Skip to comments.Green Dreams Shattered: EU Biofuels Program Will Increase Carbon Emissions
Posted on 11/11/2010 8:01:08 AM PST by seamus
I love all those "green future" commercials companies like Exxon and BP ("Beyond Petroleum") run. They never fail to get a chuckle out of me, no matter how often I see them.
I cant remember who is responsible for the latest one in which an engineer and a teacher (both actors, of course) speak almost simultaneously in split screen. They both talk about how we need to get off of carbon-based fuels like petroleum. Ive only seen it once and will likely see it 100 times more but my initial guffaw line was when the teacher, in exasperation, wonders why our cars arent running on compost already! or something.
The Heartland Institute has labored mightily over the last several years to expose the green economy scam. So its nice to see the MSM at least in Britain get wise and report on it. The November 10 Independent of London reports a story with the headline: Biofuel plan will cause rise in carbon emissions. You dont say!
The first four graphs of the story lay it out in refreshingly clear terms:
Britains promise to more than double its use of biofuels by 2020 is significantly adding to worldwide carbon emissions, the Government admitted yesterday. Britain is signed up to a European guarantee to source 10 per cent of its transport fuel from renewable sources, such as biofuels, within the next 10 years. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at somewhatreasonable.com ...
No matter what the project, plan or promise ... if the loony left supports it, you KNOW it’s a lie.
It doesn’t matter. This isn’t about carbon. It’s about envy. Leftists want to punish people who use energy.
Instead of taking the consumers tax dollars to create something that costs the consumer more money to have, try letting the marketplace create something that will save the consumer money and is affordable enough to make the consumer want it more than anything else.
Leftists want to punish peopleThat's more like it! ;-) Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption ... whatever the left calls it doesn't matter. This has never been about saving the planet. It's been, from the start, about controlling the people who live on the planet -- which is reason enough to resist even if the science wasn't bogus.
who use energy.
The study, from the Institute for European Environmental Policy, found that far from being 35 to 50 per cent less polluting, as required by the European Directive, the extra biofuels will be twice as bad for the environment.
This is yet another reason why its a shame that Prop 23 didnt pass in California. The voters of the former Golden State condemned their economy to stagnation because they believed the fantasy that a major industrial economy can simply state that they will go green and (1) it will not result in economic disaster and (2) its even a good thing for the environment.
They are idiots, and I know this is not news to anyone other than the Kos/DU trolls who occasionally lurk. Without getting terribly advanced, a little technical but not overboard at least, all educated people who think for themselves should be able to recognize that biofuels have no net carbon emissions. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.
Suppose that I decide to grow corn, soy, and switchgrass for biofuel purposes. When they are burned, they will, of course, release all that carbon into the air. But where did the carbon in my switchgrass come from? Hint: high school biology; 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy ---> C6H12O6 + 6O2 [carbon dioxide plus water plus sunlight gives sugar plus oxygen]. The carbon in our biofuel crops comes from . . . atmospheric CO2.
The morons in the environmental movement are somewhat silly to count CO2 as pollution at all, but to count a closed cycle with no net CO2 release at all as worse than the open cycle that releases carbon from coal or from oil is insane even by environmentalist standards.
A little picture of what I said. All carbon in plant matter comes from the air. Growing crops for biofuels, burning them, and re-releasing the carbon is carbon neutral.
He has missed the ignorant GE commercials with the neon green posts sticking out of the fround that everyone is suppose to plug in thier “electric” car.
And don’t forget their mercury lightbulbs.
I wonder if “mad cow disease” was really a disease?
If it comes from a greenie it is a LIE.
Isn't that the point they are making.
This is because Europe will need to cultivate an area somewhere between the size of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland with biofuels to meet the target, which can only be done through land conversion and more controversially, deforestation. The work will be on such a scale that the carbon released from the vegetation, trees and soil will be far greater than those given off by fossil fuels they are designed to replace.
Of course, which is why the major stockholders of energy companies are big donors to green groups. In fact, I have never seen a major environmental initiative that did not consume MORE oil and gas. Not one. Everything from replacing trees with cement and plastic to the pumping and transportation of raw material feedstocks, it's all the same.
I don't give a hang about anthropogenic CO2, but I do think improving soil fertility is a big deal, particularly in mesic and xeric systems.
Good point. However, you can go even beyond that. The net OXYGEN production of any tree, plant, or grass, from seed through growth and maturity to death and decay, is exactly ZERO. Planting trees, or anything else, does not add one single oxygen molecule to the atmosphere, once you take into account the fact that after the plant dies, it will be oxidized again (burned, eaten by termites, etc.).
I don't think that was their point. The actual energy for distilling is relatively low because of the use of heat exchangers. One of their points was the deforestation for crops, but I didn't find that convincing either. My impression is that we have farmland that is no longer used for that purpose as crop yields continue to rise, so there is no major need for new deforestation.
As long as we don’t care about eating maybe.
Then again refining those things into fuels is also causing pollution
It’s about time people got a memo about what the French got right. Yes Nuclear Energy, a nuclear power grid. It’s about time America got more nuclear too.
Come on folks, nuclear energy is the future! WHY TRY TO GET AROUND IT?!!!!
Doesn't the making of ethanol...( The actual distilling, or whatever they do...) take energy of some sort? Isn't that the point they are making?This is correct. Studies in the US have shown that the net-energy expense is either equal or exceeds what it takes to produce ethanol, truck it to refineries, add the right mixture, etc. And then there's the separate issue of how taking corn out of the food supply and pouring it into our gas tanks artificially inflate food prices -- all done with enormous taxpayer subsidies to the ethanol industry. It's a sick cycle.
It just gets better and better, doesn’t it?
I’ve noticed lately that there is less and less talk about “global warming” and “climate change”. The BS is starting to dissipate, even though the slimestream media doesn’t want to report on the discoveries of all the fraudulent claims, the vast amount of money that was intended to be sucked out of the populace and basically what was the grandest fraud/scam ever attempted. It’s the story of the new century, yet what do we hear from them?
What does that mean?
The heat input to the heat exchangers is energy and has to come from somewhere.
The energy input lasts a long time and distills quite a bit of alcohol or whatever you are processing out of the biofuel mass. It's quite efficient compared to the country still making moonshine that we often visualize.
Nice image, Veni.
So you are saying the fermentation creates heat that is then recovered and used in other areas of the process, if I read that correctly.
Not quite. Fermentation only produces a little heat, too little to recapture profitably. It's distillation that allows for reusing the heat through a regenerative heat exchange system. As alcohol-free liquid flows out, it pre-heats the alcohol-laden fluid that is ready to be distilled, cooling to room temperature as the fluid is heated to near the boiling point with negligible loss. The design is copied from nature:
"Counter Current Circulation": Arctic animals try to keep their temperature constant, but their legs remain cold, while their head and body core remain warm. This seems like a difficult feat, but with an adaptation called countercurrent heat exchange it requires little energy. In this system of circulation arteries, which carry warm blood from the heart to the extremities, lie very close to the veins, which carry blood from the cold extremities of the body back to the heart. In this way, heat from the warm arterial blood is transferred to the colder blood in a vein, thereby cooling the blood in the artery and warming the venous blood. Thus, as blood from the body reaches the extremities, it is already cooled and loses very little additional heat to the environment. Conversely, cool blood from the extremities is warmed prior to reaching the body core and does not shock the heart or reduce internal body temperature. The countercurrent exchange system has been well studied in both the arctic fox and the caribou, which maintain their core temperature nearly 30°C higher than their appendages.