Bio Fuel Con?

[Stuart Mackey]

Url dressed in drag

The great green con: study reveals cost of biofuels
Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 5:00AM Thursday February 14, 2008
Converting land to biofuel crops releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Photo / Reuters

Converting land to biofuel crops releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Photo / Reuters
Climate Change


Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental cons, because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb.

Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants.

The scientists found that in the case of some crops it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. These environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of rainforest.

"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly," said Joe Fargione of the US Nature Conservancy, who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.

"Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture."

The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the US and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.

Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop.

They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay off the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.

Such conversions of land to grow corn, maize and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.

"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question, 'Is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said.
"And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere."

The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers, for instance, used to rotate between soybean and corn crops, but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are now growing corn only.

As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.

"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy.

"We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward."

The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.

Professor John Pickett, chair of the recent study on biofuels commissioned by the Royal Society, said that although biofuels may play an important role in cutting greenhouse gases from transport, it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another.

"The greenhouse gas savings that a biofuel can provide are dependent on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used," Professor Pickett said.

"Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment.

"This must happen at an international level so that we do not just transfer any potentially negative effects of these fuels from one place to another."

Professor Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota, an author of one of the studies published in Science, said the incentives currently employed to encourage farmers to grow crops for biofuels do not take into account the carbon budget of the crop.

"We don't have the proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products but not rewarded for carbon management," Professor Polasky said.

"This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."

- INDEPENDENT

[Rogue 9]

I would just like to point out that last year when a local county council member asked me to do research on this so he could make an informed decision about a proposed ethanol plant in the county, this was the conclusion I came to, and that with just a few trips to the library and a couple hours spent searching Google and sifting through the results. The data's been out there for a long time; it's just that nobody wanted to see it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Bio-fuels = boondoggle.

And I am in no way a biologist in the bio-tech sector that stands to profit IMMENSELY from such ventures.

One of the above sentences is a lie. Guess which.

[Solauren]

Biofuel is only useful as a Oil replacement, not as an environmentally friendly alternative.
Sure, visually, it's easier on the environment, but that's about it.

[Sarcasm]After all, cow crap is a form of biofuel, and look how clean that it![End of Sarcasm]

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's pretty crap at replacing oil too, really. It has far less energy density and the EROEI, depending on crop and conditions, can be barely positive.

[Darth Wong]

Bio-fuels are being pushed hard for one reason, and one reason alone: the political power of farmers.

[Nephtys]

It also has 'bio' in it and a lot of PR work trying to make it look good to the casual viewer.. Why pump evil, polluting black ancient corpse-goo out of the ground, or evil glowing radioactive cancer-rods, when you could put creamed corn into your car gas tank?

[Stuart Mackey]

Bio-fuels are being pushed hard for one reason, and one reason alone: the political power of farmers.

We have a winner. Well done, that man.

[Stuart Mackey]

Bio-fuels are, it seems, about power, no pun intended. The green movement and lattery, the climate change movement have latched onto this as an easy to understand panacea to various woes without looking at the side-effects. Quite apart from those illustrated there is the issue of food security, land used for bio-fuels is not used for food, but the pressure to be seen to do something, anything, has people grasping at straws without any semblance of thought. As its seemingly easy to comprehend, farmers and politicians get an easy win from the gullible.

[Sikon]

Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants.

That's all the specific evidence cited in this, those two studies. Look through enough studies seeking to find some that support a particular view like this, and such can be found.

Now, how typical are those two studies?:

They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields.

Area previously covered with peat or rainforests is hardly typical, making it particularly obvious that they carefully selected these atypical studies to find a couple much supporting their desired argument.

Of course, if someone burns a rainforest with a large amount of biomass previously sequestered, that's a large release of CO2, and, then, if they subsequently grow and consume biofuels, the result in that case is more or less never canceling the original release of CO2, just preventing further emissions as CO2 from biofuel usage goes in a loop year after year.

Since biofuel production is intended for zero net emissions, the CO2 removal going in a loop, not net carbon sequesterization, it is hardly surprising that it would almost never result in a net decrease in CO2. What it does do is prevent the vast continuing atmospheric CO2 increase that would result if coal fuel was used instead for those centuries, something the study presumably fails to calculate.

(When the goal is net decrease in CO2, as opposed to simply preventing the amount of increase if fossil fuels were used instead, that requires methods such as producing biomass and then collecting and sequestering some, not burning it and not letting all of it decompose either, partially stopping the cycle).

There's no evidence that their calculation for "paying off" the carbon debt is comparing to the emissions release if fossil fuels were used instead of the biofuels, with continuing net emissions year after year.

As previously discussed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture study described before, about a billion tons of biofuel feedstock is available annually, sustainably without major change to land usage, from existing forest waste, crop residues, paper plant waste, garbage, etc. That's without major change to land usage, without destroying rainforests or peat lands.

Take a piece of paper garbage, convert it to biofuel, and combust it ... and CO2 is released but the same amount that would otherwise be released anyway when it decomposed. And that amount of CO2 has the same carbon that the tree previously extracted from the atmosphere. Conservation of matter, after all...

If managed sustainably in a tree plantation that stays the same size over time with new trees planted as some are cut down annually, the effect is carbon just going in a loop.

[Stuart Mackey]

If managed sustainably in a tree plantation that stays the same size over time with new trees planted as some are cut down annually, the effect is carbon just going in a loop.

How far will that go if there is money to be made? greed does wonders for motivating people.

[Broomstick]

I've regarded bio-fuel as an attempt to have one's cake and eat it it, too - to continue our current ways without having to cut back, conserve, or change our habits.

And, as usual, something too good to be true is.... no surprise... too good to be true.

[Stuart Mackey]

I've regarded bio-fuel as an attempt to have one's cake and eat it it, too - to continue our current ways without having to cut back, conserve, or change our habits.

And, as usual, something too good to be true is.... no surprise... too good to be true.

Indeed, what is not often realized is that why would we persist with something, in this case the internal combustion engine etc etc, if we can do so much better?. On a more practical note, regardless of how one views peak oil, it is a economically finite resource whatever way you look at it, so why draw out the pain longer than you have to?

[montypython]

Algae based fuels would be worth far more than all the fuel crops put together and then some both energy and emissions wise.

[His Divine Shadow]

Reminds I was watching the news and they where criticizing the (swedish) governments focus on ethanol alone and mentioned some guy who was going to be making biofuels from leftover products from the forrest, wood scraps, sticks and so forth. The process wasn't mentioned in any detail, they just said it was more effective, it had something to do with gassification but thas all they said. Apparently they had a plant and everything ready to go but the funds needed where withdrawn at the last minute.

[ray245]

So what other alternative do we have to replace crude oil?

[Darth Wong]

So what other alternative do we have to replace crude oil?

What makes you think there is any way to replace it? We have to find ways to work around its loss.

[Ryan Thunder]

So what other alternative do we have to replace crude oil?

What makes you think there is any way to replace it? We have to find ways to work around its loss.

Perhaps I'm just giving him an undeserved benefit of the doubt here, but I think that's what he meant...

So, what is there?

Off the top of my head, we could replace the existing power infrastructure with nuclear power plants, and use electric cars. Would wireless energy transmission be practical for that? If so, we might not actually have to plug them in; just have transmitters near the roads (or in them, if that works).

[Admiral Valdemar]

None of what should be done with bio-fuels is being done, though. That's the thing. Many farmers are actually planting fuel crops, rather than cereals for food production and helping to further boost prices of such commodities, with the likes of golden wheat quadrupling in price in 12 months.

Also, bio-fuels are heavily subsidised by money and energy from government and fossil fuels already in use. Aside from most nations taking advantage of the crazy going about destroying more land for these monocultures and cellulosic ethanol still being a pipe dream, I don't see why we should tell people to not worry because good ol' bio-fuels will pick up the slack.

Telling people it's business as usual is the absolute last thing you want, because sustainable today is not sustainable in the future. All fossil fuels were seen as practically being inexhaustible at one point and look where that's got us. It's not like we need any more reason to cut back on these things given food prices skyrocketing and bound to increase further as climatological shifts impact further on global bread baskets.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

So what other alternative do we have to replace crude oil?

More bicycles. More and improved public transport. Our society is way too dependent on cars. In Canada, a recent study showed my hometown of Edmonton to be the most reliant city in the nation (not coincidentally, our transit system sucks).

If winter cycling is too harsh for all but a few crazies like myself, then giving up big-ass SUVs would be a good starter step.

[General Zod]

If winter cycling is too harsh for all but a few crazies like myself, then giving up big-ass SUVs would be a good starter step.

Cycling isn't so practical in areas with huge sprawls between urban centers either. You'd have to completely reshape city and street layouts to make them viable.

[Ryan Thunder]

So what other alternative do we have to replace crude oil?

More bicycles. More and improved public transport. Our society is way too dependent on cars. [...]

Good thought, leads me to another idea; electric shuttle buses that take you within biking distance of just about anywhere, with racks for the bikes on the buses.

[Darth Wong]

They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields.

Area previously covered with peat or rainforests is hardly typical, making it particularly obvious that they carefully selected these atypical studies to find a couple much supporting their desired argument.

Is it not the case that wide-scale deforestation is occurring across the globe, and that agricultural requirements are a large cause of that? Of course, human overpopulation is the other cause.

Since biofuel production is intended for zero net emissions, the CO2 removal going in a loop, not net carbon sequesterization, it is hardly surprising that it would almost never result in a net decrease in CO2. What it does do is prevent the vast continuing atmospheric CO2 increase that would result if coal fuel was used instead for those centuries, something the study presumably fails to calculate.

(When the goal is net decrease in CO2, as opposed to simply preventing the amount of increase if fossil fuels were used instead, that requires methods such as producing biomass and then collecting and sequestering some, not burning it and not letting all of it decompose either, partially stopping the cycle).

Is it practical to reforest areas that have been deforested? Or does the process create such changes in the soil that this would be very difficult? Mind you, I understand that until human population growth is contained, this is a non-issue anyway. But increasing forested areas and reducing human population seems to be the only way to reduce CO2, even if we know it won't happen.

There's no evidence that their calculation for "paying off" the carbon debt is comparing to the emissions release if fossil fuels were used instead of the biofuels, with continuing net emissions year after year.

As previously discussed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture study described before, about a billion tons of biofuel feedstock is available annually, sustainably without major change to land usage, from existing forest waste, crop residues, paper plant waste, garbage, etc. That's without major change to land usage, without destroying rainforests or peat lands.

How much gasoline would that make?

Take a piece of paper garbage, convert it to biofuel, and combust it ... and CO2 is released but the same amount that would otherwise be released anyway when it decomposed. And that amount of CO2 has the same carbon that the tree previously extracted from the atmosphere. Conservation of matter, after all...

In practice, most paper garbage ends up in landfill, where it does not decompose and release CO2. You can still clearly read headlines on newspapers dredged up from 30 years ago in landfills.

If managed sustainably in a tree plantation that stays the same size over time with new trees planted as some are cut down annually, the effect is carbon just going in a loop.

That makes sense. The biggest problem is the sheer quantity required to replace our current oil usage.

[Rogue 9]

Is it practical to reforest areas that have been deforested? Or does the process create such changes in the soil that this would be very difficult?

If I may, yes it is quite possible, at least with North American hardwood and coniferous forests. My family operates a small timber farm where we replant everything that's cut down; most of the tree farm was reforested from pastures after my parents bought the land. Mind, it might be possible that there's something special about tropical rainforests that would make them hard to regrow (given enough time for the trees to get that big, of course), but I'd be at a loss to say what it would be if it's actually the case.

[Broomstick]

They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields.

Area previously covered with peat or rainforests is hardly typical, making it particularly obvious that they carefully selected these atypical studies to find a couple much supporting their desired argument.

Is it not the case that wide-scale deforestation is occurring across the globe, and that agricultural requirements are a large cause of that? Of course, human overpopulation is the other cause.

It's not just forests - other ecosystems are being drastically altered. The US prairie, for example, no longer exists in its original form. It's all been plowed under. It's foolish to say we aren't having a huge impact on the world ecology. You can't say the US Great Plains are carbon neutral because we've replaced native grasses with agricultural grasses (corn, wheat, etc.), you'd have to prove it.

(When the goal is net decrease in CO2, as opposed to simply preventing the amount of increase if fossil fuels were used instead, that requires methods such as producing biomass and then collecting and sequestering some, not burning it and not letting all of it decompose either, partially stopping the cycle).

Oh, you mean like burying organics like paper and food and yard waste in a landfill rather than allowing it to decompose? But...but... landfills are EVIL!

Is it practical to reforest areas that have been deforested? Or does the process create such changes in the soil that this would be very difficult?

The answer is.... it depends. Some areas are more easily reforested than others. Japan, for example, was running out of wood some centuries ago and started a reforesting program that results in more forest today than back when they decided to stop cutting all the trees down. The Eastern US has successfully reforested and/or set up viable tree plantations. My area actually has twice the tree cover it did when the Europeans first showed up (more illustration that the original ecosystem is gone) and that's due solely to human activity. On the other hand - Iceland used to be forested but isn't any more and replanting is very, very problematic. Many rain forests have very shallow soil and don't reforest easily or quickly either. Eventually the forest will regrow, but not on a time scale that humans would find useful.

Mind you, I understand that until human population growth is contained, this is a non-issue anyway. But increasing forested areas and reducing human population seems to be the only way to reduce CO2, even if we know it won't happen.

Even if we could increase forested areas/biomass without reducing the world population it still wouldn't work - there are just too damn many people.

As previously discussed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture study described before, about a billion tons of biofuel feedstock is available annually, sustainably without major change to land usage, from existing forest waste, crop residues, paper plant waste, garbage, etc. That's without major change to land usage, without destroying rainforests or peat lands.

So... instead of recycling some of that organic waste as fertilizer you're burning it as fuel? That's not going to help agricultural output. Instead of "sequestering" organics in landfills you're going to burn them? That won't reduce CO2.

Take a piece of paper garbage, convert it to biofuel, and combust it ... and CO2 is released but the same amount that would otherwise be released anyway when it decomposed. And that amount of CO2 has the same carbon that the tree previously extracted from the atmosphere. Conservation of matter, after all...

Meanwhile, you're looking for something else to fertilize your crops... Without petroleum derived fertilizers organic compost is what you have to keep agriculture productive. Or we take some of the land out of production, letting it lie fallow or planting nitrogen-fixing crops to plow under as fertilizer, but that will result in a net drop in production at some point.

If managed sustainably in a tree plantation that stays the same size over time with new trees planted as some are cut down annually, the effect is carbon just going in a loop.

That makes sense. The biggest problem is the sheer quantity required to replace our current oil usage.

Yes. We are already seeing a competition between crops-as-food and crops-as-fuel. Is there enough arable land for both needs?