Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

[brainstorm]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...&dlvrit=309301

Green schemes to fight climate change by producing more bio-fuels could actually worsen a little-known type of air pollution and cause almost 1,400 premature deaths a year in Europe by 2020, a study showed on Sunday.

The report said trees grown to produce wood fuel - seen as a cleaner alternative to oil and coal - released a chemical into the air that, when mixed with other pollutants, could also reduce farmers' crop yields.

"Growing biofuels is thought to be a good thing because it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," said Nick Hewitt, who worked on the study with colleagues from England's Lancaster University.

"What we're saying is 'yes, that's great, but biofuels could also have a detrimental effect on air quality'," he added.

[G8trGr8t]

Researchers at Texas A&M University have estimated that diverting corn to make ethanol forces Americans to pay $40 billion a year in higher food prices. On top of that, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

As for the environmental virtues of ethanol, those were debunked long ago. True, gasoline-ethanol blends can lower greenhouse emissions by 20 percent, and ethanol can replace toxic additives such as benzene that make gasoline more combustible. But growing corn is energy intensive. Tractors that run on diesel fuel must plow fields, plant seed, spread fertilizer and pesticides (that run into local waterways), harvest the crop and haul it to refining plants. Unlike oil, ethanol is highly corrosive and can’t be transported by pipeline. Trucks or trains must carry the finished product to gasoline blenders. By some calculations, ethanol takes more energy to produce than it yields, negating the environmental benefits.
More than 150 House members and 25 U.S. senators, as well as the director general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, have asked Obama to temporarily suspend the ethanol mandate in order to check the rise in food prices. He should listen to them, and Congress should permanently roll back the ethanol requirements.

This isn’t to say ethanol doesn’t have a place in the U.S. energy mix. Gasoline needs to be combined with agents that carry oxygen to help cars and trucks run more efficiently. Ethanol fits the bill. But the government should let the demand for ethanol obey the laws of the market, rather than the desires of the agricultural lobby.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...cost-more.html

[rpmGator]

Bush allowed the midwest corn state to corner the market on ethanol, when non food sources are cheaper. That hasn't changed but should.

Carbon Dioxide is killing the coral reefs which give us a huge portion of the air we need to live on .

MTBE, which is the ingredient replaced by ethanol is one of the worst things to ruin drinking water. Your concern for the alternative is like saying one fly is worse than a thousand.

By the way, if you have a half tankful of ethanol fuel in your boat, use it up before you fill up with any mtbe fuel, as it will ruin your motor if you mix the two.

Wood is carbon neutral. It takes in as much as it gives off when burned. If you let it rot, it gives off the same amount as when it is burned.

Tell your pals in OPEC you will keep trying...

[G8trGr8t]

No pals in OPEC. Friends and investments in domestic oil and gas. It is the industry that is going to help bale this country out ifwhen we get a leader with common sense that doesn't base policies on hopey for changey feel good fluff

[rpmGator]

You call it fluff, I call it diversification. We have done it your way forever, and we are stil the bitch of OPEC.

Your way, keeps us in the same boat as always. Doing the same things, and expecting a different result....

We are doing quite well on oil, while added new energy systems, and fuels. I am not in it for profit like you. I am in it for the good of the nation.

[brainstorm]

I found the article interesting in that it is research and addresses something I hadn't considered - that biofuels might not burn as clean as I thought.

I certainly wasn't making commentary with the OP, just bringing up an article I found of interest. I think the topic merits discussion. I have high hopes for biofuels. And they still appear cleaner than burning traditional oil.

[G8trGr8t]

My way would be using Nat gas as a surface transport fuel. Let me know when we quit wasting money on solyndras and volts and start trying my way. Meanwhile we guarantee low interest loans to Petrobas while domestic oilers pay 7 - 12% for their loans. We continue these stupid ethanol subsidies regardless of impact to energy costs or food costs when we need to be lowering price of food and energy. Lower energy prices means more jobs here and more disposable income. You keep investing in hopey changey solyndras and ill keep investing for profit and the long term benefit of the country..or I bet you don't invest in solyndras because they are only good when they cost somebody else money

[rpmGator]

Fact is, corn planted more acres than needed, in order to make ethanol. Might want to watch the ag channel once in a while. The corn yeild for food only was actualy higher while getting blamed for not having enough.

Price rise for food crops is from oil prices going up. The transport systems and the machinery used to produce crops as well as fertilizer which can be an oil product, rose during the era ethanol got the blame for.

We are making ethanol here in Florida from waste from OJ and timber products. It is easy to change the source of ethanol and drop the price to boot, but the midwest does not want to let go of its monopoly.

And anything burned, will cause pollution of some sort. But with the majority of problems being carbons, fighting the midget instead of the giant, won't do as much to improve things.

Been for more NG for a long time now and have posted about how the Apopka police force has cars that can run on either gasoline or natural gas. But cars can also run on wind power due to electric cars.

Which means, no fuel or water has to be used to drive to the mall. Why fight that unless your wallet is on the line. Hey wait, it is.

[G8trGr8t]

Researchers at Texas A&M University have estimated that diverting corn to make ethanol forces Americans to pay $40 billion a year in higher food prices. On top of that, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

guess you missed this.driving up the cost of energy..

and where is your wallet? is it backing your posts?

are you investing in windmills, solar farms, and electric cars? didn't think so. car 9...need some help here..in hot pursuit of murder suspect but battery about to die, headed to charging station, will be offline for 2 hours...car 9 out

and cellulistic feedstock is not being done on any scale because it costs too much. can you show me any commercial scale plants making ethanol with wood or oj squeezings? what is their price per gallon to produce? they have been trying for 10 years now and it is still cheaper to use corn which still costs more than oil while driving up the cost of food...all those corn fields could also be producing other crops that impact the price of food or producing enough corn that the price comes down..you know, supply and demand thingy...more supply, price comes down, unless our stupid gubmnt pays em to not grow anything..oh wait, we do that too, the stupidity abounds

nope, just steal more money from future generations to spend on things that are not economically competetive. always easier to spend somebody else's money isn't it. the democratic way