Biofuels - are we fooling ourselves ?

zod

Clearing land to produce biofuels such as ethanol will do more to exacerbate global warming than using gasoline or other fossil fuels, two scientific studies show.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-biofuel8feb08,1,7253036.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020704230.html?hpid=moreheadlines

carveone

zod wrote: »

Clearing land to produce biofuels such as ethanol will do more to exacerbate global warming than using gasoline or other fossil fuels, two scientific studies show.

The "running diesel cars on vegetable oil" thread intermittently referred to this too. As did the Nuclear Energy thread of course.

Personally I have nothing specifically against biofuels as long as they are grown/processed/etc only within the country that wants them. After all, the only reason governments are expressing interest is to lower their carbon credits, which IMHO should never have been transferable.

Another but lesser worry is that monsanto and other gmo firms are getting a foot in the door to EU countries based on biofuel growth. Don't like this myself.

Conor.

Gurgle

zod wrote: »

Clearing land to produce biofuels such as ethanol will do more to exacerbate global warming than using gasoline or other fossil fuels, two scientific studies show.

What a bizarre way of looking at bio-fuel.

converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades

Clearing land for anything from raising cattle to a golf course will have the same effect or worse.

AngryHippie

carveone wrote: »

Another but lesser worry is that monsanto and other gmo firms are getting a foot in the door to EU countries based on biofuel growth. Don't like this myself.

That would be a worry on an equal scale for me. There was an issue in the last few months of Dick Roche's tenure about the safety of a strain of Maize that was given a licence for trial crops in Ireland. I did contact the department requiring more information and sure enough t'was monsanto at the back of it all. I really don't trust the gmo firms, How some peole can dispute global warming and not question the same statistical methods in gmo/cancer links baffles me, But the trial in question turned out to be an issue over conflicting results, and went to re-testing which came up clear.
I still do not trust them. Personal opinion. Monsanto were in no way implicated in any wrongdoing.

Gurgle

AngryHippie wrote: »

I still do not trust them. Personal opinion. Monsanto were in no way implicated in any wrongdoing.

Each and every corporation exists for one purpose only - money. I would no more trust Microsoft, Toyota, Shell (lol), Benson & Hedges (rofl) or any other than Monsato.

But while I wouldn't knowingly eat GM Beef, I can't see any reason not to burn oil from GM crops.

carveone

Gurgle wrote: »

Each and every corporation exists for one purpose only - money. I would no more trust Microsoft, Toyota, Shell (lol), Benson & Hedges (rofl) or any other than Monsato.

Absolutely true. But monsanto have pushed things through by lobbying and other means (mainly Monsanto board members also being FDA members), that you have to watch them like a hawk. (I know - what does that mean...). A rabid dog isn't rabid through its own fault; but you still shoot it

Goodness knows what China's doing...

But while I wouldn't knowingly eat GM Beef, I can't see any reason not to burn oil from GM crops.

Canada. They're 0wned at this stage. All their crops are licenced, patented and DRMed. I'm concerned about cross contamination. Canadian farmers have discovered that not only are the winds blowing GM Canola all over the midwest, not only is the stuff impossible to get rid of (Using Roundup at least!), but Monsanto come over and sue you for licence infringement.

It's a foot in the door - we're doing X. Appears ok. Why not Y. And before you know it, all they have in the supermarket is GM Canola.

I did a little research on the makeup of GM crops a while ago. Interesting that they have chemical ID markers which are antibiotic based. This made me unhappy. Also, when I lived in Canada, I noticed that huge numbers of people had allergies and intolerances - I've never seen anything like it in Ireland.

(It's hard to write something coherent - I'm an engineer not a english major dammit. Watch Fiorsceal if you want to get annoyed about these things!)

Capt'n Midnight

GMO like Nuclear reactors has a place.

For nuclear its the provision of power where there is no other alternative , and for steralization and for medical uses and for xray usage.

For GMO it's to produce valuable medicines and similar high value products.

Nuclear power is not as clean as you would like.
GMO so far has been about profit. Why do we need plants with higher resistance to pesticide unless it's to use more pesticide ? Cross contamination of wild organisms is a problem we don't know the risks. Patents on plants is nearly as sick as those on medicines.

If these plants could grow with less petrochemical input then you might consider them, but the truth is that fertilizers are needed.

SeanW

I think biofuels do have a role to play. certainly as a diesel substitute, but there are many caveats.

Firstly, biofuels are not going to solve our problems. Even with the best crop selection and the best technologies, it's only ever going to sort out some of our transport needs.

Secondly, some crops and fuel types have better EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) ratios. how much exactly is normally a matter of debate, but certain things are known, like that biodiesel production is usually better than that of ethanol. So if the biofuel of choice is biodiesel, then we have to look at where to get it - the developed world has a surplus of agricultural capacity so commissioning energy crops like canola rapeseed (which is a good vegetable oil feedstock) from domestic farmers might be a good way to soak that up. Palm oil is also a good feedstock for warm weather uses as palm plantations can deliver significantly more litres of veggie oil than rapeseed and dramatically more than soybeans. Jatropha, considered a weed in the 3rd world, can be used to make vegetable oils, and can be grown in marginal land, existing plant fencing etc. Good times ahead - if we make the right choices.

Biofuels do have a problem with enviro fruitloops though who have gone down the same road as they did with nuclear power, George Monbiot for example made a huge fuss about the destruction of rainforests in Malasyia. Fair enough that was not good, but that didn't attract enough attention so he came back the following year with an article about how biofuels were killing poor people - i.e. those who could not afford to pay for food. All this when a simple look at economics and history, as well as an examination of agricultural surpluses, proved it to be completely wrong.

Given some of the anti-biofuels stuff that's out there, a reasonable person could be forgiven for having a feeling of DejaVu.

However, I 100% oppose the use of biofuels for electricity. Biofuels should be confined to transport, generally speaking. Because there simply isn't enough land and we need the liquid fuels for transport. Even if we had loads of spare land to grow biofuels for all our energy needs - if in a simple scenario we had a choice of using such lands to grow electricity crops or use nuclear, (or even much as I hate it coal) for the electricity and commit the land in question for use as a nature reserve, I would much prefer the latter.

I also oppose the use of fossil fuels for this purpose and many of you will have seen me promote various alternatives. When it comes to electricity, I think weather based renewables (wave, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal) should be used a first option but with a nuclear backed baseline where that is needed.

If we were to pursue what I've called a "mutli-pronged non-fossil strategy" of renewables and nuclear in electricity, carefully chosen biofuels and electricity for transport, as well as conservation across the board (better planning, public transport, energy efficiency measures etc), and pursued each of these options with equal vigour, I think we would be doing alright.