What do you make of the study finding that ethanol actually contributes to global warming?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_re_us/ethanol_global_warming

Basically the study concluded that because an increased demand for ethanol would cause land use changes - destroying forests and grasslands to grow corn or other ethanol croops - ethanol and other biofuels actually add to global warming.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.

"We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products" such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Affirmative to most of that,

The way i read it was that the overall production of Ethanol  contributes more to Global warming than all of the internal combustion engines and Industrial pollution together.

Not to speak of the waste of food and subsequent rising food prices.

The mind boggling question comes up, WHY is it even considered as a Eco friendly Alternative????

The People who advocate it are far more informed than most of the World,they know exactly what the consequences are.and how much Wild life and indigenous Flora it will destroy(which includes countless possible medicinal plants.)

Only if they are really transient Aliens would this grossly callous attitude make sense .

Or could it be a New World Order strategy to use Disaster as a depopulation tool,after all their Agenda demands a 60% decrease.

The Higher we look the less sense things make,for those on the ground

We need to rethink modes of  transportation,away from the combustion engine, maybe even wheels.

Unless they are under little electric scooters, of course.

Answer 2

I'm not an agw guy, but I've always suspected that the production costs, are going to outstrip the minimal gain. For what it's worth, when I used ethanol back in the early 80's, my gas mileage on the ole Subaru, decreased from 24mpg to 16mpg.

Answer 3

I don't remember the source but I read somewhere that the use of biofuels would not increase greenhouse gasses. I used to be quite opposed to the biofuels because I didn't think they were the solution. But I have reconsidered and think maybe they are the way top go. I like them because they are less polluting than fossil fuels (as you know I am a skeptic). We would however have to use different sources, a different one for each area. Corn is OK, I was worried that it would steal corn from food sources, but the waste corn left over after the production of bio fuels is used to feed cattle. Switch grass is good for other areas in the country it grows naturally in the USA just about anywhere and is better than corn for the ratio produced to the amount of energy used to make it. Sugar cane is good for warm areas like here in Hawaii. As long as we are smart in the areas we chose to plant these crops and not kill the land or destroy too much forest or jungle. Algae make great bio fuel and can be grown in the desert. The preferred CO2 for algae growth is CO2 exhaust so the exhaust from energy used to convert the algae to biodiesel can also be used to grow it, or even coal exhaust CO2 could be used. Well long opening, but no, Bio fuels do not add extra CO2 to the atmosphere because they have to take CO2 from the atmosphere in order to grow. They do not add extra CO2 to the cycle that is already in existence; therefore they do not contribute to AGW. Biofuels from waste is better, but we don’t make enough waste to support the nation’s fuel consumption. Household waste might be a better producer of electrical energy. Surely the best way to power cars course is electric supported by a green grid using sources like biofuels, waste, solar, wind, wave, hydro, and nuclear to produce electricity. Hopefully we slowly convert to cars that use electric power with extended range by having solar panels. If you require longer range Hybrids with biofuel engines, that are used to strictly produce the electricty and are not connected to the drive train, would be a reasonable choice.

Answer 4

I had heard that.  Biodiesel is a huge issue too:

"Deforestation of the Amazon is something most of us are familiar with, but usually in relation to logging and cattle grazing. Did you know that Brazil is now one of the world's largest exporters of soy beans? And guess where most of the crop comes from - the Amazon area. Over the 2005-2006 growing year, Brazil produced over 53.4 million tonnes of soybeans"

http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Soy-and-th...

Brazil Begins Requiring 2 Percent Biodiesel in All Diesel Fuel

http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?i...

December 28, 2007 -- RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- Brazil said Friday that starting Jan. 1 it will require all diesel oil to contain 2 percent biodiesel in an effort to grow the market for the renewable, clean burning fuel.

Answer 5

(first, let me say, i can't read your link.  but don't feel slighted, i can't read mine either.  i tried both on IE and firefox, and neither work.  i've had the problem intermittently the last few days, but now it won't go away.  however)

what do i think?

1.  bush's support for ethanol makes me quite suspicious that it does not diminish oil use.

2.  for ethanol to be a significant contributor to our energy would take away from food.  consider, you consume 2000 Calories a day.  your car uses millions.  it's not going to work.  

http://health.howstuffworks.com/question...  (/question670.htm  if you're having a problem and are interested.)

<<a gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories. You could drive a car 22 miles (35 km) on the calories in 217 Big Macs.>>

WRONG, food's in Kcals, so i's 31,000 calories, or 54 big macs per gallon.  However, consider, Big Macs are probably the most calorie rich food in common consumption.  For the same calculation in corn, look down at the end.

3.  the US is, compared to much of the world, still relatively sparsely populated.  everyone else will have a much more difficult time producing both food and ethanol.

AND, we didn't even begin to get into deforestation yet.

i think it's high time we started looking for something more reasonable.  the place to start is probably increasing fuel efficiency requirements.  that at least provides us more time to think.

as for garbage, i think in 1 week, i produce enough to power my car about  2 to 5  miles.  (that's 5 - 10 big macs.)  that's not going to help.  in addition, we already separate our garbage, and it gets composted (i think).  presumably that contributes to plant growth / food production.

i think that there are relatively few of us who comprehend the actual amount of energy that we get / use from fossil fuels.  (remember, 1 gallon = 54 big macs -- and my tank holds 18 gallons or nearly 1,000 Big Macs.)  replacing all that energy is a Herculean task.  bio-diesel and ethanol just are not going to make it.

OH,  I KNOW,  I KNOW,  we need to measure gasoline in  BIG MAC EQUIVALENTS.  "Hey, i just got 800 Big Macs of gasoline."  go ahead, laugh.  that would do more for energy education than a year of high school physics.

Edit:  wouldn't it be nice, if, when you got a thumbs down, you'd know who it was, and why they did it.

Oops, seems i made a bob boo.  but i've fixed it now.  however, while doing more work, look what i found.

interesting.  cars and people are equally efficient.

http://www.rwjuhr.com/new/article_fitnes...  (/article_fitness_center_1.html )

keep in mind, a car weighs 10-20 times as much as a man, so

"Diesel fuel and cooking oil have roughly the same amount of calories per gallon. While a Mercedes Benz diesel engine strains to get 35 miles per gallon from soybean oil, a 150-pound human should be able to walk about 350 miles, or 10 times as far, on a gallon of soybean oil."

that's good news.  if we make cars light enough, it'll be cheaper, energy wise, to drive, compared to walking.  

orange you glad you asked?  :-)

Edit again:  alternatively, we could measure gasoline in ears of corn.  " 1 medium ear (90g)  Calories 80"

http://whatscookingamerica.net/corn.htm  <== nice page.

that'd be 387 ears of corn per gallon, or 5800 ears for 15 gallons of gas.

(yeah, yeah, i know they use the rest of the plant when making gas.)

Answer 6

If someone could find a way to produce energy/fuel from garbage, that would be awesome.

Not to be a downer but...always before the world seems to rid itself somehow when the human population is excessive so I among those who think we're definitely due-our demand has exhausted the supply we use.

Answer 7

I didnt like the idea after hearing the machinery used to grow, harvest, and process the corn to make ethanol used about 1 gallon of gasoline per 1.3-1.7 gallons of ethanol made...

But it is also raising food costs in direct and indirect ways.  

And I could see how it would start to change land use... Another problem as deforestation is already a big problem now.

I would be amazing if they could produce something using regular old grass clippings, like lawn grass.  Its everywhere.  Im not sure what the sugar content is, which is needed for ethanol.  maybe they could selectively breed a high sugar grass... haha.  That would take years though.

Answer 8

I'd say it does in the manner described.

But the study conducted, fails to mention that the reason their factors exist is for the existence of mismanaged fuel resources by corporate entities trying to make a profit off of it.

If ethanol is going to be the solution to our fuel problems, we will soon have to face a decision of whether we want to sacrifice the energy source for profit, or sacrifice the profit for an energy source.

Otherwise, we'll have to wait to see how Hydrogen works out, and whether or not we will be facing a similar problem with it, which we probably will.

The reason why I say this, is because with Turbo yeast that is used in biofuel fermentation, alot of the reactants are wasted for speed of production. I can't see any other fermentation procedure being any different, since the rate of the process is similar to any reaction.... the rate is dependant on how fast the reactants come into contact with each other. The less time you give it...the more unreacted material you end up with.

Answer 9

I knew someone would ask this question, I just read the study myself and I'm sure someone will say "see ethanol is evil". What do I think, I think it's a waste of time and money, and total BS.  ETHANOL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MADE FROM CORN.

how about ethanol made from apples that's what my still is run on. A friend of mine is working on garbage reclamation. this study implies all the forests will be mowed down to plant corn or switchgrass and doesn't consider silage the corn stalk that's just wasted in the process or any of the other biomass sources. nor does it consider any reforesting efforts.

On a side note;

ethanol is not the final answer, its only the in between source. Oil is finite and by estimates based on current consumption there's only 30 years left so we have to find something else. eventually I see everything being electric generated by solar, wind and fusion. H2 is a joke the problem is it takes at best twice the energy to make H2 as you get out of a fuel cell. It's a good project to experiment on and collect grant money but has no practical implications for mass marketing.

read the whole question and the only part that wasn't a statement what do I think: is the entire study is a big stinking pile of bullsh!t

also later answers like I said are stuck on corn and big macs, my point is ethanol can work as an intermediary 20 years from now cars can all be electric but you will never get a semi-truck to be electric too much weight however a diesle runs just fine on bio or ethanol.

Answer 10

The folks actually producing the ethanol already know the truth. They spend so much energy and fuel transporting the various products that any fuel production becomes negligible.

Just use the calories/Big Mac formula in the earlier posts. All those Big Macs have to be transported in big trucks to the processors.

The grain moving companies are making out like bandits. They are buying regular diesel (as many are independently-owned truckers who have heard too many horror stories to even begin to trust Bio-Diesel) to haul product that is too low-value to be used as fuel. ... And they can do it ONLY because US taxpayers and consumers are constantly being raped to support the industry.

Okay. Using our wastes. Good idea. I want all of the folks living in the Bos-Wash corridor to tell me whose neighborhood is going to get THAT factory. Hmmmm ... will Los Angeles find a way to pump ALL of their c**p to Arizona to avoid the huge stench of massive tanks of rotting sewage?

Sheesh. Would the Kennedy compound be willing to give up some land for the project? They helped kill the windmill farms that would've messed up their scenery. Surely Teddy would do this for the common good. I bet Al Gore would be happy to have a huge landfill being recycled through fermentation tanks right next to his house.

If the bio-fuels industry is such a great idea then why aren't the evil, greedy oil companies taking it over and mass-producing the product? Simple, it is a profit loser. It is only sustainable with large outside subsidies.

Oh... and after all the decades of the promise of renewable fuels ... Why are we still having to argue this? Why is it still such a debatable subject? I've heard the pro-BioFuels argument for 30+ years. ... and seen trillions go into the pockets of a select number of huge farm conglomerates and various government agencies.

Oh-oh-oh ... almost forgot. A favorite argument of the pro-BioFuels crowd. ... If we tax regular oil extra-heavy then it becomes even more desirable to make BioFuels. One: The framers of the US Constitution would turn over in their graves to learn their great-great-great-great-great grandchildren were using taxes to boost an unprofitable industry. Two: If the price of oil has to be artificially inflated to make BioFuels profitable then where have we saved anything. Three: If the concept of taxing a product to make it's alternative more pleasant is so effective then why don't we tax child-rearing, or radical Muslims, or illegal drug-users... or tobacco .. oh, wait, we are ...

Hmmmm ... a tax on having children, that would lower this country's carbon footprint ... oh, yeah.

Answer 11

I don't think it makes sense, the figures are a bit exaggerated.

Answer 12

It is a boon to farming communities, but a boondoggle to the country as a whole.

Added as an edit - It would be less of a boondoggle if it were made of quack-grass or some other "waste" instead of from corn.  I should have been more specific in my original answer.

Answer 13

Whether it contributes to global warming, or not, is not a big deal compared to the environmental impact of clearing land (wildlife be damned), plowing, fertilizing, spraying with herbacides and insecticides, diverting water to irrigate and processing the harvest.

As some one who is passionate about the environment, I cannot think of a more destructive way to produce energy.

Can you??

Producing ethanol from by-products of other industries is a different matter.

Answer 14

ethanol made from switch grass,perennial weeds & other bio mass waste products can help with the portable fuel problem but we dont have enough airable land to grow both food & all our fuel in the U.S. even if we limit everyone to 50 gals a month.  the new ethanol from cellulose process sounds promising but it will take 8 to 10 years to scale it up enough to make a difference.

keep in mind that methane is 21 times worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas so whatever methane is produced from fermentation will have to be captured & used as fuel or sequestered or it will have to be figured into the equation as a minus when compared to fossil fuels as far as your pet subject AGW is concerned.

corn alcohol is a scam pushed by short sighted politicians who cant see beyond the next donation from the producers & distillation companys that have sprung up to get the subsidys.

meanwhile Iran is using our oil money to buy new state of the art p2 centrifuges to make nuclear fuel faster & in larger quantitys. this can be used as weapons as well as power generation and they just tested a suborbital rocket that can reach anywhere on earth.

I think we're just 1 international incident away from gas rationing in the U.S. so we better get serious about energy independence & quit playing politics as usual unless we want a big unexpected & unpleasant change in our lifestyle in the near future.

Answer 15

Convert rainforest into intensive beef/dairy grazing. Create significant amounts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Cause people and animals in parts of the world to starve whilst others die from eating too many beefburgers.

Change precious land from producing valuable food crops to fuel. Not only significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions but ensuring that more people worldwide starve or can not afford to feed themselves with ever increasing food prices.  

We never learn.

The stupidity of mankind is astounding!

Answer 16

I give ethanol a mixed review. In the US, ethanol fuel is produced mostly from maize. Some studies have indicated that the production of ethanol from corn consumes more energy than it yields. America’s energy policy is based solely on market forces, such as maximizing profits and investment, and is not based on a sound environmental policy or alternative fuel policy.

Ethanol from corn is one of the least effective ways to produce it. It very well could be true that if maize ethanol was America’s primary source of energy, then we would all starve.

On the other hand, with better research and technology, we could make ethanol work. Produce ethanol from switchgrass and we would have better results; but, farmers would still have to plant less crops to grow a significant quantity of switchgrass to produce a worthwhile quantity of ethanol from this source.

I’ve read articles that suggests that algae can be manipulated to produce ethanol.[1]  Each region of the country could have an ethanol-algae producing plant; and then, not only could farms continue to grow food items, we also would not have to worry about transporting ethanol around the country (which uses energy).

Another potential source of ethanol is landfills.[2]  There is probably enough garbage rotting in landfills to produce ethanol energy for a significant portion of the nation’s energy needs. Ethanol will never be the ENTIRE solution, but combined with solar, wind, wave, and geothermal energy, we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

When it comes to developing a sound energy policy, we are only limited by our lack of imagination and the political/economic power of special interests.

FYI – Until Yahoo! fixes hyperlinks, you can use a website such as this one to shrink web address to a size that can be copy and pasted:

http://tinyurl.com/

Answer 17

Ethanol  is nice in that it can be made from almost all plant matter (corn having alot and soy having less... roses very little_

cutting down a forest is not cool IMO but then again something like 80% of our O2 come from the ocean... not from the trees'

we should look into other fuels yes... but Ethanol  is not the answer

perhaps methane or hydrogen or propane.....

granted they dont make nearly as much power and im not sure the affect of running dry fuels in the engines themselfs (yes GAS does lubracate your engine)

perhaps the answer isn't in the fuel but rather a differant engine...

Answer 18

I think that AGW skeptics predicted this the instant it was proposed because of our experience with the concept and implementation during the Carter administration back in the 1970's. But I understand that the federal government's requirement to keep the technology and infrastructure in a state in which it could be quickly and vastly expanded is in the national interest of the United States of America.

Jet turbines love Ethanol and therefore so do I, at least for the short term. Helium3 is the only viable long term solution that our current state of knowledge can rely on to continue our technological advancement. And we are currently on a quest to harvest this element from moon.