emmission, you'd have to stop growing and burn what you had left as fuel.

As plant ethanol takes off however, there should be more total crop, and therefore more CO2 held in them rather than the atmosphere.

-deus-

Yeah, that is the other side.

As I said in another thread, the ultimate method would be artificially photosynthesising without plants.

-deus-

The advantage of using biology is that it's fast to set up, cheap, self repairing, and flexible. Done right, it requires human intervention very rarely.

Farming is still quite wasteful and bad for the environment.

Then again, there's no current better way to absorb solar energy over a large area.

Well idealy we'll be able to switch over to switchgrass as a feedstock for ethanol. It has minimal environmental impact, requires no pesticides or fertilizers, and grows about anywhere.

One of the great ironys of farming is that the prairies were bulldozed to grow grains, which depleted the soil and were used to feed cattle. The natural grasses and stuff were plenty nutritional, and could grow more consumable matter per acre than any grain. Leaving the cattle to graze on the original plant life would have been easier, cheaper, and more efficient. Too late now.

The amount of co2 that every single yeast .. cell or whatever in the world would only amount to like 1/3 of the amount caused by humans, which is like 1% of the total, so the number is so insignificant it dosent matter. c02 is bs anyways

A. It would seem that half the words are missing out of that sentence.
B. We've already established net 0 CO2 released into the atmosphere.
C. I can not stress this strongly enough. If you are going to use chemical formulas, for the love of pete, use proper nomenclature. It's CO2. Not cO2, nor Co2, neither co2, and not even c02.

proper nomenclature.

The majority of people don't even know what nomenclature is.

-deus-

think about the vineyards and the hops that start the whole process off. you're CERTAINLY not tearing into their uhh... 'oxygen profit' if you wanna view it in such a manner...

Conservatives just can't stand the fact that the business environment WILL change over time, and the companies daddy bought shares in won't always be the most successful.

On a side note: OLD SMILEYS ARE BACK! WooT! :o :p :D

-deus-

your going to be putting hundreds of people out of work!

So it's better to continue as we are until fossil fuels run out and then watch about 75% of the population go out of work all at once?

-deus-

The majority of people don't even know what nomenclature is.

-deus-

For a moment I forgot that we've got a lot of people who haven't been forced into high school biology or chemistry.

To make it simple, you always capitalize an element in a chemical formula. If the element has two letters, like copper (Cu) or lead (Pb) the second is always lowercase.

I rant specifically because of the use of Co, which is cobalt.

althouigh this probably doesnt belong here, but does it prove, that illegal drugs should be legalized? considering coke, meth, dont have negative effects on the environment compared to alcy?

I'm still new to chemistry but what if ethanol is incompletely combusted? Meaning that it produces carbon monoxide, CO, along with CO2. Would this have a significant effect on the atmosphere?

From Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, sue me):
Incomplete combustion occurs when there isn't enough oxygen to allow the fuel (usually a hydrocarbon) to react completely with the oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. The reactant will burn in oxygen, but will produce numerous products. When a hydrocarbon burns in air, the reaction will yield carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, pure carbon (soot or ash) and various other compounds such as nitrogen oxides. Incomplete combustion is much more common and will produce large amounts of byproducts, and in the case of burning fuel in automobiles, these byproducts can be quite unhealthy and damaging to the environment.

I'm still new to chemistry but what if ethanol is incompletely combusted? Meaning that it produces carbon monoxide, CO, along with CO2. Would this have a significant effect on the atmosphere?

THe atmoshpere of the planet on the whole, not really. The atmoshpere around a city yes. CO2 is non toxic but the products of incomlete combustion contribute to smog and reduce air quality. I think it is more what is burning the fuel? than what fuel? that determines how cleanly it burns.

err... i don't think those drugs are illegal because of their negative effects on the environment.

Antidepressants can be found in fish!

i learned in integrated math 1 that 'nomenclature' was a unit of measurement... so in his definition, newtons, moles, and MW you would be nomenclature... someone define it for me, preferably prometheus? <3 and yeah i'm too lazy to look it upo.