Exterior Styling Review 2009 Toyota Venza
Green
Trucks
Luxury
Family
Brand
Muscle
See more sites from  HighGear  M E D I A  >>

Biofuels: Global Futility?

Biofuels: Global Futility?

By Bengt Halvorson's avatar Bengt HalvorsonBengt Halvorson February 9th, 2008

Article ImageEnlarge Photo


In recent months, a number of sources, including the U.K. magazine The Ecologist, have suggested that all of the supplementary (and necessary) processes around biofuels production may actually emit more carbon dioxide than if we were to keep using fossil fuels.

Now two studies, published in the journal Science, confirm that.

While biofuel crops, such as corn or sugar cane, help absorb CO2, they absorb far less than forests, or even scrubland, according to the study, which uses a worldwide agricultural model to estimate the emissions associated with the change in land use. Bottom line, the study concludes that the use of corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse-gas emissions over 30 years, while switchgrass — long thought of as an ethanol-producing alternative crop, would increase overall emissions by 50 percent if grown instead of corn on U.S. lands.

To cut to the chase, nearly all crop-based biofuels used today end up causing more greenhouse-gas emissions than ‘conventional’ fossil fuels do.

If this is true, why are we often told that biofuels are environmentally the ‘right’ thing to do? In calculating the CO2 emissions saved by using plant-based fuels, the energy used in the processing of a plant to biofuels is often overlooked. The production of ethanol especially can be extremely energy-intensive.

So is the energy used in establishing the cropland and growing the crops, and it’s not a trivial amount. Until now, forest land being converted to farm land — from the CO2 emissions associated with burning and plowing, and from the removal of CO2-reducing trees — hasn’t been widely assessed. The New York Times, citing the author of one of the studies, says that grassland clearance alone releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land.

As the West uses more biofuels — such as ethanol and biodiesel — prices for vegetable oil and other products related to biofuel crops will rise, and more land will in turn be cleared around the world to cover the growing demand, both for fuel and the displaced demand for food crops.

The European Union, through its Biofuels Directive, is also requiring the use of renewable fuels, with plans to also police the sustainability of these fuels and how they’re produced. But this may only serve to stoke the burgeoning international biofuels market and rapid deforestation elsewhere in the world, such as in Brazil’s rain forests, said the study author to the NYT.

This also opens up some complex, global food-sourcing issues. The movement to plant-based fuels is indisputably reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but in doing so — whether we’re actually increasing global warming gases or not — we may be increasing our reliance on foreign food crops. And that may have other economic consequences, in this age when food prices are already creeping up and food sourcing is a hot-button issue for those who scan product labels.

As a follow-up to the study results, ten prominent scientists have sent a letter to President Bush and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that pushes for the reform of federal biofuel policy.

It may be difficult news for U.S. automakers. For the past several years, E85 (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline) has been a feel-good, go-green public-relations device, and automakers continue to get a huge break in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for any vehicles that are capable of running on E85 — essentially assuming that these vehicles will be run on E85 half the time.

Just considering the advantages after E85 is in a vehicle’s tank, the fuel brings about a 10- to 25-percent reduction in CO2 compared to gasoline, but vehicles running on E85 also get 15- to 20-percent fewer miles per gallon, typically.

Now that ethanol is still a political plus, but an environmental gray area, automakers may need to focus on the home-grown and political aspects of why to choose ethanol.

For those of us who follow energy issues and like to ponder just what will be powering our cars five years or 20 years down the road, the next few weeks promise excitement to rival the Presidential primaries, as spin wars break out between environmental groups and the ethanol lobbies, as they take positions on the situation.

This one sure has us thinking — tell us what you think. Is the ethanol bubble bursting? Is there hope in other biofuels? Or do the political advantages of biofuels (national security, diversified sources) outweigh the environmental disadvantages? Enlarge Photo In recent months, a number of sources, including the U.K. magazine The Ecologist, have suggested that all of the supplementary (and necessary) processes around biofuels production may actually emit more carbon dioxide than if we were to keep using fossil fuels. Now two studies, published in the journal Science, confirm that. While biofuel crops, such as corn or sugar cane, help absorb CO2, they absorb far less than forests, or even scrubland, according to the study, which uses a worldwide agricultural model to estimate the emissions associated with the change in land use. Bottom line, the study concludes that the use of corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse-gas emissions over 30 years, while switchgrass — long thought of as an ethanol-producing alternative crop, would increase overall emissions by 50 percent if grown instead of corn on U.S. lands. To cut to the chase, nearly all crop-based biofuels used today end up causing more greenhouse-gas emissions than ‘conventional’ fossil fuels do. If this is true, why are we often told that biofuels are environmentally the ‘right’ thing to do? In calculating the CO2 emissions saved by using plant-based fuels, the energy used in the processing of a plant to biofuels is often overlooked. The production of ethanol especially can be extremely energy-intensive. So is the energy used in establishing the cropland and growing the crops, and it’s not a trivial amount. Until now, forest land being converted to farm land — from the CO2 emissions associated with burning and plowing, and from the removal of CO2-reducing trees — hasn’t been widely assessed. The New York Times, citing the author of one of the studies, says that grassland clearance alone releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land. As the West uses more biofuels — such as ethanol and biodiesel — prices for vegetable oil and other products related to biofuel crops will rise, and more land will in turn be cleared around the world to cover the growing demand, both for fuel and the displaced demand for food crops. The European Union, through its Biofuels Directive, is also requiring the use of renewable fuels, with plans to also police the sustainability of these fuels and how they’re produced. But this may only serve to stoke the burgeoning international biofuels market and rapid deforestation elsewhere in the world, such as in Brazil’s rain forests, said the study author to the NYT. This also opens up some complex, global food-sourcing issues. The movement to plant-based fuels is indisputably reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but in doing so — whether we’re actually increasing global warming gases or not — we may be increasing our reliance on foreign food crops. And that may have other economic consequences, in this age when food prices are already creeping up and food sourcing is a hot-button issue for those who scan product labels. As a follow-up to the study results, ten prominent scientists have sent a letter to President Bush and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that pushes for the reform of federal biofuel policy. It may be difficult news for U.S. automakers. For the past several years, E85 (85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline) has been a feel-good, go-green public-relations device, and automakers continue to get a huge break in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for any vehicles that are capable of running on E85 — essentially assuming that these vehicles will be run on E85 half the time. Just considering the advantages after E85 is in a vehicle’s tank, the fuel brings about a 10- to 25-percent reduction in CO2 compared to gasoline, but vehicles running on E85 also get 15- to 20-percent fewer miles per gallon, typically. Now that ethanol is still a political plus, but an environmental gray area, automakers may need to focus on the home-grown and political aspects of why to choose ethanol. For those of us who follow energy issues and like to ponder just what will be powering our cars five years or 20 years down the road, the next few weeks promise excitement to rival the Presidential primaries, as spin wars break out between environmental groups and the ethanol lobbies, as they take positions on the situation. This one sure has us thinking — tell us what you think. Is the ethanol bubble bursting? Is there hope in other biofuels? Or do the political advantages of biofuels (national security, diversified sources) outweigh the environmental disadvantages?

Tags: Shoppers

Posted in: 2008, Green, Diesel



More News


More From Around High Gear Media

  • TheCarConnection.com  |  11/20/2009
    2010 GMC Yukon-XL-Denali

    2010 GMC YUKON DENALI STYLING | [8 out of 10] Kelley Blue Book: "All but antiquates the previous ...

  • TheCarConnection.com  |  11/20/2009
    2010 GMC Yukon-XL-Denali

    Editors at TheCarConnection.com have driven the GMC Yukon range to bring you this hands-on road test. ...


Responses (13 total)

  1. 1
  2. 2

  1. By MG driver #1, Posted: 2/9/2008

    The anti-biofuels spin machine has accomplished remarkable results in a short time. Amazingly, Big Oil and OPEC have convinced environmental groups to align with them in opposition to a concerted effort to move away from dependence on mined hydrocarbons. Where is the sceptisim when reporting the "scientific studies"? Who were the underwriters of those studies? Where are the analyses of how much CO2 is released and how much energy it takes to produce a gallon of gasoline?
    The "food vs. fuel" question is a false dichotomy. Highly efficient systems of biofuel and food co-production are already coming online, as well as systems to convert many types of waste to biofuels.
    Without a doubt the oil industry would like to smother the biofuels baby in its crib without anyone noticing their fingerprints....and so far it appears to be working.

  2. By Jim Landon #2, Posted: 2/9/2008

    Well, for the life of me, it seems like EVERYTHING is a threat...

    The only possible solutions are massive human sterilization programs to reduce the population to levels that the self-appointed "Greenies" think can be sustained on old planet earth.

    Of course, I don't see the Greenies volunteering to stop procreating, either... so perhaps the point is irrelevant....

    Jim Landon

  3. By John #3, Posted: 2/10/2008

    We're only just realizing the long held physics theory - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction....

  4. By Mark Meachen #4, Posted: 2/10/2008

    This is a very interesting article. There are many more like them. When articles lump ethanol and biodiesel in the same boat (biofuels), it is ethanol (E85) that gets all the crap thown at it while biodiesel gets a bad rap by association! Biodiesel is different! Yes, biodiesel in america is built primarily on soybean production, NOT palm oil production (which must be stopped!). Soybean production is 20% oil and 80% high quality protein cake. And that's not even the half of it. We have a bunch of waste cooking oil, and plenty of animal fat and carcasses that need to be used. And if we continue down this road, looks like biodiesel production will clean up our electricity by taming the co2 production, using it to generate algae.

    These articles are, as stated above, generated by the oil industry. Scratch a little deeper and you'll find that there is a lot riding on this.

  5. By Dennis #5, Posted: 2/11/2008

    For those worried about the loss of food sources due to the use of crops for bio-fuels, may I ask if they have investigated how much farm land is subsidized annually by the U.S. government for NOT growing anything?

  6. By Leroy Tooter #6, Posted: 2/11/2008

    A sow's ear will not a silk purse make. Wake up, fools. Global warming is a hoax!

  7. By Jim #7, Posted: 2/11/2008

    The entire ethanol issue is about politics and commercial farm subsidies by the government. Until the infrastructure for delivery of hydrogen can be built, maybe 15 years away, the real answer will be found in a combination of diesel/electric hybrids which, in small vehicles, can get close to 100 mpg.

  8. By  Dave Parent #8, Posted: 2/11/2008

    If I had to choose between my cars and my food, I think I'd go with the food. But it would be really, really close.

  9. By Edwardo #9, Posted: 2/11/2008

    It seems to me, that what we really need to do is build a new generation of nuclear power plants and we all drive electric or electric / hybrid cars. We'll solve the CO2 issue and then we can tell the Saudis and Chavez to stuff it.......

    Or

    We keep Iraq for ourselves; gas will be cheap and we can go back to life as it should be.

  10. By Odineye #11, Posted: 2/12/2008

    To be clear, the new studies cited in the article do not "confirm" previous contentions that biofuels may increase CO2. They *support* those claims. It is rare in science that anything is either "confirmed" or "proven". The author of the article should adjust this statement, as it represents inappropriate reporting of scientific information.

    The reason that we do not generally confirm or prove in science is because there are often variables or components of the issue that haven't been considered - which may well be the case here. As another commenter has already noted, biofuels are being painted with a very broad brush here. Mostly they seem to be referring to ethanol, which no one outside political and farm circles has ever found to be a very satisfactory answer.

    These studies, and articles about them, should be ended as most research articles are: "More study is needed".

Post a comment

Post anonymously, or
(Required)
(Required - will not be published, sold or shared)
(Optional - your 'posted by' name will link to the URL)

Remember Me?

I have read TheCarConnection.com's privacy policy