Bio-fuels proving to be not so eco-friendly
By Geoff Loper
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
Like most people, I really hate admitting that I am wrong. But I have a very strong feeling that not too many environmentalists will be lining up to make their apologies to the world for their overconfidence.
I would be one of the first people to support reducing or eliminating our need for foreign oil and finding new forms of fuels that are more “earth-friendly.” Yet a recent study that was published in National Geographic is showing that some of the heavily endorsed bio-fuels are actually worse for the environment than good old-fashioned gasoline.
Now, some readers are going to start questioning me: “Didn’t this guy say he thinks that global warming is a huge myth?” My answer is still yes.
While this topic does play to the global-warming crowd, this can also be seen as a slap in the face to the tree-hugging hippies calling for corn or other plant-based ethanol to run their Toyota Priuses to the ends of the earth. Let’s look at this problem logically here.
Scenario #1. Oil is pumped from a well and sent down a pipeline to the refinery. There, it is processed into the gas that we depend on to get around on a daily basis. From there, it is transported by ship and/or truck to its final destination, your local gas station. Not too much dependent travel needed for that oil.
Scenario #2. There is a group of farmers who decide to grow some corn to be made into ethanol and blended with gas for a “better” fuel. Those farmers use many pieces of large farm equipment to grow and tend that corn, each vehicle belching diesel exhaust into the air with each task needed to grow, tend, spray, harvest and transport that corn. From there, the corn is processed and refined until it can be made into ethanol. This falsely labeled “eco-friendly” fuel starts out with a carbon footprint debt before it even makes it to the gas station!
Now, I do realize that corn is not the only option out there, but the study conducted by the Nature Conservancy sees this as a huge stumbling point for bio-fuels. "I was surprised that with so many of the crops, it takes so long before you break even [on carbon emissions]," said study co-author David Tilman of the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. "I don't think we can afford to make bio-fuels if we have to wait 50 years for any benefit," he added.
And while there are many other options for plants that can be made into fuel, the options that exist and that are in practice are only a slight improvement from our gas-guzzling cars. Sugarcane ethanol had the smallest "carbon debt," which takes about 17 years to pay off, Tilman said.
Corn ethanol's debt would take 93 years to pay off. And some other options are even worse: Bamboo has been considered as an option, but its carbon debt is over 300 years.
So where does this leave us? We are still here consuming more and more oil, showing our dependence on other countries to fill our energy needs.
The oil companies have reaped huge profits based on our needs. These companies lean heavily on the people in Washington, D.C., who can make substantial changes in the automotive market.
Are electric or solar cars the answer? They possess a smaller driving range and need a reliable power source to keep running. The possibility of a hydrogen-fueled car exists, but the volatility of the fuel’s supply still remains a huge concern to public safety.
Could there be a way to make a nuclear-powered automobile? Submarines have been running on it for decades; is there a way to harness that power on a much smaller level? So many unanswerable questions. And that forces us to choose between standard and hybrid cars – that is, until some automaker can re-revolutionize the car industry and lead the world into a new age of travel.
There’s still a lot of uncertainty about which fuel will be the best for our cars, our economy, and our environment, but the fact remains: We still have a lot of work to do, and not a lot of time to do it in.
> Comments
Jason Haas on Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM:
Geoff Loper's column about ethanol shows how little he understand about biofuels, and indeed the confusion which still reigns over the topic. To be sure, corn-based ethanol is not a very good fuel. Beyond the fact that it uses food crops, it's a very inefficient fuel. It's got less "juice" than gasoline, and far less than diesel or biodiesel, the "other" biofuel. Indeed, biodiesel is the fuel that should get your attention. While biodiesel has slightly less energy than petroleum diesel, it's barely noticeable in most vehicles running it. Much more importantly, burning biodiesel does not make the horrible soot or carcinogens that come from petroleum diesel. Better yet, there's far less energy used to produce biodiesel. Not only does it burn better than ethanol, it is far less costly to produce. Moreover, comparing the mileage of a diesel car to an ethanol-gas car shows a wide advantage for the diesel car. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI is capable of getting at least 48 miles per gallon on the highway, a figure that no ethanol-based vehicle could hold a candle to.
While biodiesel is often made from soybean oil, there is a lot of research going on into making biodiesel from algae. It's not a food crop, and it would not raise the cost of food. I believe we will have biodiesel from algae sooner than ethanol from switchgrass, and far sooner than there would be a viable hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
Finally, I advise Mr. Loper to investigate who is calling for the use of ethanol. It is not, as he alleges, "tree-hugging hippies" who call for the use of ethanol. The recent buzz for ethanol is the product of years of lobbying by big agricultural companies. And look at the car companies making vehicles which can burn a gas-ethanol blend. Are there any "tree-hugging hippies" on the board of Ford or GM? Certainly not. Lobbyists wearing suits and ties, not hippies, succeeded in securing massive subsidies for ethanol production and automobile makers who produce ethanol-compatible cars.
Regards,
Jason Haas Junior at UWM, and Vice President, Milwaukee Biodiesel Co-op
Jason Haas on Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM:
Geoff Loper's column about ethanol shows how little he understand about biofuels, and indeed the confusion which still reigns over the topic. To be sure, corn-based ethanol is not a very good fuel. Beyond the fact that it uses food crops, it's a very inefficient fuel. It's got less "juice" than gasoline, and far less than diesel or biodiesel, the "other" biofuel. Indeed, biodiesel is the fuel that should get your attention. While biodiesel has slightly less energy than petroleum diesel, it's barely noticeable in most vehicles running it. Much more importantly, burning biodiesel does not make the horrible soot or carcinogens that come from petroleum diesel. Better yet, there's far less energy used to produce biodiesel. Not only does it burn better than ethanol, it is far less costly to produce. Moreover, comparing the mileage of a diesel car to an ethanol-gas car shows a wide advantage for the diesel car. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI is capable of getting at least 48 miles per gallon on the highway, a figure that no ethanol-based vehicle could hold a candle to.
While biodiesel is often made from soybean oil, there is a lot of research going on into making biodiesel from algae. It's not a food crop, and it would not raise the cost of food. I believe we will have biodiesel from algae sooner than ethanol from switchgrass, and far sooner than there would be a viable hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
Finally, I advise Mr. Loper to investigate who is calling for the use of ethanol. It is not, as he alleges, "tree-hugging hippies" who call for the use of ethanol. The recent buzz for ethanol is the product of years of lobbying by big agricultural companies. And look at the car companies making vehicles which can burn a gas-ethanol blend. Are there any "tree-hugging hippies" on the board of Ford or GM? Certainly not. Lobbyists wearing suits and ties, not hippies, succeeded in securing massive subsidies for ethanol production and automobile makers who produce ethanol-compatible cars.
Regards,
Jason Haas Junior at UWM, and Vice President, Milwaukee Biodiesel Co-op
Jason Haas on Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM:
Geoff Loper's column about ethanol shows how little he understand about biofuels, and indeed the confusion which still reigns over the topic. To be sure, corn-based ethanol is not a very good fuel. Beyond the fact that it uses food crops, it's a very inefficient fuel. It's got less "juice" than gasoline, and far less than diesel or biodiesel, the "other" biofuel. Indeed, biodiesel is the fuel that should get your attention. While biodiesel has slightly less energy than petroleum diesel, it's barely noticeable in most vehicles running it. Much more importantly, burning biodiesel does not make the horrible soot or carcinogens that come from petroleum diesel. Better yet, there's far less energy used to produce biodiesel. Not only does it burn better than ethanol, it is far less costly to produce. Moreover, comparing the mileage of a diesel car to an ethanol-gas car shows a wide advantage for the diesel car. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI is capable of getting at least 48 miles per gallon on the highway, a figure that no ethanol-based vehicle could hold a candle to.
While biodiesel is often made from soybean oil, there is a lot of research going on into making biodiesel from algae. It's not a food crop, and it would not raise the cost of food. I believe we will have biodiesel from algae sooner than ethanol from switchgrass, and far sooner than there would be a viable hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
Finally, I advise Mr. Loper to investigate who is calling for the use of ethanol. It is not, as he alleges, "tree-hugging hippies" who call for the use of ethanol. The recent buzz for ethanol is the product of years of lobbying by big agricultural companies. And look at the car companies making vehicles which can burn a gas-ethanol blend. Are there any "tree-hugging hippies" on the board of Ford or GM? Certainly not. Lobbyists wearing suits and ties, not hippies, succeeded in securing massive subsidies for ethanol production and automobile makers who produce ethanol-compatible cars.
Regards,
Jason Haas Junior at UWM, and Vice President, Milwaukee Biodiesel Co-op