Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
For years advocates have touted the use of biofuels as a clean-burning alternative to gasoline. Now a pair of studies published in the February 8 issue of Science conclude that biofuels may do more harm to the environment than good. The researchers calculated the indirect costs of growing the crops that are turned into biofuels. To plant the corn or sugarcane or soybeans from which biodiesel and bioethanol are made, farmers would first need to clear forests and grasslands. That process, it turns out, would actually generate more carbon dioxide than we’d save by swearing off fossil fuels. And it would take centuries for us to pay off that carbon debt.
For example, the scientists figure it would take 319 years of using ethanol made from soybeans to make up for the extra carbon released by chopping down the forests needed to grow the crop. And of course more CO2 in the atmosphere means more global warming. So biofuels might actually exacerbate the problem they’re meant to solve. Something to think about as we move forward on producing ecofriendly fuels. As one of the scientists put it, we should make sure our cure isn’t worse than the disease.
—Karen Hopkin
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThis is such total rubbish. We could do quite well by not consuming white sugar. No human being needs white sugar as a dietary requirement. So if the existing sugarcane crop were used only to produce ethanol, one would straight away get 6 times more ethanol, The really bad idea is using corn to produce alcohol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHA! that's pretty funny, actually. Considering "man-made" global warming is a farce anyway...now this study just shows what reasonable people already know... that all the enviro-nuts are just that...NUTS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskam0803 is totally oblivious to the overwhelming scientific evedence. Go back in in your little hole kam!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy would we have to clear forests anyway? perhaps we could just stop overproducing food items. we dont need a study to determine the effects of farming more plants for biofuels, we need a study to figure out how to reduce the gross amount of waste of the usable plants we already produce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat kind of weapon would food be? How best to use food in this way? Burn it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudies can turn out anyway you want so I don't put much faith in any unaudited study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could make any energy sources come out the same way. Look at Solar Cells or wind mills. Both take an enormous amount of energy to produce. IN the case of solar cells they also take very toxic chemicals to produce.
If some one wants to really get my interest do a study on which energy source is the cleanest from obtaining the raw materials thru the manufracturing installation and maintenace.
Alternative fuels will be needed but not at the expense of using more energy to produce them than what is being used on petroleum based fuels. And not at the expense of destroying habitat to produce them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIquitner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat alternative fuel would you be talking about? Is there any alternative fuel that would meet your criteria?
Maybe we should all stand in one place until this super duper clean fuel magically appears. Any new alternative energy will take time to develop and fine tune. The first few barrels of oil that was pumped were probably very expensive to refine. The same with Ethanol. If you've every been involved in a new development you would know what it takes to finally bring a new "whatever" to market. You don't just think of something and the next day it's done, efficeint, clean and perfect.
I'm so tired of hearing all these arm chair experts critique new technology developments when they have no clue what they are talking about.
Try windpower, geothermal energy, solar energy and most important wise energy use. These are renewable nonpolluting sources of energy. Probably the most important is just taking a hard look at how much energy you use in living and in the goods you purchase. Like a diet it probably difficult at first but much more rewarding in the long run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about all the farm land we currently have in the US? Instead of paying farmers to over produce, they could grow biofuels. I read that soy beans help renew the soil, so they could be grown as a rotation crop. I think there is still a place for biofuels, we just have to be smart about how we use and produce them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the end of the day, biofuels (mainly ethanol and biodiesel) fall short when compared to other alternatives, such as Natural Gas, which is currently available as a viable option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts are that Compressed Natural Gas, or CNG as a fuel is consistently cheaper (with an average-per-gallon equivalent price that's one third that of gasoline) and considerably cleaner than any biofuel currently on the market. As the cleanest-burning alternative, the California Energy Commission found that Natural Gas produces up to 23% lower emissions than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.
98 percent of the Natural Gas used in the U.S. is produced in North making this the easiest, cleanest, most domestically abundant and best fuel around. Fleets are highly suited for this cheaper, cleaner fuel, but only Honda makes the consumer model, the Civic GX (which is selling like hotcakes) for the rest of us.
From what I understand, in order to keep the prices of food at an acceptable level, the gov't pays farmers to burn the excess anyway. So, what's the problem with using the excess for oil? And so what if we can't run [u][b]ALL[/b][/u] of our vehicles on veggie oil? If a large portion did, it would surely help out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, why exactly did they say the forests had to be cut down? Why can't we farm someplace other than forests? There is a large percentage of food being grown in 'city farms', why not utilize that route? Or in unused fields, and such? Or alternative routes. What's wrong with using SVO? Then we could use the old oil from restraunts, as many are doing already. Oil that needs to be dispensed of anyhow. Call it recycling. That would also address the concern of emissions. SVO has [u]NO[/u] diesel in it at all. There is simply the warm up and cool down time, which I am sure that eventually they can reduce to practically, if not, nothing. And I'm sure that the emissions from 10-20 minutes of driving from diesel has got to be a far less amount than that of a full drive on normal fuel.
As far as the price goes, as with all things, as it is more readily available, the price will drop. However, I would think that the price many are paying for SVO from restraunts ($0- yes, $0) is a pretty good price. The only better price, would be being paid to take it. Of course, as with any deal of that magnitude, there is a slight catch. If you go that route, you have to filter your own oil. From what I understand, however, that isn't that hard to do.
If we were to use biofuel, whatever the ratio, in conjunction with all of the other alternative energy sources, we would slow in the destruction of our resources.
I must point out to all, though- no matter how hard we try, the world's resources will eventually fade away. It started with the first sin. So, why worry so much about it and just become educated on and utilize to the best of our abilities, the least wasteful path?
Wrong. The real cost of petroleum is at least a US$100 more, to keep the military in the Middle East and to abate environmental damage in oil drilling, transport, refining, use, and emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we now pay is only a fraction of the real economic cost to society. It results from market failure.