| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Biofuels emissions may be worse than oil? |
| 2008-02-08 |
| Quoting two major studies, the NewScientist electoronic news service, on Thursday said that biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. It added that it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the "carbon debt" accrued by growing biofuels in the first place. "The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change," it added. Biofuel production has accelerated over the last five years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol. "The idea makes intuitive environmental sense - plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions - but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear," it argued. Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is 25 percent greater than that used to process fuel. |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #10 These two studies seem to concentrate on the carbon budget. They also seem to suffer from assuming technology will note improve. Both assumptions are problematic. One problem with concentrating on the carbon budget is that it ignores the radiation budget. Since thick and deep vegetation absorbs sunlight efficiently, replacing such vegetation by relatively short crops with no vegation paths for harvesting vehicles radiates more sunlight back into space (at the shorter wavelengths at least) than an old growth forest. The other problem is fairly obvious. For example, in the past 10 years, the corn-to-ethanol producers have increased their efficiency by about 80% (more productive corn plants, higher liquid product per ton of corn, less input of natural gas for heating). |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-02-08 11:42 |
| #9 The point of biofuels was never to reduce emmissions. Oxidizing carbon is oxidizing carbon. The point was to replace oil for fuel with something you could grow yourself like sugar cane, switch grass or algae. The economics of using corn for fuel is simply bad. No Food For Oil! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-02-08 08:11 |
| #8 Poorly written articel. The crux is: It added that it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the "carbon debt" accrued by growing biofuels in the first place. No duh. Cut down virgin forest to produce fuel crops and it will take many years to produce a net carbon quantity that was locked up in the trees and vegetation. Produce fuel on existing farmland and this doesn't apply. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-08 07:49 |
| #7 I predict prison sentences in the future for these dissenters. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-02-08 06:57 |
| #6 The inmates are running the Krankenhaus. |
| Posted by: Beldar Theretch8964 2008-02-08 06:48 |
| #5 It depends on how fast Germany's population drops. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-08 06:27 |
#4 Meanwhile, Germany sets out to do the impossible:Under new regulations proposed by the European Union, Germany will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. At the same time, the German government has decided to phase out nuclear power, which does not pollute the atmosphere and accounts for a quarter of the country's electricity supply. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-02-08 04:01 |
| #3 I do care. Biofuels, apart from cutting natural forests as fuel was always one of the world's great dumb ideas. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-02-08 02:59 |
| #2 Converting corn production to Bio fuel IS driving up the price of food, especially beef, pork and poultry. Sugarcane has a much better energy conversion rate. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-02-08 02:56 |
| #1 I don't care. Money for them does not flood into Saudi. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-02-08 00:40 |