Do Biofuels Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions? (arstechnica.com) 36
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.
Don't about that... (Score:2, Funny)
...but I can report that the edible biofuels from Taco Bell certainly cause gas emissions from me.
Re: (Score:1)
...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: (Score:3)
There are really two parts of a vaguely modern vehicle that are attacked by the results of using ethanol fuel, fuel pumps and the injection equipment whether that's a carburetor or a fuel injector. Those parts have steel bits, including jets or nozzles, and the ethanol draws water in from the atmosphere and then it evaporates. That leads to corrosion of these parts.
Ethanol is a potential problem for hoses and seals, but this is only usually an issue for much older vehicles and the fix is pretty easy, except
Re: this isn't a new idea. (Score:2)
Re: this isn't a new idea. (Score:1)
Re: this isn't a new idea. (Score:1)
Re:this isn't a new idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
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 create an ethanol lawnmower is because battery lawnmowers are an extremely obvious and far better solution than faffing around with a fuel mix and engine.
Re: (Score:1)
The energy in to energy out has been studied many times on various energy sources. Here's an admittedly outdated chart posted to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That chart is outdated but it's likely still accurate to an order of magnitude.
Did I point out that the chart is outdated? I don't want to see a reply complaining about how it is outdated. I'd appreciate it if someone could point to an updated chart though.
I've seen other EROI charts like this elsewhere and there's a general agreement
BioFuel stabilizes Crop Prices (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Farmers love biofuels because it adds to the baseline demand for crops, raising the price floor for corn (ethanol) and soybeans (bio-diesel). Like any commodity, sales price fluctuates but the input costs are fixed.
Corn subsidies are popular because Iowa is an early primary state and grows a lot of corn. By promising corn farmers federal support for making a profit there's some early favorable results that can allow the candidate to get some attention for primaries later on in the campaign. It's not just Iowa though, other states grow plenty of corn and so that helps all the way up to Super Tuesday when the campaigns effectively end. There will be states holding primaries after Super Tuesday but by that point there
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!
Re: (Score:2)
The fuel isn't the problem. Basing ethanol production on topsoil is the problem.
Sandia NREL proved in the 1980s you can grow algae economically in open raceway ponds, and you don't even need to add algae. The air will do it for you, and the most efficient algae to produce at your latitude and in your local conditions will outcompete other strains so you will automatically get the most beneficial species for production in your location.
The focus at the time was for lipids for biodiesel production. But you co
Re: Is there anyone over the age of 12 (Score:1)
Anyone buying it is a moron - 15% savings for 20% less mileage AND increased gasket damage.
Plus, as I understand since it's not for human consumption, many of the limits on weedkiller etc are suspended or drastically reduced leading to increased contamination of drainage basins and rivers.
Ethanol was a stupid idea on every level.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone buying it is a moron - 15% savings for 20% less mileage AND increased gasket damage.
Yep, I can back up the claim on seeing a loss in miles that the lower cost does not make up for. Ethanol blended fuels means more money per mile.
Plus, as I understand since it's not for human consumption, many of the limits on weedkiller etc are suspended or drastically reduced leading to increased contamination of drainage basins and rivers.
Do you mean the corn after it has been picked? The farmers don't know if their corn is for human consumption so they will meet all requirements on herbicides and pesticides to allow for human consumption. On the family farm I grew up on a portion of the corn went to our livestock, and we would eat the meat from that livestock. Would a farmer do anything that co
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:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you wish to make a gallon of petroleum from scratch, you must first evolve the dinosaur." --not Carl Sagan
So do you have proof or are you just speculating? Because quite a lot of ancient energy went into making oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the '70s, cars were "dirtier" than today, and some EPA folks realized: "If we put some oxygen into the gasoline, engines will burn leaner, emitting less unburnt hydrocarbons!" That's true, if your engine has a carburetor. Accordingly, "oxygenate" was mandated for all gasoline. MTBE was one oxygenate, ethanol (from corn) was another. And, the science worked, and the air got a bit cleaner.
Fast forward to the 90s, when all cars had fuel injection and oxygen
angels (Score:2)
"Do Biofuels Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?"
Well, we have been working on resolving that. It turns out it depends on the exact number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you believe that the greenhouse gas emissions from biomass fuels is equivalent to something as unknowable and philosophical as counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin? I would believe this is something that can be calculated, or at least estimated to within an order of magnitude. If there is any question on the benefits of biomass fuels being a net benefit then it is because one of the error bars entered the area on the graph that indicate no benefit.
I would believe that if this questio