Print 49 comment(s) - last by Tacoloft.. on Feb 13 at 5:19 PM

Recent studies point out that the cost to grow and produce biofuels is worse for the planet than gasoline

Two studies published in the journal Science shed some light into the overall cost of biofuels. Taken into account is not only the greenhouse emissions generated by burning biofuels but all of the emissions generated when producing biofuels.

According to one article the estimated impact of using corn based ethanol is double the amount of greenhouse emissions currently being produced by gasoline over a 30 year time span. An alternative method of ethanol production using switchgrass is estimated to increase emissions by a whopping 50 percent.

With governments around the world pushing to establish hard mandates on the use of biofuels and other renewable methods of energy production, we could be setting ourselves up to cause more harm than good. The U.S. Congress has set a target to raise the use of biofuels from 7.5 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons by 2022. That’s a 480 percent increase. That would push greenhouse gas production in the U.S. up by an order of magnitude.

At the same time, in order to produce these biofuels, farmland is cleared for the growth of ethanol-reliant crops. Clearing land for farming has a cost in greenhouse emissions, as does growing and harvesting these crops. Add that in to the cost of refining and burning these crops and we are generating far more emissions than simply using gasoline and oil.

Scientists in the U.S. and Europe have written letters to their respective governments warning them that biofuels in their current form will only exacerbate the production of greenhouse emissions and push the world further towards climate change.

The United Nations stated it wants to continue with the production of biofuels and reap any potential benefits. The organization admitted however that biofuels are not the silver bullet they were led to believe.

Dr. Searchinger is advocating a switch in gears for the production of biofuels. The use of organic waste in the production of biofuels would get around the problem of clearing and farming previously unused lands which cause so much of the greenhouse emissions that hold back any potential benefits of using biofuels. Using organic waste could also be well on it’s way to becoming a reality thanks to recent breakthroughs in this field.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: The thing i like most about biofuels
By Ringold on 2/8/2008 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think some would counter that those, too, could run on biofuel. The fertilizers though was a solid point.

I'd of taken the free trade line of attack instead, but that would get me rated down too, probably even faster, so I'll leave the whiff of trade protectionism alone.

RE: The thing i like most about biofuels
By jbartabas on 2/8/2008 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think some would counter that those, too, could run on biofuel. The fertilizers though was a solid point.

If you would produce significantly more biofuel-based energy than you'd need to invest for your production, not only you *could* run your machines on it but you'd probably would. I am not sure the benefit is large enough though with US corn.

As for the impact of the use of fertilizer on the net carbon budget, it is my understanding that it is usually included in the benefits studies.

RE: The thing i like most about biofuels
By borowki on 2/11/2008 8:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Of course not. Why would you use a fuel that's less efficient when you could sell that at a price artificially inflated by government mandates and subsidies?

By wackie999 on 2/13/2008 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 2

RE: The thing i like most about biofuels
By dever on 2/8/2008 3:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, government interferes with the market causing more harm than good. The pattern is obvious. When you concentrate power to make decisions to a handful of people subject to the influences of interest groups, the outcome will be worse than the clear voice of each individual being allowed to vote with their wallet.

This time, as often happens, the ones who are hurt the worst are the average to low income households. How? Higher fuel costs make all consumables increase in price because of delivery costs. Not only that, but with ethonal, we are taking your taxes to directly increase your price of grain through higher demand. This not only affects cereals and breads, but milk and meat by bidding up the price of feed.

Because food and fuel make up a larger percentage of the income of poorer people, they are the hardest hit by ethonal subsidies. On top of that, many of them contribute to the tax load that is causing this increase to begin with.

Ethonal is nothing but the worst form of corporate welfare, benefiting a few wealthy at the cost of many, many average individuals. (Lobbyists invoke the image of some farmer that looks like your great-grandpa to justify stealing your taxes. It's typical dirty marketing using the image of a child or elderly person to invoke sympathy.)

Scientific American had an article stating these same issues with ethonal a couple of years ago... and subsidies have only continued to increase.

By Ringold on 2/8/2008 7:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're exactly right. Agflation has been particularly devastating in low-income countries; it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that people are starving in less developed parts of the world because of our global warming vanity.

Speaking of global warming, that's a big reason why the whole issue is so dangerous. Environmentalists may believe they have noble goals but the 95% of the rest of the world is out to make a buck. When they fearmonger and put an idea out there, they can inadvertently create a special-interest monstrosity. These farmers have latched on to both the global warming and energy security crowds; most the population of some farm-belt towns, down to the school bus drivers, have put life savings in to community ethanol plants. I heard on the news a few minutes ago the ethanol lobbyists are already furious and fighting back over this report. Environmentalists, primarily, created a monster and now it's up to those who were rational all along to take on the near-impossible task of slaying the beast.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Related Articles

Latest By Christopher Jennings

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki