New study finds "biofuels" do more harm then good against "global warming"

Off-topic
1

Studies Say Biofuels May Increase Global Warming
By Kevin McCandless
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 27, 2007

"London (CNSNews.com) - Biofuels may do more harm than good in the drive against “global warming,” according to two new European studies.

Most biofuels cause more environmental damage than ordinary gasoline, according to a paper released this month by a team of scientists led by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen.

Biofuels, liquid fuels made from plants, have been touted in recent years as being both environmentally friendly and a way to reduce America’s reliance on imported oil.

However, since nitrogen is found in most crop fertilizers, the use of biofuels also produces nitrous oxide (N2O), a gas thought to be much more harmful to the atmosphere than the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced from fossil fuels.

Using air samples from ice formed in pre-industrial times and other data, the team calculated that between three and five percent of the nitrogen used in fertilizer eventually winds up as emitted N2O, rather than two percent as previously thought.

As a result, they said replacing gas in cars with many biofuels would not help efforts to combat global warming and would most likely produce a rise in global temperatures.

With corn ethanol, the negative effect of the new N20 emissions would be up to 1.5 times greater than the positive effect resulting from a drop in CO2 emissions as a result of biofuel being used rather than gas.

Keith Smith, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh who worked on the paper, said Wednesday the benefits of biofuels had been thrown into doubt and that more research was needed on the subject.

Another report released this month, this time by advisors to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, questioned the wisdom of giving large subsidies to biofuel producers.

Biofuels were not likely ever to become a major energy source, the authors said. Furthermore, crops previously grown for eating were now being grown for fuel, and this would eventually drive world food prices up by 20-50 percent, they argued.

Pointing to a study earlier this year by the OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization, the authors said “growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the needs of a rapidly increasing biofuels industry is one of the main drivers” of expected food price rises."

(From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070927a.html. Commence onslaught of people whining that CNSnews.com lies and cheats, etc.)

2

Yeah, I’ve never been a huge booster of biofuels on the whole.
I’ve heard about the pesticides before and the crops that are gown for fuel instead of food.
Beer is more expensive now that they’re growing more corn instead of barely. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’ve met some people who design electric cars and they’ve pretty much sold me on electric. :smiley:

3

A quick Google News search shows that Reuters has also picked up on the story.

Many biofuels have more climate impact than oil

It’s funny, but it keeps coming around that the best energy solution wrt global warming is nuclear power. Drive an electric car or a plug-in hybrid that gets its electricity from a nuclear power station and you have an environmentally friendly vehicle. An electric car would be fun to drive and would have acceleration response better than my current Subaru. Electric cars can be quite zippy in stop and go city type acceleration.

4

For decades I have been an advocate of nuclear power as the clean, safe, and inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels. Regardless, the holes left in the two cited articles arguing against biofuels are larger than the southern hemisphere ozone depletion and are indefensible. This is shabby pseudo-science journalism at its best. What a colorful collection of omitted and mismatched facts.

5

Wind farming, hydro farming, solar farming, nuclear, and making our homes green is the way to go here.

6

I thought Bio-fuels were about reducing our dependance on oil, not about reducing emmisions?

7

exactly what I’ve always thought. I never would have dreamed that biofuels could possibly be better for the environment. The primary purpose of biofuels is that they are made from a renewable resource; not that they are environmentally friendly.

8

Well that’s an inconvenient truth.

9

Surely being from a renewable resource makes them enviro-friendly?
On some level at least?

10

I always figured they would be just the same or worse. I mean all the transporting of transporting you have to do and such.

11

That was a good article, and I recommend that you all read the part that forrestunifreak didn’t quote.
That’s where you’ll find the pro-biofuel answer to the report, and the part that accuses both sides of quoting reports selectively.

12

random fact time
some people argue that biofuels are bad for your car and make it run slower and worse etc. using methanol as opposed to gasoline makes you car run better. most, if not all performance cars (nascar, nhra, etc.) use methanol. however now that i think about it, that is probably to do with stopping engine knock. :thinking: so i may or may not be right :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

13

What I find most interesting about Forrest posting this link is that I’m quite sure Forrest used to argue rather vociferously against the reality of climate change.

It would seem that he’s now changed his tune, no?

14

Phew.
I don’t normally post anything without a link or some form of back-up.
Just paranoid I guess.
After I made the previous post I suddenly got worried.
What if I remembered wrong and slandered young Forrest with my baseless allegations?
I had to come back to hit a search and check it out.

I didn’t remember wrong.

So, it’s good to know that Forrest’s come around, accepts the undeniable scientific reality of climate change and is getting involved and even posting threads about activities adding to this danger faced by humanity.

Welcome Forrest, just say know.

15

It doesn’t mean he switched, he’s just pointing out an article that shows that overreaction to an unproven problem can be dangerous and counterproductive.

16

He’s quoting a mightly high number of scientists who got involved in that ‘unproven’ problem of yours.

17

One of the downsides of biofuels is that they don’t give the same amount of engine output power per gallon/litre as fossil fuels. I think I read about this in Consumer Reports. Their point was that direct comparisons between gasoline and various forms of bio fuels must take fuel economy into account. Fuel economy was a little bit less on the bio fuels. Apparently corn or cane doesn’t give the same amount of “oomph” as dead dinosaurs.

But the dead dinosaurs won’t last forever so we have to keep looking for replacements.

Forrest has not come out and said he things climate change is a problem, he’s just saying that for those of us who are concerned about it, to take note of the amount of greenhouse emissions from the production of biofuels.

I’d like an electric car. It doesn’t solve the power problem, but it cuts the oil companies out of my fuel situation!

18

forrest will undoubtedly be writing to the White House with this information to express his displeasure with the administration’s plan to increase the use of ethanol by 500% by 2017.

19

The Daily Green is mulling over this conundrum.

Another Blow to Biofuels: Canola Oil is Worse than Diesel

20

Not at all.

I just posted this thread to show that we should stop trying to shove our food into our gas tanks.

The emissions aren’t the problem. All we need to do is open up oil drilling in Alaska.