Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse!

[thedguy]

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production.

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

These studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse-gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted — directly or indirectly, intentionally or not — in new lands being cleared for food or fuel.

"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gases substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University.

Searchinger's team determined that corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when the land-use changes to grow corn are considered. Cellulosic ethanol made in the U.S. from switchgrass, a fuel that has been singled out by President Bush as a way to reduce the country's dependence on oil, produces 50 percent more emissions than gasoline does, the study said.

The clearing 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."

Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should focus on developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products. "This land-use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers," Searchinger said. "It is major."

Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately attacked the new studies as "simplistic."

"Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection," said Bob Dineen, the group's director, in a statement issued after the Science reports' release.

In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States' most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists on Thursday sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies.

The U.S. recently enacted legislation boosting biofuel production to 36 billion gallons in 2022 from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The European Union requires 10 percent of transportation to use biofuels by 2020.

The European Union and a number of European countries have recently tried to address the land-use issue with proposals stipulating that imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.

Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land-use changes far away — for instance, by increasing pressure on Brazil to meet soybean demand. "Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world's soybeans — and they're deforesting the Amazon to do it," Fargione said.

There should be more focus on producing biofuels from municipal waste and from land that can't be used for food crops, said Alex Ferrell, an energy and resource professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Soil and plants are essential stores of carbon, containing more than the atmosphere, he said.

Ferrell, who wasn't involved in the two studies, said the economic model used in Searchinger's study will have a "profound" impact on the biofuel debate because it questions the rationale of governments who see biofuels as a way to limit global warming.

Source:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ethanol08.html

We're all doomed

[vegasrebel29]

If the numbers aren't in your favour, make them up!

Surprise.

[prizrak]

Time for Mr. Fusion (I think that was the name of the fusion reactor that the DeLorean from Back to the Future used)

[Ottobon]

Does that article make any light of how "green" regular oil refineries are? I couldn't find a side by side comparison at all, so until then

G.T.F.O.


Plus E85 is the only gas i would ever feel comfortable paying $3 a gallon for, so it better not go away or up in price for that matter, anytime soon.



And anyways, all this does is ignore the fact that many states PAY to crush old cars, when as you already know theDguy, that building cars is much much worse for the environment then it is to fit a good catalytic converter on a old car.



One more thing, how does switch-grass now work if something like this is true
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7175397.stm ????

Grass biofuels 'cut CO2 by 94%'

Producing biofuels from a fast-growing grass delivers vast savings of carbon dioxide emissions compared with petrol, a large-scale study has suggested. A team of US researchers also found that switchgrass-derived ethanol produced 540% more energy than was required to manufacture the fuel.

One acre (0.4 hectares) of the grassland could, on average, deliver 320 gallons of bioethanol, they added.

Their paper appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The five-year study, involving 10 farms ranging in size from three to nine hectares, was described as the largest study of its kind by the paper's authors.

Co-author Ken Vogel of the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agriculture Research Service, based at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, said that all previous energy analyses had been based on data from research plots and estimated inputs.

Last year, a team of scientists had also examined the energy gains from ethanol produced from switchgrass, but their model suggested that the net gain was in the region of 343%, which was considerably less than the USDA team's findings.


Biofuels: Next generation

"A lot of their information was based on small plot data and also estimates of what would be needed in the agronomic production of biofuels," Dr Vogel explained.

"We had on-farm trials, so we had all the data from the farmers on all the inputs needed to produce the crops.

"We were able to take this information and put it into this model and able to come up with a very real-world estimate."

The energy inputs required to produce the crops included nitrogen fertiliser, herbicides, diesel and seed production.

However, he added that as there were no large-scale biorefineries in operation, the team did have to estimate how much bioethanol such a plant would be able to produce in order to calculate the net energy gain.

"Right now, the Department of Energy is co-funding the construction of six biorefineries in the US. These plants will be completed around 2010, and will be above the pilot plant scale."

Although the process to produce ethanol from switchgrass was more complex than using food crops such as wheat or corn, the so-called "second generation" biofuel could produce much higher energy yields per tonne because it utilised the whole plant rather than just the seeds.

Carbon cuts

The team also calculated that the production and consumption of switchgrass-derived ethanol cut CO2 emissions by about 94% when compared with an equivalent volume of petrol.


SWITCHGRASS FACTS
Switchgrass prairie (Image: USDA ARS)
Scientific name: Panicum virgatum L
Species is a perennial grass
Distribution: North and South America, parts of Africa
Grows to heights of 0.5-2.5m
Produces an average of 320 gallons of bioethanol per acre
(Source: USDA; Cardiff School of Biosciences)

Burning biofuels releases carbon dioxide, but growing the plants absorbs a comparable amount of the gas from the atmosphere.

However, the energy inputs used during the growing and processing of the crops means the fuel is rarely "carbon neutral".

"Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol from switchgrass, using only the displacement method, showed 88% less GHG emissions than conventional ethanol," the researchers wrote.

"The use of... biomass residue for energy at a... biorefinery is the main reason why switchgrass and human-made prairies have theoretically lower GHG emissions than biofuels from annual (food) crops, where processing is currently derived from fossil fuels."

A number of organisations, including the UN, have expressed concern that biofuels could do more harm than good.

The criticisms of the technology include taking large areas of arable land out of food production, inflating crop prices and limited carbon emission savings.


Protest. Image: AFP/Getty

'Low faith in biofuels

"In contrast to most European countries, the US has quite a bit of land that is being held outside of (food) production at the moment," Dr Vogel told BBC News.

"We are looking at the use of switchgrass on marginal cropland The intent is to have energy crops being grown on marginal cropland, so it would not be in competition with food crops on our best land.

He also added that there were other factors within the process of producing the biofuel that limited its financial and environmental feasibility.

"Because there is going to be a lot of tonnage of material shipped to the biorefinery, there is going to be some economics involved."

In order to maximise the carbon reductions, he said: "A biorefinery will have a feedstock supply radius of about 25 to 50 miles, so the feedstock of any biorefinery needs to be localised."

As the switchgrass had to be sourced within the local area, Dr Vogel said it was important that the land delivered a high yield of grass in order to meet the refinery's demands.

Annual rainfall was a key factor affecting the delivery of the necessary yields.

[Flynn]

If we can't use biofuels then we won't have the combustion engine anymore.

[Ottobon]

Originally Posted by Flynn

If we can't use biofuels then we won't have the combustion engine anymore.

not so fast, you forgot Hydrogen

[Scooby5]

Originally Posted by Flynn

If we can't use biofuels then we won't have the combustion engine anymore.

I don't mind loosing the standard combustion engine if it still means 0-60 in 5s, capable of over 100mph, 4-600kms per charge/tank and a 2-5min recharge/refill time.

We still have Hydrogen to fall back on i suppose.

[Flynn]

Hydrogen doesn't make the same noise

[IceBone]

You can buy fake exhaust sound speakers to add to a Prius for instance, i'm sure there'll be a great market for those after we switch to hydrogen.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Ottobon

not so fast, you forgot Hydrogen

Hydrogen + ICE = a waste. Hydrogen + fuel cell + electric motor = probably a win!

[Ottobon]

Originally Posted by thedguy

Hydrogen + ICE = a waste. Hydrogen + fuel cell + electric motor = probably a win!

people being forced to drive a electric cars=a new wave of Lee Harvey Oswald's

not over my cold dead body


Dguy, since when were you so anti-ICE and pro electric? Did a communists hack into your network or something and party it out on these forums?

[Wizegui]

From what I've heard, the advantage of the higher octane levels of Biofuel can only be used to an advantage for environment purposes by downsizing and turbo-charging engines. If the engine sizes for the cars remains the same, then there are little to no environmental benefits.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Ottobon

people being forced to drive a electric cars=a new wave of Lee Harvey Oswald's

not over my cold dead body


Dguy, since when were you so anti-ICE and pro electric? Did a communists hack into your network or something and party it out on these forums?

I've always been very pro-electric, but not anti-ice. I just don't think hydrogen and ICE go together. Electric motors are far more efficient, and especially at doing the job I'll be requiring a car to do, sit in traffic all day long.

I'll be one of those guys who drives around in some modern electric thing (the volt is appealing), but I'll NEVER completely rid myself of internal combustion. I'll probably be buried with a half gallon of gas and have my head stone made from a melted down LS1