• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Biofuels Cause More Global Warming Than Fossil Fuels!

This is why I've consistently said that ethanol is a poor choice for biofuel until the cellulose feedstock problem can be solved. The best source is hemp-based biodiesel. It can be produced in commercially-viable quantities in marginal land unsuitable for growing most food crops; it does not deplete the soil like corn, so it's not dependent on petrol-based fertilizers; it has an energy profile similar to petrol diesel, much better than ethanol or methanol; and since the biodiesel produced can be used to fuel farm machinery directly, it can be completely fossil-fuel independent and still maintain a significantly positive cradle-to-grave energy economy once it's scaled up sufficiently.
 
Did you notice how they calculated the "global warming" factor? Based on that logic, all agriculture is increasing global warming!
 
Yep! I noticed that.

I think the point is that ADDING to the number of acres under cultivation necessitates taking the land from its natural state which is usually a carbon sink and putting it into a state where it actually loses carbon in the normal course of events. This is one of the reasons why arable land degrades with use.

And we cannot use a food crop, at least, to make fuel without also growing more food someplace (we are on the verge of a global famine, BTW) and so it is assumed that the fuel demand will indeed put more land into cultivation.

Which I've been saying for quite a while. It's not news. Corn especially is a stupid biofuel. Great fuel additive though for reducing emissions, but only 10% "gasohol."
 
genesplicer said:
I was of the opinion that if all we burned were biofuels, we would not change the greenhouse issue, but that we would be pulling out as much CO2 in the form of growing plants as we were burning. We would be tapping into the carbon cycle in a very real way. So, the level of CO2 remains static, and we would no longer add more CO2 to the atmosphere...

Where am I wrong?


Edited kuz I spel gud
Click to expand...

You're wrong it two places. First, the tractors that are plowing the land to make the crops aren't burning biofuels. Likewise, the trucks that carry the ethanol, and all the other energy required to produce the ethanol. At the moment, it takes more that a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol. That can probably be improved somewhat over time, but how much is arguable.

Second, if you chop down a forest in order to plant a cornfield, there's less carbon trapped in the form of plant life in the growing corn than there was in the original forest.

I'm not totally against biofuels, but the current round of ethanol subsidies is ridiculous. We have managed to make the energy situation worse, while making food more expensive. It's a lose - lose situation, unless you happen to be a corn farmer.
 
Meadmaker said:
You're wrong it two places. First, the tractors that are plowing the land to make the crops aren't burning biofuels. Likewise, the trucks that carry the ethanol, and all the other energy required to produce the ethanol. At the moment, it takes more that a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol.
Click to expand...

I see this stuff repeated all the time. Where does anybody get such bad information? And why would you believe anything so stupid?

Are you not even the least bit skeptical of such information?
 
robinson said:
I see this stuff repeated all the time. Where does anybody get such bad information? And why would you believe anything so stupid?

Are you not even the least bit skeptical of such information?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, studies show a considerable range between energy in and energy out - a middle of the road number was 80% of the output energy was used in the production processes and downstream impacts. So there was a small net gain. Well, of course depending on which articles you read and whether one believes the 80% number.

To put to bed the conspiracy theory that Big Oil and Big Corn together got this stupid bill passed, let's look at Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who represents many oil producers and who has an excellent, award winning web site critical of man made global warming.

[FONT=times new roman,times]Senator Inhofe’s concern over the rapid increase of the RFS was one of his primary reasons for voting against the energy bill that was passed by Congress last December. In a press release following the vote, he stated:

[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]“....this bill significantly increases the renewable fuels mandate in an irresponsible manner. Through my leadership position on the EPW Committee in 2005, I successfully worked with my colleagues to create a comprehensive program to increase the use of renewable fuels in a measured way that makes economic sense. This bill, however, contains a nearly five-fold expansion in the bio-fuels mandate. The fact is there are a growing number of questions surrounding ethanol’s effect on feed prices and our agricultural community, its economic sustainability, its transportation and infrastructure needs, and its water usage. As a result, I believe it’s just too early to significantly increase the mandate......”
[/FONT]​
[FONT=times new roman,times]What do you do now? Dim witted far left environmentalists in conjunction with Big Corn got this mess made into law. Biofuel subsidies for corn production are in effect and we pay for them. They got what they wanted, and within just a few months, they are widely recognized to be very very wrong. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]How exactly do you make the mess go away?[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
I checked, and according to old figures, both ethanol and biodiesel "cost" are an interesting subject. How can you trust the figures? If farmers in Brazil are using home grown fuels to make fuels, run the tractos and such. and cow dung as fertilizer, how does that use oil?
 
robinson said:
I checked, and according to old figures, both ethanol and biodiesel "cost" are an interesting subject. How can you trust the figures? If farmers in Brazil are using home grown fuels to make fuels, run the tractos and such. and cow dung as fertilizer, how does that use oil?
Click to expand...


They are using sugar cane, not corn.
 
Here is a good page that collect references to published work on ethanol.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

Ethanol does have a positive energy balance. It varies, depending on study from 20 to 85%. The point is that this may not be worthwhile. Consider what happens when you use ethanol in vehicles. Their mileage can be reduced by nearly percent on E85 (85% ethanol).

Add to this that they contribute to greenhouse gases and can increase the price of food in a world where hunger is too commonplace and it just doesn't add up. This quote cinched it for me:

"The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand."

It just does not make sense when compared to hybrids and full electric. Or when compared with ethanol from sugar cane.
 
"The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year"

That is an astounding claim. Do you think it is true?
 
BenBurch said:
CO2 impact tracks renewability closely. Any crop depleting the land of carbon is also not long-term renewable; It is just tapping a different stored carbon source.
Click to expand...

See that just shows how little I know. I always thought plants got their carbon from CO2 in the air, not from the soil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom