Now all we have to do is figure out how to get rid of another stupid mandate from our Congress.
In a report on the impact of biofuels, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal".
"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," the OECD said.
"When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel," it added.
The OECD therefore called on governments to cut their subsidies for the sector and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production.
"Governments should cease to create new mandates for biofuels and investigate ways to phase them out," it said.
Be sure to check out Senior Editor John O'Dell's newest addition to our lineup, the Green Car Advisor for news and commentary on environmental automotive trends and technologies.
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.
Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”
From all of the articles I have read on Ethanol- A LOT.. things appear to be healthy for the environment. Especially when using the cellulosic method. Unlike corn ethanol- there are plenty of renewable resources such as switchgrass, paper sludge, and other biomasses. However, I think there are some main questions to ask about the legislation in the long term - not just for our environment but for our Economic Health as consumers. What about vehicle prices? They are sure to sky rocket What about the price of Ethanol? (it is already close to the current price of gas) What about the BIG OLI companies? (Do you really think they are going to let good ole Mr Clampett take over?
Yes, there are benefits to the plan- but at the cost of WHOM? Sacrifice is a mutha...
The question I have about corn ethanol subsidies is - are the subsidies helping or hindering the development of cellulosic ethanol?
I could see it helping in that a market and distrubution system will, perhaps, be deveoped, but I could also see it hindering as the subsidies make taking the safe path of producing corn ethanol profitable, thus reducing the incentive to take the risk of investing in development of cellulosic.
Some very interesting recent news regarding new fuels that are soon to be introduced. Now I do not know what type of volume they will produce however it is a good start.
The first starts with the "First Cellulosic Ethanol Demonstration-Scale Plant". Perfect for those anti-corn ethanol haters.
Again all these anouncements are a good start but in order for them to make a significant contribution to the energy sector it would have to build huge facilities to support this countries needs.
ANY fuel that comes directly from a green feedstock HAS TO BE greener than gasoline, for the plant that originated it processed CO2 throughout its entire life, so the CO2 that will be produced from burning the fuel has ALREADY been "paid off"
In fact, it is THEORETICALLY possible that ethanol as ANY other biofuel be "carbon neutral" because of that.
That means that NO MATTER how much of it you burn, it will still be carbon neutral
So you can have an "ethanol guzzler" and not feel bad about it. In theory!
Yes in theory ethanol should be better than fossil fuel. In the USA we use just about as much fossil fuel to produce the corn and distill it as we get back in BTUs of energy. One study out of Brazil, if I remember correctly, stated it takes over 90 years of producing an ethanol crop to mitigate the GHG from burning the field originally. I don't know much about raising sugar cane in Brazil. I do know in Hawaii when they burn off the fields before they harvest the cane it puts out a lot of pollution. Almost all the sugar farms in Hawaii have been converted to other less polluting crops such as macadamia nuts and papayas. Do you really want to destroy your country so we can have more ethanol?
Comments
In a report on the impact of biofuels, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal".
"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," the OECD said.
"When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel," it added.
The OECD therefore called on governments to cut their subsidies for the sector and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production.
"Governments should cease to create new mandates for biofuels and investigate ways to phase them out," it said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2007-09- -11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rss&rpc=23&sp- =true
Looking forward to all your comments!
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.
Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
Rush To Judgment
What about vehicle prices? They are sure to sky rocket
What about the price of Ethanol? (it is already close to the current price of gas)
What about the BIG OLI companies? (Do you really think they are going to let
good ole Mr Clampett take over?
Yes, there are benefits to the plan- but at the cost of WHOM? Sacrifice is a mutha...
It looks to me like you already know the answer to that question. WE are going to pay for any energy plan the FEDS concoct. And pay dearly.
I could see it helping in that a market and distrubution system will, perhaps, be deveoped, but I could also see it hindering as the subsidies make taking the safe path of producing corn ethanol profitable, thus reducing the incentive to take the risk of investing in development of cellulosic.
The first starts with the "First Cellulosic Ethanol Demonstration-Scale Plant". Perfect for those anti-corn ethanol haters.
http://ir.verenium.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=81345&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1151140&highl- - ight=
Second is 91 octane gasoline made from algae. They can produce it at $1.35 a gallon. Talk about green.
http://www.sapphireenergy.com/mediacenter/press_release/1
Again all these anouncements are a good start but in order for them to make a significant contribution to the energy sector it would have to build huge facilities to support this countries needs.
In fact, it is THEORETICALLY possible that ethanol as ANY other biofuel be "carbon neutral" because of that.
That means that NO MATTER how much of it you burn, it will still be carbon neutral
So you can have an "ethanol guzzler" and not feel bad about it. In theory!