Biofuels are a false bargain...

pwd72s · 02-08-2008, 09:02 AM

So goes the headline in this morn's OREGONIAN:

The opening sentence: "The rush to ethanol is adding to greenhouse gases and hastening climate change, two analyses warn."

The article, written by LA TIMES-Washington Post writer Alan Zarembo mentions two studies published in thursday's the journal science.

I couldn't find the article to cut & paste...sorry. Maybe somebody here knows more?

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 09:04 AM

Rush to ethanol? Did I miss something? What percentage of our fuel use is ethanol based, maybe 1%?

dd74 · 02-08-2008, 09:11 AM

GM has put a lot of effort into touting its ethanol-able cars. Well, there goes that ad campaign.

NICKG · 02-08-2008, 09:14 AM

yes, i would like to pay 15% more for fuel AND get 20% worse fuel mileage. thank you

pwd72s · 02-08-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Rush to ethanol? Did I miss something? What percentage of our fuel use is ethanol based, maybe 1%?

If you buy pump gas anywhere in Oregon, it is now 10% ethanol, by legislative order.

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 09:22 AM

The fact that they propose a rarely used (proportionally) fuel is "adding greenhouse gasses and contributing to climate change" makes me pretty dubious of the "science". Considering that the scientific community is still not able to agree if/why/how global warming is occuring, I'm not sure how much water this can hold.

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwd72s

If you buy pump gas anywhere in Oregon, it is now 10% ethanol, by legislative order.

Really?! We have it here, but it is select stations, and select blends. Some stations have ethanol in only their premium fuels. Those are the ones I avoid.

notfarnow · 09:32 AM

I saw that this morning

Today's NYTimes:

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I've only had a chance to scan it, but I couldn't find much to disagree with.

One point that I struggled with is the assumption that crops will be grown on fields where forests used to exist. That's not necessarily the case.

Overall, I think ethanol catches a bad rap because of US corn ethanol. My understanding is that sugarcane ethanol (such as in Brazil) makes far more sense.

Either way, the whole biofuels debate has a lot more to do with interest groups and lobbyists than it has to do with the environment.

dd74 · 02-08-2008, 09:36 AM

Cellulosic ethanol is much better than corn ethanol. It takes much less energy to produce, and the switch grass and wheat straw is all over the North American Plains.

notfarnow · 02-08-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

Cellulosic ethanol is much better than corn ethanol. It takes much less energy to produce, and the switch grass and wheat straw is all over the North American Plains.

yeah, but how the heck is that going to benefit corn farmers?

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notfarnow

yeah, but how the heck is that going to benefit corn farmers?

That's the only question that matters in Washington.

The Gaijin · 02-08-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notfarnow

I saw that this morning

Today's NYTimes:

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Overall, I think ethanol catches a bad rap because of US corn ethanol. My understanding is that sugarcane ethanol (such as in Brazil) makes far more sense.

Thats if you don't like tropical rain forests and bio-diversity...

pwd72s · 02-08-2008, 09:54 AM

From the NY TIMES article...see link above

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

Damn...I find this hard to believe. Oh not that biofuels are a "feel good" thing for politicians...I find it hard to believe that the NY TIMES, would publish this with it's well known leftie bias.

notfarnow · 02-08-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Damn...I find this hard to believe. Oh not that biofuels are a "feel good" thing for politicians...I find it hard to believe that the NY TIMES, would publish this with it's well known leftie bias.

Lots of "lefties" (me included) are deadset against cutting down rainforests or displacing food crops to fuel our cars.

pwd72s · 02-08-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Really?! We have it here, but it is select stations, and select blends. Some stations have ethanol in only their premium fuels. Those are the ones I avoid.

The "peoples republik of Orygun" is totally controlled by the left...legislature and Governor, secretary of state, all of it heavily left wing Democrat party. Ditto the state's only large city, Portland.

This results in a legislaure passing laws without thinking things through. Paying off campaign debts, you see...

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 10:07 AM

Yet another reason why ethanol is not the answer. I'm all for alternative energy, but the furor over ethanol is politics, nothing more.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

The fact that they propose a rarely used (proportionally) fuel is "adding greenhouse gasses and contributing to climate change" makes me pretty dubious of the "science". Considering that the scientific community is still not able to agree if/why/how global warming is occuring, I'm not sure how much water this can hold.

There is no disagreement among legitimate scientists studying the issue that global warming is occurring, or even that the cause is greenhouse gasses. You may not like it, (I don't), or the consequences of it, but to question or deny the existence of it at this point is fruitless. You may as well deny the existence of gravity, it would be about the same.

Rearden · 02-08-2008, 10:15 AM

Corn-based ethanol is not wise. But that doesn't make ethanol use, in general, unwise. And methanol from coal would do wonders to help move away from imported oil.

pwd72s · 02-08-2008, 10:15 AM

You may have noticed food prices climbing? Milk, eggs, other dairy products and meats? Uh, corn and other grains used to make animal feeds is being sold to make ethanol.

My GAWD! It just hit me...bourbon is made from (gasp!) CORN...

onewhippedpuppy · 02-08-2008, 10:32 AM

Denis, you'd be hard pressed to find scientists that deny climate change. However, the reasons for that change are still in doubt, regardless of what Al Gore would have you believe. For every respected scientist who believes that humans are the cause of climate change, there's another who feels that it's simply the natural cycle of the earth.

I'm all for reducing consumption, pollution, and moving towards a sustainable way of life. However, it's ridiculous to make decisions and policy based on what is nothing more than a hypothesis. Do you know how many holes there are in the "science" featured in "An Inconvient Truth"? A British judge banned it from British schools, because it presents theory as fact.