I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.

Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use biofuels, lessening emissions.

How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.

Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.

No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines?

I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.

Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use biofuels, lessening emissions.

How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.

Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.

No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines.

I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.

Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use them, lessening emissions.

How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.

Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.

No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines.