Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

[GaryC 7]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT – Feb 7, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."

"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.

There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.

The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.

During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

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 in an interview. "And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels."

The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported in part indirectly by a grants from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States.

The study prompted a letter Thursday to President Bush and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress from nearly a dozen scientists who urged them to pursue a policy "that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland."

"Some opportunities remain to produce environmentally beneficial biofuels" while "unsound biofuel policies could sacrifice tens of hundreds of million of acres" of grasslands and forests while increasing global warming, said the scientists, including four members of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG6RDP9...qbgDxAD8ULPD0G0

[cmartyn 0]

Environmentalists don;t promote Ethanol on the whole. Its corn farmers and conservative protectionists who do.

Plus this little study doesnt take into account things like say, B1 Bombers criss crossing the skies to keep the fuel flowing.

References

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol...-the-answer-sto

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22358

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3514

And, Duhhhhhhhhhh :-)

Edited February 27, 2008 by cmartyn

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Environmentalists don;t promote Ethanol on the whole. Its corn farmers and conservative protectionists who do.

Plus this little study doesnt take into account things like say, B1 Bombers criss crossing the skies to keep the fuel flowing.

References

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol...-the-answer-sto

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22358

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3514

And, Duhhhhhhhhhh :-)

No #######. I consider myself an environmentalist and I also strongly dispute the ethanol surge. I get to see the gulf dead zone expanding with my very own eyes. I'm not even goinig to get into the overall carbon cost of the switch.

[Jamie76 0]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

[GaryC 7]

Environmentalists don;t promote Ethanol on the whole. Its corn farmers and conservative protectionists who do.

Plus this little study doesnt take into account things like say, B1 Bombers criss crossing the skies to keep the fuel flowing.

References

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol...-the-answer-sto

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22358

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3514

And, Duhhhhhhhhhh :-)

This is about Ethanol made from all sources, not just corn. Your conservative protectionist comment make no sense other than show your political stripe. So if that isn't the solution then what is?

And I have no idea what your B1 reference means.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

[GaryC 7]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

Now your talking!!!

[Dan J 277]

Environmentalists don;t promote Ethanol on the whole. Its corn farmers and conservative protectionists who do.

Plus this little study doesnt take into account things like say, B1 Bombers criss crossing the skies to keep the fuel flowing.

References

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/ethanol...-the-answer-sto

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22358

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3514

And, Duhhhhhhhhhh :-)

This is about Ethanol made from all sources, not just corn. Your conservative protectionist comment make no sense other than show your political stripe. So if that isn't the solution then what is?

And I have no idea what your B1 reference means.

Some sources are much better than others. Ethanol does have the benefit of being renewable, at least much more renewable than oil. But its really just a temporary energy source to hold us over until we can come up with something better.

But those pushing ethanol have mostly been farmers. Which will drive prices up on corn, which itself has a lot of other problems.

[Dan J 277]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

[Peikko 1,575]

Have they come up with a good strategy to store the waste radioactive material now then? I have no doubt that nuclear fuel can be produced without causing too many problems so long as no one tries cutting corners with production safety procedures but I didn't think anyone had come up with a real answer to the storage of the radioactive waste for the next X thousand years.

[Jamie76 0]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

Yes, biofuels will not take care of the problem but it is a step in the right direction. Besides, plant materials don't necessarily have to be made in to ethanol. Look at what BP is doing with butanol. It has more stored energy than ethanol, doesn't have the problem ethanol has with moisture uptake, it can be delivered down the same supply lines that our petroleum fuels are sent, and there is no need to modify the engine/computer of the vehicle using it.

[GaryC 7]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

We have had this conversation before. Breeder reactors enable you to recyle the uranium and create a fuel cycle. Trust me, getting fuel for a nation full of reactors isn't a problem.

Have they come up with a good strategy to store the waste radioactive material now then? I have no doubt that nuclear fuel can be produced without causing too many problems so long as no one tries cutting corners with production safety procedures but I didn't think anyone had come up with a real answer to the storage of the radioactive waste for the next X thousand years.

We have a very good storage site in Yucca mountain.

[Peikko 1,575]

What? they just drop it down a mine shaft and hope for the best?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Gooo Nuclear Power!!!

Co-Founder of Greenpeace Envisions a Nuclear Future

[Jamie76 0]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

Pebble Bed Reactors (if they can get the technology to work) is safer and about 20% more efficient than light water reactors. They can also use other fuel sources besides uranium.