Biofuels Cause More Global Warming Than Fossil Fuels!

[BenBurch]

See that just shows how little I know. I always thought plants got their carbon from CO2 in the air, not from the soil.

Most of it, yes. But there is a balance they strike; Plants put carbon into the soil in the form of roots and dead leaves and etc. And they DO get almost all of their carbon from the air, but there is a component below ground that takes its carbon from the ground and without which plants don't do well; fungi. And in a cultivated field these use more of the carbon than is returned, and they exhale CO2. In a wild ecosystem they usually do not take out more than is returned. And the fungi are essential to plants because they liberate nutrients that the plants cannot themselves break out of the soil.

Or at least that's how I learned it 30 years ago...

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

Here,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

among other places.

I'm sure that they were basing it on rather unfavorable assumptions and on systems that were on the scale of 2005. I'm sure that improvements in efficiency will (maybe already have) changed that balance so that there is a net energy gain.

However, it isn't going to be much, because I'm equally sure that it takes a bunch of energy to plant, grow, harvest, and process corn. Also, I'm certain that converting solar power by the action of chlorphyl into complex carbohydrates, which are then converted into alcohol, and then purified, seems like a really inefficient way of getting solar energy.

 

[Meadmaker]

duplicate

 

[robinson]

ecently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

This information is from Patzek
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/index.htm
Patzek is a geoengineer , a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. He worked for Shell Oil Company from 1981 to 1990. I doubt he has ever visited an ethanol plant, much less knows anything about it from experience.

The claim that it takes 6 times as much energy to produce ethanol is so out there, so obviously wrong, you have to wonder why anybody would print such nonsense.

If you look at sources that simply tell the truth, economic sources, it is obvious ethanol is so profitable, so lucrative, it has directly led to rising corn prices.
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/ethanol-industry-renewable/52
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/174f8126b6e8687ffffde0c7c9cb932b.htm

Recent methods of increasing profit (energy) from corn, and other sources of ethanol, have created a feeding frenzy for corn. Extracting corn oil first (it isn't used for ethanol) allows a double profit from the same amount of corn. The residue from producing ethanol is also valuable.

The biggest problem with ethanol in recent years has been the glut on the market, the lack of infrastructure, and the increasing corn prices, because so many people jumped on the bandwagon to make ethanol.

A look at corn prices, as well as ethanol profits, tells a different story.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={7B9E0FA8-2812-4E57-BFB3-AF3295BF1E26}

 

[Alric]

If you look at sources that simply tell the truth, economic sources, it is obvious ethanol is so profitable, so lucrative, it has directly led to rising corn prices.

This is only true because of government subsidies for corn farmens and because most states mandate that a % of ethanol is blended with gasoline.

Although the one claim you found of 6x more energy in than out seems outlandish you would be hard pressed to find a study that gives it more than a percentage increase benefit over gasoline, with many studies showing no benefit. Again, if you take into account the reduced mileage and net increase in greenhouse gases there is probably no benefit from ethanol over gasoline and definitely no benefit over hybrids or full electric.

 

[casebro]

So where did anybody get the idea that bio-fuels are supposed to reduce CO2?

Fossil fuel use = apples.

CO2= oranges.

Alternative fuels are just that, alternatives to fossil fuels. Where does C02 come in to it?

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly. Only the fact that corn is artificially cheap has allowed this. That is changing, and you can expect a lot of ethanol producers to founder. (Except Jack Daniels...)

 

[robinson]

I doubt anyone will actually read the following link, but it comes with the territory.
http://www.auri.org/news/ainapr00/ethanol.htm

When you hear somebody claim ethanol only works because of Government money, I have to wonder why you think that means anything. Do you have any idea how much money is involved with gas and diesel? Gas and diesel fuels are subsidized.

And the ridiculous claim that ethanol needs more oil to produce than it saves is madness.


Brazil exported 3.9 billion liters of ethanol in 2006, and used 21.3 billion liters in their cars. If you listen to idiots who claim it costs more in oil than you get back, they are going bankrupt doing this. They are burning money. Just wasting resources, they have gone round the bend,

Now which is more likely, that Brazil has gone insane, and is destroying their economy, or somebody wants you to think renewable fuels are a bad thing.

 

[Alric]

Brazil extracts ethanol from sugar cane, from which it does make sense.

The link you posted reads more like desperate PR than anything else. Did you read the last couple of paragraphs.

Just knowing how much corn it takes to fuel a car should let you know something's wrong with ethanol.

 

[Meadmaker]

Agricultural Utilization Research Institute. There's an unbiased source.

One tank of gas=560 pounds of corn.

Using up to date numbers, then, we burn somewhere between 10-15 gallons of gas (we'll say 12), use that energy to grow 560 pounds of corn, and that gets us 25 gallons of ethanol. In my car, (a prizm) that means we could have used 12 gallons of gas to go about 420 miles, but instead, we'll use the 25 gallons of Ethanol and now we can go 750 miles.

Of course, someone doesn't get to eat, but they probably couldn't afford gas anyway.

 

[Meadmaker]

Brazil exported 3.9 billion liters of ethanol in 2006, and used 21.3 billion liters in their cars. If you listen to idiots who claim it costs more in oil than you get back, they are going bankrupt doing this. They are burning money. Just wasting resources, they have gone round the bend,

Now which is more likely, that Brazil has gone insane, and is destroying their economy, or somebody wants you to think renewable fuels are a bad thing.

Or maybe it means that corn is not sugar cane and 40 degrees north is not the equator.

 

[casebro]

Do you see that Brazil is not concerned with CO2? But they are concerned with exporting fuel, rather than importing.

They do burn the cane fiber after it's had it's sugar squeezed out. Thats is how they get the heat to distill the alcohol. SOooo, their cars burn alcohol, making CO2, plus the mills burn fiber, making more CO2. Plus soot, etc. Plus, the yeast makes CO2 directly- uno, the bubbles in beer? Just about as much CO2 as alcohol, by weight. 47:53? SOoo, not so environmentally friendly for believers in AGW, but a good way to make profit off of sugar on the world market.

Here in America, the mills do use fossil fuel to distill the alcohol. Not as efficient. But politically correct, for now.

 

[Puppycow]

Gas and diesel fuels are subsidized.

Could you be specific about that?

This says there is a tax on gas and diesel

For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon. For diesel, the average state tax is 29.2 cents per gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 53.6 cents per gallon.[8]

 

[Alric]

Yeah. They tax you but subsidize the oil companies:

Link with references

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

 

[robinson]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gas+oil+subsidies&btnG=Google+Search

 

[robinson]

Thanks Alric.

Obviously, ethanol benefits from all the tax breaks and subsidies currently in place - and some researchers have questioned whether ethanol production is really a net plus for the energy economy. Anex says the real benefit kicks in when biofuel production takes advantage of the whole plant - for example, using the leftovers from the process as fertilizer or lignin-derived fuel to be burned.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/09/86726.aspx

It may be hard to believe, but most corn that is used for corn oil, is not them turned into ethanol.

 

[Puppycow]

So according to Alric'sRobinson's link, there are 6 billion dollars in subsidies for Oil and Gas.

According to this the US consumes 146 billion gallons of gasoline in a year. 146 x .47 = 68 billion.

So 68 - 6 = 62. Still a net tax.

ETA: (It was Robinson's link, specifically the top hit on the page of Google results. My bad.)

 

[BenBurch]

Or maybe it means that corn is not sugar cane and 40 degrees north is not the equator.

Makes a real difference. A local engineer here, the late Herb Hanson, tried to build an alcohol-fueled car back in the late 70s and early 80s; It burned 85% ethanol and 15% water, and it did work, but in cold weather the alcohol had insufficient vapor pressure to combust in the engine and so a propane heating system had to be added. And after starting the alcohol was in a heat exchanger built into the radiator. A front end collision would absolutely equal a fire.

I am betting that nowhere in Brazil is a heat exchanger or pre-heater required for year-round operation.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't get the discussion about using the whole plant.

Surely, using the whole plant is better than using just the grain. So what? If you eat the grain, you could still use the rest of the plant for whatever purpose it's good for. Why not eat the grain and burn the stalk?

My problem with the whole ethanol thing in America is that my grocery prices are higher because we are burning food. I don't know about big oil or big corn or tax breaks or whatever the heck else you want to throw into the mix, but I do know that I'm spending more money on food because some of it is being burned. I really hate that.

 

[luchog]

So where did anybody get the idea that bio-fuels are supposed to reduce CO2?
Fossil fuel use = apples.
CO2= oranges.
Alternative fuels are just that, alternatives to fossil fuels. Where does C02 come in to it?

Erm... This is so wrong, I'm not sure where to begin to say how wrong it is.

Fossil fuels contain massive amounts of carbon locked away deep underground where it is not part of the normal carbon cycle. Burning or cracking fossil fuels releases this carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO and CO2, increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which may or may not be handled adequately by existing carbon sinks like oceanic plankton and bacteria, and terrestrial vegetation. It's a net positive increase in carbon added to the ecosystem.

Biofuels, when produced without the use of fossil fuels, are part of the natural carbon cycle. They absorb carbon from the atmosphere and ground while growing, and released the same amount of carbon back into the ecosystem when converted to energy. It is a balanced system with a net zero loss or gain.

The problem with ethanol produced using corn feedstock, and to a lesser extent biodiesel produced using soy feedstock, is that a considerably amount of fossil fuel is used, in the form of fertilizer as well as fuel, in the production and transportation of these fuels. The fertilizer issue isn't as great a problem with soy which, being a legume, helps replenish soil by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, but is critical with corn; but there is still the problem of the conversion existing forest land carbon-sinks over to cultivation of crops which do not act as sinks.

Studies on hempseed shows it to be better than soy for producing oil as it contains 30-35% of its dry weight as oil, vs 20% for soy; and given that seeds account for roughly 50% of the dry weight of the entire plant at cultivation vs... IIRC it's about 30% for soy, it's also considerably more productive per acre. It will grow effectively in marginal soil, requiring a smaller load of organics and fertilizers. So, it can be cultivated without replacing existing old-growth forests or food crops, and therefore does not displace existing major carbon sinks, and is itself an excellent food crop. The one disadvantage is that it doesn't fix nitrogen like soy does; so some form of crop rotation with a nitrogen-fixing legume or other plant that also grows well in marginal soil (such as clover), is necessary for sustainable farming.