Posted on 09/22/2007 6:13:26 AM PDT by LoneStarGI
Corn-derived renewable energy sources create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, according to a study from an international team of scientists reported in the London Times. Research findings published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics calculate that corn and rapeseed biodiesels produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. Read about the eye-opening fuel alternative study in London Times report. The study focues on nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research was performed by scientists from the U.S. Britain, and Germany and it included Professor Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning ozone scholar. Corn-based ethanol is the leading biofuel alternative in the US while rapeseed is used in 80 percent of biofuels created in Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Perhaps, but they cycle it. You dump the carbon into the atmosphere, then the plants take it out, you turn the plants into biofuels, and then dump it back into the atmosphere. And it goes on and on without any long term build up of carbon in the atmosphere.
A. The article is about nitrous oxide, not carbon.
B. I presume that the carbon generated by petroleum based fuels would also be taken out by the same plants you cite?
C. I remember when MTB additives were going to save the world - that worked real well. I also remember the little NOX gizmos we had to run for a couple of years - which were quietly dropped from the program.
>>>Corn-derived renewable energy sources create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels,
But corn-derived renewables aren’t the crop pegged for the long term source. Last weekend the History Channel ran several Modern Marvel episodes back to back on renewable energy tech, including this subject. For example at peak efficiency the corn yields only 13 energy units for every 10 put into the crop and processing. The sugar cane used in Brazil yields about 16 for 10 which isn’t much better. Instead there is some weed crop that is closer to 2 to 1, and much simpler to farm and process.
I wonder how this affects the calculations for this study. Either way the corn ethanol is no bargain adding in the food price hikes from taking crops out of the food market.
Hold it, I read too quickly. They do address rapeseed in their calculations. That’s an interesting quandry for the biofuel lobby to have to deal with. If Modern Marvel’s numbers were right, the 2 for 1 gain balances out the 50 % greenhouse gas increase from the stuff so no greenhouse advantage whatsoever, but still a partial oil substitute.
“I presume that the carbon generated by petroleum based fuels would also be taken out by the same plants you cite?”
Yes, but the difference is that you’re not introducing any new carbon that wasn’t already in the atmosphere. Before you can burn it, you’ve got to take it out of the atmosphere by growing plants.
Mind you, I’m not saying biofuels are a panacea. They are a long way from practicality, but more because of the cost than anything else.
N2o is gonna harm the environment. At least it won't feel the pain. (:^D)
At least we will be able to laugh about it!
this type of report will be:
buried
dismissed
twisted....
all in an effort to keep america from using its own natural resources and drilling for the tons of oil we have available to us in our own country.
Would that have been switchgrass by any chance? I've been hearing about that lately.
The other thing that people need to know is that a gallon of ethanol does not produce the same amount of BTU's as a gallon of regular gasoline. In fact it is quite a bit less. I don't have the numbers handy, but if I remember "ballpark figures" it was about 111,000 BTU's/gal of ethanol, vs. 160,000 BTU's/gal for regular unleaded gas. Whatever the exact numbers are, the point is that it takes more ethanol to produce the same amount of work.
I did a comparison in my work truck. I ran ethanol (10%) gas for one month and tracked my milage carefully. I then ran regular unleaded for a month and compared. I got on average 2.5 mpg less with the ethanol than the regular gas. With the 34 gallon tank on my truck that works to over 80 miles less distance on a tank of gas if I use ethanol. I don't use it unless I have to.
Cue the hempsters!
Methinks the research is BS. Nitrous oxide will very quickly be absorbed by any clouds (and in fact will serve as a nucleating agent for cloud formation), and quickly be returned to earth as soluble nitrates (aka "fertilizer").
Ultimately, it will be. Right now, the sawgrass route still has some "bugs" to be worked out. The likely scenario will be that the "ethanol biofuel" fraction of biofuels will START UP with corn, and switch to sawgrass in the future.
If greenhouse gasses are so damn bad why don’t we ban soda pop?
I’m not too surprised to read this. I have known for a while that most biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc) have an Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) of about 1. That is they require one BTU of energy invested to get about one BTU of energy out.
But...most of the EROEI studies only include the direct energy used to produce the biofuel. They don’t include the indirect energy used to produce the biofuel. If all of the energy sources(indirect and direct) were included then the real EROEI would be about 0.5. So you burn more energy making these products than you get out and you emit more greenhouse gases than you save.
For those who aren’t aware, here are some examples of the differnces between the direct and indirect energy involved:
All of the diesel fuel used by the tractor to till the field, fertilize the field, and harvest the crops is direct energy...but the diesel fuel used to make the tractor (including mining the raw materials), transport the tractor to the farm and maintain the tractor over its life are indirect sources of energy.
All of the process heating used in the biofuel plant is a direct source of energy, but the entire energy demand for the plant (including the energy to run the offices, lighting and warehousing (forklifts, etc) is indirect energy.
By comparison, oil coal and natural gas have EROEI in the range of 7 to 10.
[Corn-derived renewable energy sources create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, according to a study from an international team of scientists reported in the London Times.]
It won’t make a differnece to the brainwashed American citizens who have abandoned truth and science and whose agenda is to destroy the middle class using the useful idiots who will beleive their lies.
Gasoline is about 110,000 BTUs/gallon. Number 2 fuel (30 API gravity) is about 135,000 BTUs/gallon. 10 API Number 6 fuel is 150,000 and slurry oil (Negative gravity cracked, low sulfur) is 159,000 BTUs/gallon.
[burieddismissedtwisted....
all in an effort to keep america from using its own natural resources and drilling for the tons of oil we have available to us in our own country.]
The political developing socialist system requires that nations must depend on other nations and the middle class must be subjegated and deprived of all rights and reason and private property, high fuel costs is one way for the socialist to destroy the too rich middle class America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.