3 ms·

Biofuels worse for climate change than gas

7 points by jimsojim 10y ago

geezerjay 10y ago
FTA: > Despite their purported advantages, biofuels — created from crops such as corn or soybeans — cause more emissions of climate change-causing carbon dioxide than gasoline, according to the study from U-M Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco. This appears to be a false premise. The emissions are immaterial, as the point of biofuels is that they are produced by essentially harnessing sunlight to synthesize fuel from emissions already present in the environment. Therefore, if anyone wants to account biofuel emissions, they need to start by considering what these crops extract from the environment before releasing it back into it. Another aspect that needs to be taken in consideration is the economical and political advantages of biofuel. Being able to generate an endless supply of fuel right in a nation's backyard, without having to haul it across the globe, is a huge advantage. Not having to negotiate with and appease shady OPEC members also presents numerous advantages.
- todd8 10y ago
  The article explains that there is debate over DeCicco's research, but the point that DeCicco is making and is clearly explained in the article is that despite the fact that burning biofuels simply returns CO2 back to the atmosphere that was extracted by the growing corn in the first place is CO2 neutral, there is a significant cost in CO2 emissions in farming, transporting and processing the corn into fuel. It it the total lifecycle of biofuel that DeCicco is studying, and the real debate is if these lifecycle costs exceed the total costs (in emissions) of using gasoline in cars. DeCicco's results seem at first to be counter-intuitive, but my understanding is that it is an energy intensive process to turn corn into fuel. In any case, the debate suggests that the benefit of the ethanol programs is at the least questionable and not going to solve our environmental issues. We need to look somewhere else. I don't have a lot of hope that US ethanol policy will every be sensible as long as Presidential primary (caucuses) start in Iowa. Every candidate has to promise to keep the program going which keeps Iowa's economy going no matter what science tell us.

7 points by jimsojim 10y ago

FTA: > Despite their purported advantages, biofuels — created from crops such as corn or soybeans — cause more emissions of climate change-causing carbon dioxide than gasoline, according to the study from U-M Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco. This appears to be a false premise. The emissions are immaterial, as the point of biofuels is that they are produced by essentially harnessing sunlight to synthesize fuel from emissions already present in the environment. Therefore, if anyone wants to account biofuel emissions, they need to start by considering what these crops extract from the environment before releasing it back into it. Another aspect that needs to be taken in consideration is the economical and political advantages of biofuel. Being able to generate an endless supply of fuel right in a nation's backyard, without having to haul it across the globe, is a huge advantage. Not having to negotiate with and appease shady OPEC members also presents numerous advantages.

todd8 10y ago
The article explains that there is debate over DeCicco's research, but the point that DeCicco is making and is clearly explained in the article is that despite the fact that burning biofuels simply returns CO2 back to the atmosphere that was extracted by the growing corn in the first place is CO2 neutral, there is a significant cost in CO2 emissions in farming, transporting and processing the corn into fuel. It it the total lifecycle of biofuel that DeCicco is studying, and the real debate is if these lifecycle costs exceed the total costs (in emissions) of using gasoline in cars. DeCicco's results seem at first to be counter-intuitive, but my understanding is that it is an energy intensive process to turn corn into fuel. In any case, the debate suggests that the benefit of the ethanol programs is at the least questionable and not going to solve our environmental issues. We need to look somewhere else. I don't have a lot of hope that US ethanol policy will every be sensible as long as Presidential primary (caucuses) start in Iowa. Every candidate has to promise to keep the program going which keeps Iowa's economy going no matter what science tell us.