BIODIESEL, OTHER BIOFUELS WILL SOLVE ENERGY PROBLEMS
Readers shouldn't be fooled by the Aug. 18 Tyler Paper editorial, "The disappointing reality of biofuels."
For starters, as America's only fully commercialized and readily available advanced biofuel, biodiesel does not have the same challenges as conventional biofuel. The EPA found that biodiesel cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 86 percent when taking into account all lifecycle emissions, "field to wheels," of the production process.
"The Diesel Driver" claims that most modern U.S. diesel vehicles could face problems when using biodiesel blends higher than B5. In reality, over 78 percent of manufacturers selling vehicles in the U.S. market support biodiesel blends up to B20 or higher in some or all of their equipment, including Caterpillar, Cummins, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.
But a few manufacturers, Mercedes included, chose not to embrace anything higher than B5 despite initiatives advancing the automobile and fuel industries in states like Illinois dating back to 2003.
According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, B11 biodiesel blends now comprise more than half of the state's diesel market, and yet dealers show no impact on service claims.
And biodiesel certainly isn't contributing to a food crisis. Biodiesel produced from soybean crops only uses the excess oil and none of the protein rich meal that is used in livestock feed — producing two goods from the same crop.
This topic is getting so much attention in the media because biodiesel is creating competition for petroleum by providing diversity in the transportation fuels sector. You see, domestic drilling won't solve our energy problems, improve the air we breathe nor make us independent of the global events that ultimately determine the cost of a barrel of oil.
National Biodiesel Board
It has been several years since I have responded to an editorial, but I was pleased with your Aug. 17 editorial, "Governor shouldn't hide travel receipts" that I wanted to do so. Thanks for this editorial.
This was long overdue. I have wondered why there was not an outcry from Texans when he got a law passed to prevent the public from having access to what he was doing with our tax dollars.
I appreciated your recent editorial arguing that to advance science there must not be any attempts by government, the courts, or the scientific community at-large to preclude differing points-of-view from being aired ("Scientists shouldn't silence the skeptics," Aug. 16). My purpose in writing is to note that global warming isn't the first area of scientific inquiry where this problem has arisen.
A disagreement of much longer standing concerns the issue of how the heavens, earth and different forms of life, including humans, came into existence.
In the Western World there was a time when the dominant view was that Genesis 1 and 2 answered these questions. Today, however, things are very different. In most public schools, science teachers are either prevented or discouraged from presenting Creation as an alternative to the two scientific theories now generally accepted, the big bang and evolution. Many will argue this has been a natural result of the progression of science, but this doesn't tell the whole story.
Activism by those who are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of a creator God has been very important in terms of bringing about the current state of affairs. Such anti-God activism has been exercised through legislative bodies, the courts, school boards and the media.
Today a growing number of scientists are working in the area of Creation science, but they struggle to get their research findings published in what the scientific community deems "credible" sources. Why should this be so?
Doesn't the search for truth require that all evidence be considered?