Why biofuels need work.
Whenever discussions of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel dependency occur, the notion of biofuels gets kicked around -- or politely considered, or argued about vehemently. But biofuels -- corn-based ethanol, palm oil, etc. -- aren't solving anything. They're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases -- mainly carbon dioxide -- in the atmosphere, exacerbating the problem they're supposed to help solve, global warming.Two new studies in the journal Science provide a close, detailed look at the environmental costs of biofuels. From the destruction of carbon-absorbing forests to grow more biofuel vegetation, to the carbon produced in the cultivation, harvesting and processing of those plants, biofuel is bad news.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
Capt. Harold E. Arndt Pres. Island Rover Foundation
Ahoy Justin,
There is a LOT of true to what you say BUT there is also a SMALL segment of Bio-fuel production which DOES MAKE SENSE in the over all life-cycle of bio-mass. That is when by-products of some food source production are used in the production of the bio-fuel. Two examples would be ethanol made from sugar cane waste and bio-diesel made from restaurant fryer grease.
The resultant fuel IS A SMALL quantity but it does make sense and would be a positive. I agree with the overall truth that you speak BUT favor the niche where waste can be utilized to produce fuel. OF Course we could go further and discuss the negative of the fact that unless those by-products are returned to the earth as fertilizer we will be exhausting the fertility of the soil, etc.
There is no simple answer.
Capt. Harold
Capt. Harold E. Arndt Pres. Island Rover Foundation
Ahoy Justin,
There is a LOT of truth to what you say BUT there is also a SMALL segment of Bio-fuel production which DOES MAKE SENSE in the over all life-cycle of bio-mass. That is when by-products of some food source production are used in the production of the bio-fuel. Two examples would be ethanol made from sugar cane waste and bio-diesel made from restaurant fryer grease.
The resultant fuel IS A SMALL quantity but it does make sense and would be a positive. I agree with the overall truth that you speak BUT favor the niche where waste can be utilized to produce fuel. OF Course we could go further and discuss the negative of the fact that unless those by-products are returned to the earth as fertilizer we will be exhausting the fertility of the soil, etc.
There is no simple answer.
Capt. Harold
Ahoy Justin,
There is a LOT of truth to what you say BUT there is also a SMALL segment of Bio-fuel production which DOES MAKE SENSE in the over all life-cycle of bio-mass. That is when by-products of some food source production are used in the production of the bio-fuel. Two examples would be ethanol made from sugar cane waste and bio-diesel made from restaurant fryer grease.
The resultant fuel IS A SMALL quantity but it does make sense and would be a positive. I agree with the overall truth that you speak BUT favor the niche where waste can be utilized to produce fuel. OF Course we could go further and discuss the negative of the fact that unless those by-products are returned to the earth as fertilizer we will be exhausting the fertility of the soil, etc.
There is no simple answer.
Capt. Harold
Andrea
Ill answer with a cast from our website, written by one of our "wizards".
The Great Green Con
The futility of using croplands for Biofuel production was clearly predicted by the team that established this Foundation right from the start - and time has shown this to be so. The early months of this year 2008 have seen a spate of reports published that confirm this - along with an even more terrifyingly negative effect on the environment than the most pessimistic of our team anticipated.
Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.
Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental cons, because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.
Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants.
The scientists found that in the case of some crops it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. These environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of rainforest.
"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly," said Joe Fargione of the US Nature Conservancy, who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.
"Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture."
The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush
Jeddah
I would like to appreciate the blog master for taking this serious issue in speech.
my regards,
m7mmad
http://www.m7mmad.com