Slashdot has an entry that ought to give us pause before betting the farm (literally in some cases) on biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels. (The main link is to a Seattle Times article).
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… 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.
In short, the studies suggest that the biofuels might produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Even if these studies are accurate, there might be short term reasons to prefer biofuels to fossil fuels – shortages of the latter, geopolitical reasons – our oil is buried under some pretty unstable countries; etc. But, we should keep looking for better energy sources.
What’s needed is a breakthrough in making ethanol from waste biomass – and an end to the subsidies on making ethanol from food crops – and an end to the tariffs on imported ethanol.
I think Archer Daniels Midland can make enough money without being subsidized in doing harmful things…
Is the equipment used for refining and transport able to run on the biofuels? Obviously the “renewable resource” concept is in play as well, but I agree with Doug… we need to keep looking.
The “eating CO2” agruement is false, unless we start CREATING farmland. As I have seen it, we have just shifted where the corn goes after being grown. Eating it doesn’t make as much CO2 as burning it, and we’re already growing it.
google “cellulosic ethanol”
then decriminalize hemp. then turn the hemp into fuel, and hempseed biodiesel.
the sooner we turn off the arab/exxon oil spigots( 40, billion in profits- thats excess ive prices at the pump, at our expense, btw); the sooner we can tell our islamic enemies to pound sand, and eat their oil. let their god feed them.
and safe uclear energy- cheap electricity. electric/hybrid cars. ride a harley. anybody know where I can find a VW microbus, or bettle?
ahh those were the days…
Most of the corn crop is used as animal feed; ethanol is a major consumer of late too. Here’s a link detailing usage of the 2007 crop from Iowa.
MartyL –
What is ‘late’ and how does ethanol consume it?
Oh, I guess that was confusing…I just mean that the significance of ethanol production in terms of corn (maize) consumption is recent. Still, most goes to feed livestock, mainly cattle, hogs and chickens. For details click on the word ‘link’ in my prior post (the links are invisible until you mouseover).
Hmm.
“Most goes to feed livestock, mainly cattle, hogs and chickens”.
If the math I did from your source is correct, having about 20% of our corn production go to ethanol production is pretty significant.
Personally, I don’t want to see the current subsidies and tariffs continue – unless ADM wants to split the money with me…
Parker,
He meant “of late” as an adverbial phrase, not a prepositional one.
E.g.,
“My wife hasn’t asked me to go the store for maxi pads,” Tom’s been saying of late.
But I thought a preposition was something you should never end a sentence with!