• 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!

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
34,075
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Click to expand...

:faint:
 
Old news. Farm machinery and fertilizer manufacturing consumes lots of oil. If the Biofuel is ethanol its much worse as ethanol has much LOWER mileage than gasoline. Its all money laundering from the government to oil companies.

Even hydrogen at this point does not make sense. Only hybrids, and even better full electrics would make a real difference.
 
Last edited:
Bio fuels are a non starter in my opinion. Not only does it not pencil out in the end when all things are considered, it squanders one of Earth's most precious resources: fertile land.
If I had my way, not only would we have Urban Growth boundaries, we would have "Food Security Boundaries" where prime agricultural land couldn't be used for residential or other purposes that would interfere with food production(present or future). Just as we have an oil reserve, countries should consider having an arable land reserve.
 
Alric said:
Old news. Farm machinery and fertilizer manufacturing consumes lots of oil. If the Biofuel is ethanol its much worse as ethanol has much LOWER mileage than gasoline. Its all money laundering from the government to oil companies.

Even hydrogen at this point does not make sense. Only hybrids, and even better full electrics would make a real difference.
Click to expand...

Old news? As in everybody already knew this? There had been some controversy with different people saying different things, but it's not been easy for laypeople like me to know who to believe. Now there is an authoritative study in the journal Science. It's going to be harder for the government to justify its policy of ethanol mandates now.

ETA: Here's another article on this from Scientific American
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to know my skepticism about biofuels being the answer has scientific backing as well as common sense.

I want my MTBE back (and the 3 mpg I've lost since we switched to ethanol additive in Texas) and I want wheat and corn prices (and beef, sweetened items, etc.) to return to more reasonable price levels.

The only answer is we develop true alternate energy sources, drive less or accept the fact that we're going to continue to pay higher prices for fossil fuels as the supply rapidly dwindles over the next century.
 
Hydrogen has to be produced before it can be cleanly burnt. How would you make it?

Re: Let me simplify the bio stuff-

If you run an x-horsepower engine in fossil fuels, you make the expected CO2.

If you run the x- horsepower engine on Bio-fuels, you make the same CO2, plus the CO2 involved in the bio-fuel production.


So the point of bio-fuels is not CO2, the point is to lessen dependence on imported oil. Wheter the trade off of more CO2 vs imports is valuable is a political choice.
 
Correct. Hydrogen could work if water is electrolysed from solar, wind or other fossil fuel-independent source. But at that point you might as well go for full electric.

The problem is that electricity you don't need to pump. Oil companies hate that.
 
Last edited:
"Some" biofuels. The ones now coming into production based on algae are not grown in soil and hence are not subject to this limitation. And this is something that will only improve as we bioengineer better algae. The process uses heat and enzymes and makes a light, sweet crude of extremely high quality, and can be done basically anywhere. It uses existing refineries and existing petroleum infrastructure.
 
I found this post I made in the Priuschat forums a while ago:

"E85 is just stupid.

Less mileage, similar C02 output. Its just another way for the industrial corn monoculture to get rid of the corn surplus. Guess who benefits from the industrial corn monoculture? Oil companies. The amounts of corn we produce are possible because of fertilizer manufacturing from natural gas and oil.

The oil companies love this because grwing corn is subsidized by the government. Yet another way for the government to legally give away money to oil companies. The only problem is that they affect our health both by creating a corn syrup surplus and by spewing even more C02 to the atmosphere.

Don't fall for it. There is nothing green about E85."

The continuing discussion might be interesting to this group:

http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/25453-e85-efficiency.html#post330040
 
Puppycow said:
Old news? As in everybody already knew this? There had been some controversy with different people saying different things, but it's not been easy for laypeople like me to know who to believe. Now there is an authoritative study in the journal Science. It's going to be harder for the government to justify its policy of ethanol mandates now.

ETA: Here's another article on this from Scientific American
Click to expand...

It is pretty old news. Ethanol from corn in particular. Problem with biofuels is really that depending on what specific method of manufacture, or location of planting, or type of feedstock you get different figures when you work out the LCA.
 
Bio-fuels aren't inherently more damaging, as per CO2 released into the atmosphere.
Its the system of agriculture, and the type of engine wherein the problem lies.

Growing corn, for instance, for ethanol to be used in internal combustion engines, is a loser.
Using legumes or algae for biomass; using the fuel in fuel cells or other efficient electrical generating schemes, in light weight rail vehicles would be a different scenario completely.
 
So like, where does all that electricity used to power up an electric car come from, straight out of the ground for free?
Unless your power is provided by a nuclear power plant or a wind turbine, you are still burning coal or oil to get it
It might be a tad more efficient, but basically you are just shuffling things around
I just love the idea of home hydrogen production, first from natural gas or propane, ( no net gain /loss of carbon emissions there either), and eventually from plain old sea water, to power both our cars and homes - no distribution network needed!
And to those that scoff about making hydrogen from water, HA!, wait and see. Technology is proceeding at warp speed around the globe, from gleaning hydrogen from photosynthesis, to oxidizing metals, to breaking down compounds like hydrogen peroxide.
 
If its from wind, hydroelectric, geothermal or solar there is no greenhouse gas production. If its from oil or coal at least the efficiency of electric engines is much higher than internal combustion ones. The Tesla will only cost about 3 cents per mile to operate. My prius costs about 15 cents per mile. Most cars are probably 35 cents per mile.
 
Did anybody look at the study mentioned? The glaring problem with the logic is obvious.
 
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