Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

A few years ago I saw a study which showed that it costs the equivalent energy of 1.26 gallons of of oil to make 1.0 gallons of ethanol.. This study was immediately denied by the tree huggers and it disappeared quickly.

Perhaps it was the same article that identified the REAL beneficiary of the biofuels movement was Archer Daniels Midland, the agri-business megalopoly. Didn't see any denials from the huggers.... /mark

I just got a preprint of a recent paper on this, probably the one you are referring to. I have not had time to read it in its entirety yet, but what I have read seems to indicate that biofuels CAN have a positive effect on greenhouse gases IF the biofuel is produced properly. Yes, currently most biofuel production, especially corn- based ethanol, is NOT produced in a very green way. That does not mean, however, that biofuels can NEVER be made in an environmentally positive way.

Don, ditto. But Wisconsin believes that with the power of positive thinking, we can turn all the corn into our own little oilwells and tell the middle east to kiss off.

I've not been getting my royalty check from Wisconsin because of the bottomless well of profit that is the result of ethanol. Unlike the checks in Saudi Arabia...

So who is stroking whom? The oil companies, or the tree huggers?

I have no issues with re-using the spent oil from deep fat fryers or whatever, that's wringing the last penny out of a product. If something else works, has an actual cost benefit, then people will use it.

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

D> biofuels CAN have a

If you mean the one I think you mean, it was by Pimentel, whose research is consistently debunked but widely reported. His favorite tactic is to ignore anything but the primary product of a biofuel's production. So, with ethanol from corn, he ignores the fact that the proteins are then used as cattle feed, and so on. I don't know if he's involved in this latest study, but if he is, it's suspect at best.

I wonder which oil company is paying him to lie.

That assume an inelastic supply, which isn't the case for, for instance, corn in Wisconsin. I've got about 15 acres of tillable soil that I am specifically not growing corn on, because being paid to not do so pays better than doing so. If that equation changes, I'd consider putting it back into farmland.

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing greenhouse gases.

BS. As Mark F pointed out, ADM is the biggest promoter of ethanol. Any environmentalist that is half-conscious knows it's a scam.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "ATP*" quickly quoth:

I like the extra octane of ethanol, but the 10% worse gas mileage sure doesn't make it seem worthwhile--ecologically or economically. My new truck runs just fine on regular, with or without the oxidizer.

Really? Tell me please, exactly how growing corn is any different than letting grasses and wildflowers grow for free?

Read the study.

Corn is a row crop requiring cultivation. None of the projected costs of corn ethanol consider topsoil loss.

Corn requires fertilizer and herbicides. Nitrates and herbicides (e.g. Atrazine) in ground water are serious problems.

You obviously have not had much experience with agriculture or you would have known that there is a big difference between a row crop and grassland.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:05:57 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Unknown quickly quoth:

Flowers die off and return their nitrogen/elements. Ag crops strip nutrients which have to be replaced.

Fertilizer runoff causes algae blooms in rivers and streams, causing fish killoffs, too.

Yes, a major difference in every facet.

The one that ignored secondary uses of the products turned partly into biofuels, and which hinges on deforestation to make the numbers work? Yeah, read it. Did you have an answer?

Wild environments are more efficient at converting carbon dioxide per acre and use less inputs, such as petroleum based fertilizer.