| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- | |
| Guardian: Biofuels switch a mistake, say researchers | |
| 2007-08-17 | |
Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said. Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020. "Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels." Dr Righelato's study, with Dominick Spracklen from the University of Leeds, is the first to calculate the impact of biofuel carbon emissions across the whole cycle of planting, extraction and conversion into fuel. They report in the journal Science that between two and nine times more carbon emissions are avoided by trapping carbon in trees and forest soil than by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels. Around 40% of Europe's agricultural land would be needed to grow biofuel crops to meet the 10% fossil fuel substitution target. That demand on arable land cannot be met in the EU or the US, say the scientists, so is likely to shift the burden on land in developing countries. The National Farmers Union said 20% of Britain's agricultural land could be used to grow biofuels by 2010. However, the researchers say reforesting the land would be a better way to reduce emissions. Biofuels look good in climate change terms from a Western perspective, said Dr Spracklen, but globally they actually lead to higher carbon emissions. "Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market", he said. The researchers say the emphasis should be placed on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use and moving to carbon-free alternatives such as renewable energy. | |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #12 LOL, RJ! That (I imagine) is SOOOO true! How come I now have mental images of Hindus dancing around and worshipping a cow with a bottle of old Jack in her cloven hoof? |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-17 21:51 |
| #11 Cows love the corn mash remaining after distallation. (Don't ask me just how I know this little fact.) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-08-17 18:48 |
| #10 Well, if Al Guardian says so... |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-08-17 16:40 |
| #9 Ethanol production is not a magic bullet but in the scheme of a larger energy policy it makes sense.The production of ethanol consumes 15% of the corn the other 85% is made into other valuable by-products and feed that can be feed to cattle.So making ethanol out of corn is creating the most effecient use of our corn.When production hits fullstream I suspect that the feed by-products will be in pentiful supply lowering cost to producers and consumers.Ethanol makes good energy sense and good economic sense. |
| Posted by: darrylq 2007-08-17 16:24 |
| #8 Yes, mhw, but even *with* all those variables, it's still less efficient (in mpg or kpg) than gasoline, requires hundreds of thousands of acres more planted in corn (which, itself is very fertilizer and water intensive to grow), and effect a ton of other markets (beef and pork prices, milk prices, corn/grain to "poor nations" etc.). Finally, I've read stats that even if we (the USA) planted ALL of our current cropland in corn for ethanol, it'd only replace like 12% of gasoline needs. As a *small* answer in our energy issues? Sure. As a *single majik bullet answer? Not in a million years! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-17 15:16 |
| #7 Ethanol has become about 50% more efficient in just the past 8 years (more corn/acre, more ethanol per bushel, less natural gas per gallon of ethanol, more byproduct per ton of corn). If you use old data, ethanol looks bad. Five years from now ethanol may look even better than today. Furthermore almost every ethanol plant has space available to add capacity for cellulose/glucose to ethanol operation when that becomes practical and because of the existing plant, adding that capacity will be less expensive and significantly increase the growth rate of cellu + gl 2 ethanol production. No, Ethanol production isn't perfect but it is improving and has more promise than people give it credit for. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-08-17 15:04 |
| #6 Corn ethanol = Liquid pork Our milk costs have already gone up 150% because of a lack of corn feed. Oil shale --- great. Pig poop methane --- wonderful. Nuclear power --- fine by me. Ethanol power --- not worth it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-17 12:34 |
| #5 Always beware of the Law of Unintended Consequence. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins5285 2007-08-17 10:25 |
| #4 Two words, for the US anyway - Oil. Shale. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-08-17 08:34 |
| #3 Increasing BioFuel production to limit the impact and funds of Muslim terror supporting nations is a good thing. If sufficient biofuels could be produced without significant adverse consequencies it would be a good thing. However, massive adverse consequences have already happened (vast areas of tropical rainforest cleared) and it will only get worse as the demand for biofuels increases. The promotion of biofuels is set to be the worst ecological disaster of my lifetime. Nothing else compares. And to think just a few years ago, there were serious proposals to turn all land in the UK above 300 meters into parkland - introduce bear, wolves and other extinct animals - because the land was no longer needed for agriculture. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-08-17 08:25 |
| #2 3dc, you are correct, no matter the cost |
| Posted by: Pheaper Sinatra3986 2007-08-17 01:39 |
| #1 Increasing BioFuel production to limit the impact and funds of Muslim terror supporting nations is a good thing. Nuf said. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-08-17 00:47 |