Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study

[Duppers]

Source: Chemistry World

21 September 2007


Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown.1 The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.

Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.

'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'


Read more: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp

---

Confirming what we already knew: biofuels are not a good alternative energy source.

[robinlynne]

1. You may mean ethanol, but not biofuels. Strange that a scientist would say biofuels, given that

there are hundreds of different kinds, many coming from waste, meaning nothing was planted or burned, some coming from plankton. Sorry, but for any scientist to use those words "biofuels" are bad for the planet is very suspicious. used vegetable oil running in diesel engines is a biofuel. It causes NOTHING to the environment. nothing negative, anyway. Used cow manure converted into gas is a biofuel. etc.

[Teaser]

7. I'm sure the scientist is using accepting terminology

The paper got past peer review. You telling me none of the reviewers would bring this up?

[robinlynne]

10. there are scientists who say global warming does not exist. same concept.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Heh.

"The paper got past peer review."

Actually, it's an "open review" article. And the citation doesn't even lead to a real paper.

[Pavulon]

2. I will wait and see , confirms nothing

if it stands up to scrutiny, then it is confirmed. Biofuel is a resonable and realistic alternative to petrochemicals.

quoted from source..

But other experts are critical of Crutzen's approach. Simon Donner, a nitrogen researcher based at Princeton University, US, says the method is elegant but there is little evidence to show the N2O yield from fertilized plants is really as high as 3-5 per cent. Crutzen's basic assumption, that pre-industrial N2O emissions are the same as natural N2O emissions, is 'probably wrong', says Donner.

One reason he gives is that farmers plant crops in places that have nitrogen rich soils anyway. 'It is possible we are indirectly increasing the "natural" source of N2O by drawing down the soil nitrogen in the world's agricultural regions,' he explains.

[ronnie624]

3. When will people learn

that we must rapidly move from burning anything as a source of energy if we expect our species to survive beyond this century?

Burning practically anything, including 'biofuels', will always release by-products that are harmful to our biosphere, or at least one that our species can survive in.

In a sane world, all new buildings would be equipped to generate their own power from the sun. It is the only foolproof, non-polluting, inexhaustible source of energy. Homeowners would be well advised to invest in the same.

In reality, combustion processes are never perfect or complete. In flue gases from combustion of carbon (as in coal combustion) or carbon compounds (as in combustion of hydrocarbons, wood etc.) both unburned carbon (as soot) and carbon compounds (CO and others) will be present. Also, when air is the oxidant, some nitrogen will be oxidized to various, mostly harmful, nitrogen oxides (NOx)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion>

[Pavulon]

4. That works for some places

but we need to transition off petro to something. Hydrogen and bio are both good and both have drawbacks.

In reality there is only one source of power other than combustion that can provide power demanded by industry.

[eyesroll]

6. How would this work in rainy, dark, or cloudy locations?

I live in Milwaukee and it's pretty much impossible to run a building (even a small house) on 100% solar power. We'll go for days in a row without seeing the sun, especially in winter. What do you suggest, then?

[ProudDad]

9. Follow some of these links

http://tinyurl.com/yoptwf

Your biggest energy waster is heating water -- passive solar works fine in norther climes for that job.

Have you replaced all of your incandescents with CFL's?

You don't see the sun but solar panels DO see solar radiation and can make sufficient quantities of electricity out of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

You may have to rethink your energy usage (as do we ALL) but yes, 100% solar in northern climates is eminently feasible...

[ronnie624]

18. Energy from the sun can be stored in batteries.

You are correct of course, 100% solar power is probably not feasible. It would have to be supplemented by other means, but it is possible for practically every building to meet a significant portion of its energy needs by generating electricity from sunlight. Since heating, cooling and lighting buildings accounts for most of the energy consumed by humans, utilizing solar power for these purposes would significantly reduce the amount of carbon released into our environment.

The photo electric effect was discovered almost 100 years ago. dependable electric cars were operating in Detroit in 1915. Imagine where we would be right now, if these technologies had been developed and perfected.

We must stop burning for production of energy.

[thecrow]

19. This could be the way that energy companies could work

Collecting energy from HUGE solar collectors and storage of energy from the sun in places like Death Valley and other remote desert spots where there is plenty of solar energy and then redistributing it to parts of the country that need more, like... Minnesota... northern Canada..
Also maybe selling batteries, etc.

[ronnie624]

22. I think you're right.

A monumental effort to develop these technologies will be required.

The damage to the biosphere by the byproducts produced from burning hydrocarbons and the use of nitrogen based fertilizers is rapidly closing in on us. The ever increasing 'dead zones' at the mouths of the worlds rivers, is a frightening development, as is the disappearance of bees, frogs and other species.

My lip curls with disgust of its own volition at the stupidity of my own species, when I contemplate the resources squandered on the invasion of Iraq. That alone would probably set us on a path to long term survival.

[Duppers]

13. Thank You

we must rapidly move from burning ANYTHING as a source of energy

[kestrel91316]

5. The road to hell has ALWAYS been paved with good intentions.

We need to rethink our obsession with this energy-intensive lifestyle of ours......

[ProudDad]

8. Exactly!

Passive Solar, Photovoltaic Solar and Electric Vehicles...

The ONLY long term solution that's currently technically feasible and available, sustainable and definitely less harmful to the environment...

The rest of this crap is more corporate welfare...

ethanol - Corporate welfare, mainly for 3 huge corporations
hydrogen - BIG corporate welfare giveaway and infeasible
nuculer - Corporate welfare, and fucking dangerous to our health
fusion - Yeah, any day now
biodiesel - Potential Corporate welfare -- although us "little folk" can use is as a bridging fuel by cooking it at home...

[jaybeat]

11. I'm sorry, but this is oil-company BS

Bio-fuels, by definition, contribute ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NO additional greenhouse gases. Why, because the plants they are made from REMOVED greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, in climate terms, about 5 SECONDS ago. Take it out, put it back. NO NET CHANGE.

Fossil fuels are different because they are, well FOSSILS. When burned, they ADD greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that were removed millions of years ago. In climate terms, they are NEW, ADDITIONAL, EXTRA.

And, yes, regardless of what alternative energy solutions we pursue, we need, absolutely, to use MUCH LESS, wherever it comes from.

Keep in mind, too, the environmental hazards associated with battery technologies for electric vehicles, as well as weight vs. range issues. There is, unfortunately, no such thing as a free ride...

BUT, that doesn't make biofuels "corporate welfare" NECESSARILY. For example:

ethanol - Only if you make it from corn or other food crops; make it from biowaste, and you not only provide a new source of income for farmers, you can encourage sustainable farming practices at the same time.

hydrogen, nuclear, fusion - NOT bio-fuels

biodiesel - It is not just "little folk" cooking it at home, it is "little" companies making it on a scale that can actually reduce oil-imports and greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of subsidizing oil companies, wouldn't you rather subsidize bio-diesel companies, that provide a market for waste, create a product that does NOT contribute additional greenhouse gases, AND is made here, instead of the Middle East?

Clearly, we need to learn how to use less AND get it from better places, in forms that won't kill us.

[Duppers]

12. pass your joint

I'd like some of what you're smoking.

[ProudDad]

16. I've got no problem with "little" bio-deisel

It's a decent bridge between fossil and solar electric...

The problem with ethanol -- can't grow it at home! It's a huge welfare program for ADM, Cargil, etc.

Indeed, right now some subsidy on bio-diesel would be a good idea...but only at the small level - NOT FOR ADM or CARGIL!

You KNOW that once grass becomes a cash crop to make fuel with that the big corporations will monopolize it and screw ya' again...


I would prefer a huge subsidy for DECENTRALIZED SOLAR.

Solar -- once the equipment is installed you can grow it at home -- don't need the mega-corporations except for the one time construction of the panels, etc. (and I would prefer that We the People build them, not BP)

I envision decentralized solar power for the people -- not welfare programs for corporations...

[skids]

17. Cellulosic ethanol is OK...

...what of it they have working so far. Basically that market is a battle between a large "industry machine" that wants to keep the same players doing the same things, because it is a market they understand and can exploit (and already own), and smaller venture operations looking to do it right, but having to bootstrap it.

A side effect of the corporate welfare, though, is that the distribution side of ethanol will already be there for the cellulosic product. It's probably not worth the devastation of monoculture, but it's a silver lining at least.

Without ethanol, however, there would be a large cost and environmental impact associated with retrofitting or replacing existing vehicles before they wear out on their own. That may be a significant enough offset to justify corn based ethanol. Cars are not cheap from a pollution/carbon standpoint (Though there is definitely the potential for easy retrofits into EVs with stuff like the flightlink kit that could cut into that factor.)

I hope the Q-Microbe pans out. In the meantime, half of what you read about biofuels is honest criticism, the other half is oil company FUD. Try to bear that in mind. This article is the latter.

[Duppers]

14. Ck out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2999665

[Orsino]

20. What kind of biofuels aren't hydrocarbons?

Of course burning them contributes to global warming! Making them, rather than finding them, contributes even more. There might be some savings in particular combustion byproducts that are lower than with fossil fuels, but no, biofuels still emit greenhouse gases when burned.

[truthisfreedom]

21. Wind, solar, geothermal, wave-power, and in the mean time, heat-pump

systems are the only answer. Fuels other than pure hydrogen generated by electricity derived from one of those other methods I listed are ALL carbon-based and must be eliminated.

Bio-fuels are only good for reducing dependence on foreign oil, but they harm the food supply, waste water, and add greenhouse gases.