Biofuels emissions may be 'worse than petrol'

[Steam]

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the "carbon debt" accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Read the full article here at New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13289-biofuels-emissions-may-be-worse-than-petrol.html)

All I have to say is
We are all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMED (doomed. Yes indeed. Get your kicks while you can)

[Dargor]

Quit your doom talk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_engine

[Gubb]

Went and had a look at the Gull website, and it say that their Ethanol fuel is a no-go for Hyosungs.

Gutted, will I have to replace the fuel lines when the Ethanol mix becomes the only option, or is it just replacing 95/98 Octane?

[Macstar]

Oil companies pay 100s of millions for "scientific research" favorable to their business... Gotta take these articles, as with others, with a grain of salt.

[Cruisin' Craig]

[INDENT][I]Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.



A good article thanks.
It seems to me that often people fail to look at the big picture.

Biofuels are great as long as you look only at emissions and forget to take the manufacturing part into account.

Nuclear power is great as long as you don't think about how much energy is used decommissioning them afterwards and disposing of the waste.

And if people only looked at the true long term cost, they might realise that investing some money in renewable energy sources isn't quite so expensive after all!

[davereid]

Oil companies pay 100s of millions for "scientific research" favorable to their business... Gotta take these articles, as with others, with a grain of salt.

Thats quite true.. but

* Biofuels don't have any less greenhouse gasses than fossil fuels - its just argued that they are carbon neutral because you are burning a plant you grew - ie sustainable carbon life cycle

* They are frequently carcinogenic - ie Biofuels like N-Butanol
* They frequently displace food crops making food more expensive
* They frequently replace food crops meaning the argument that they are carbon neutral is dodgy

[Romeo]

Biofuels reduce the stability of third world nations, making them easier to exploit.

<a href="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20070515.htm">Biofuels starve the poor.</a>

I don't really care, the whole fuel issue is pretty retarded and backward if you ask me. Republicans secure oil future, Democrats say they want to leave to appease the public, get in power, continue oil policies.

[steveb64]

A good article thanks.
It seems to me that often people fail to look at the big picture.

Biofuels are great as long as you look only at emissions and forget to take the manufacturing part into account.

Nuclear power is great as long as you don't think about how much energy is used decommissioning them afterwards and disposing of the waste.

And if people only looked at the true long term cost, they might realise that investing some money in renewable energy sources isn't quite so expensive after all!

Bit like solar power - it takes 7 times more power to manufacture a solar cell, than it produces in it's lifetime...

[vifferman]

I didn't read any of that, but I can say I'm not surprised.
The same thing happened when the greenies had the lead in petrol removed. The Gummint allowed the 'Big4' to plead poverty and NOT upgrade the refinery, so we ended up with shitty petrol full of substances like toluene and xylene, that ate the fuel lines on people's cars, and is a worse helath hazard than the tetra-ethyl lead was ever proved to be.

[Deano]

A good article thanks.
It seems to me that often people fail to look at the big picture.

Biofuels are great as long as you look only at emissions and forget to take the manufacturing part into account.


Or the fact that Indonesians are cutting down their natural forests (and destroying huge wildlife habitats) just so they can gow the palms that are used to produce biofuels.

Like that's sustainable development.

[Hitcher]

Or the fact that Indonesians are cutting down their natural forests (and destroying huge wildlife habitats) just so they can gow the palms that are used to produce biofuels.

And, in the process, causing the underlying peat soils to emit methane once the forest cover is removed.

There are no short-term or "fixes" to the world's dependence on fossil fuels without environmental consequences. And, as was noted above, few people are keen or able to take a "whole-of-system" view.

The world has little enough productive land, and this is shrinking rapidly due to urbanisation, salination (from irrigation), nutrient depletion and so on. To suddenly start major plantings of biofuel crops means that food production gets forced back onto increasingly marginal land, as too does livestock production and other forms of land use. Eventually this will see growing areas of land used for farming that should not be farmed at all, resulting in increased demand for fertiliser and water for irrigation.

The environmental impacts of biofuels are significant and should not be lost sight of.

[Swoop]

Bit like solar power - it takes 7 times more power to manufacture a solar cell, than it produces in it's lifetime...
But what if nuclear power is used to make the solar cell???

Huh, huh???

Will the weird-beird greenies be happy then?:clap: