Do Biofuels Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions? (arstechnica.com) 23
Will an expansion of biofuels increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits? That's the claim of a new report from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past.
Ars Technica has republished an article from the nonprofit, non-partisan news organization Inside Climate News, which investigates the claim. Drawing from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts, the Institute's new report "concludes that [U.S.] ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand." "Multiple studies show that U.S. biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use," said the report's lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. "Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest...."
It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest.
On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already — about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too.
Ars Technica has republished an article from the nonprofit, non-partisan news organization Inside Climate News, which investigates the claim. Drawing from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts, the Institute's new report "concludes that [U.S.] ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand." "Multiple studies show that U.S. biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use," said the report's lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. "Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest...."
It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest.
On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already — about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too.
Re: (Score:2)
...but I can report that the edible biofuels from Taco Bell certainly cause gas emissions from me.
Those seated nearby may disagree, but with respect to the entire atmosphere that is carbon neutral.
I am assuming of course that Taco Bell is still using organic material in their products and not creating a meatless meet from petroleum.
this isn't a new idea. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ethanol might burn cleaner, but it produces more emissions than gasoline. Also, it can eat away at various parts of an engine if the engine isn't designed for ethanol use.
Re: this isn't a new idea. (Score:2)
Re: this isn't a new idea. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't really been a move to use biofuels anywhere but on vehicles.
You haven't been paying attention. Biofuels have been touted as a solution and are being actively used in a variety of industries and engines. It may however have a fancy name, for example "SAF" (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) is a biofuel. Shipping industry is currently using a mixture of FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) and FT-diesel (Fisher Tropsch), both biofuels, but still at an insanely low percentage.
I had hoped ethanol might be an option for small engines like lawnmowers.
Why settle for a worse solution than the one you have already discovered. The reason no one wants to creat
BioFuel stabilizes Crop Prices (Score:4, Interesting)
It's pretty bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's compounded with corn when you consider that around 40% of domestic use of corn in the US is to feed livestock (who in turn generate even more greenhouse gasses.) A further 10-20% is also exported for feed elsewhere.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance [usda.gov]
And get this, less than 2% of all corn grown in the US is eaten directly by humans.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't anything to do with biofuel.
Is there anyone over the age of 12 (Score:5, Informative)
It's one of the first bits of corporate corruption you learn when you're a kid. You see the word ethanol on a gas pump while your parents are filling up and you wonder about it and it isn't long before you find out what it is and why it's there.
I guess it's a slow news day and all. They're certainly isn't anything else going on around America. No siree.
Butter and margarine all over again (Score:2)
the past repeats . . .
margarine was supposed to be better for us than that awful butter.
But, gee whiz, when we got down to it and actually looked, this chemical concoction designed to mimic the taste chemistry of butter also mimicked other properties--and was *worse* . . .
now, we make a fuel to mimic the combustion chemistry of current fuels, and, well, . . . surprise!
Sugarcane makes more sense (Score:2)
Using corn to make ethanol is borderline stupid, it has lower yields and higher costs and more directly displaces food production, sugarcane is a much better crop for this purpose but is hard to grow in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
An ICE design engineer I know (who really wants engines that turn most of their input energy directly into waste heat to not be obsolete in cars) likes switchgrass for producing ethanol in the US.
Pretty well known... (Score:2)
Bullshit argument (Score:3)
The reasons for making bio-fuel were; to prevent produce being dumped and to stabilize demand for corn, to make fuel cheaper and reduce oil imports. It was never about being 'green'. The lower car pollution wasn't really a selling point since making ethanol required far more energy than 'making' oil.