http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297681,00.html There are also some scientific papers - but who really reads those.
I saw something about that on AOL today too. Seems to add to the discussion of the questionable benefits of biofuels in that they also require more fuel to create and transport than they produce. That said, I'm willing to wait for a response from the industry..this seems timed (on a Saturday) to avoid a quick retort. I suspect we'll hear some counter evidence next week. But who knows. Time to drop my biofuels stock?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Sep 22 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]516366[/snapback]</div> Please link those papers. Fox news is not a reputable source. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 22 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]516367[/snapback]</div> There are a number of drawbacks to widespread us of biofuels created from food-type crops. We know this and I know you've seen that info. I think part of the problem is everyone keeps assuming EVERYONE is supposed to use 1 or 2 types of fuel and that is all. Nature does not work that way and it is time we take cues from it and start truely diversifying. In cases like this there really is no argument against economic feasability. What is the economy for anyway? Is it so we can get the trophy for highest GDP (grossest domestic product) ever year or is it to improve quality of life AND health? I'd say it's doing a pretty crappy job if it is supposed to be the latter. lol Biofuels have a place for sure but it is not as a fuel to power all transportation and mechanization everywhere. It's just not feasible.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 23 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]516614[/snapback]</div> I'm sure CNN and Realclimate.org are??? Well, maybe, when one realizes that CNN is considered 'centrist' by 'true' progressives. What "inaccuracies" has Fox news "reported"? Don't confuse reporting with commentary, as does Anderson Cooper.
Ummm, are we arguing the news here??? I have found CNN to be quite modestly bent to the conservatives, and Fox news is practically a spokesman for the conservative veiw of the world. But I guess I am a whacky messed up tree hugging liberal socialist. Concerning the Foxnews article: The article specifies corn and rapseed based biodiesels, which is sort of a beaten horse. I am not aware of any scientific group finding any promise in corn based biofuel. Scientists have moved towards looking at other sources of potential biofuels, such as prairie grasses, which are perennial, require little work of the land, most likely results in a net long term decrease in global warming gasses, and can be grown on marginal land with little or no use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer. However, as a whole, from the science I have read, I don't think biofuels should be heavily explored as a viable energy alternative. Even in the best of circumstances, very little fuel can ever come out of biofuels, and there is a lot of concern with the pollution of ethanol combustion (it is NOT a clean fuel). Our resources are much better spent exploring and developing other energy technologies (wind, solar, nuclear) that hold much more promise to providing meaningful solutions. That said, many policy makers and yahoos here in the midwest still see corn ethanol as a 'save the world' and 'green' solution and are resistent to consider the negative impacts and ridiculousness of the technology; so maybe, distributing the information on the pitfalls of biofuels should be dispersed. It is still unfortunate that the fox article headlines "Biofuels" instead of "corn based biofuel" and many of the figures cited and the way the article structures the sentences makes me think that there are possibly flaws in the study itself or a lot of spinning by the article's author.
Fox is a little behind the times. (I guess that could be a bit of a pun! ) This issue has even been discussed many times here on PriusChat. For those who aren't aware, the issue is this: Corn is grown with petrochemical based fertilizers (oil), sown and harvested with diesel powered tractors. Various studies have shown that it takes anywhere from just under a gallon to over a gallon of fuel to make one gallon of Ethanol (depending on who's study you read). In other words, it takes anywhere from 90 to over 100 gallons of fuel to make 100 gallons of Ethanol! Yikes! Not very efficient or worse - an absolute waste! Another issue with BioFuels that I have heard discussed, but only very rarely, is water consumption. Crops are irrigated with water, and it is my understanding that it takes many gallons water to process corn into a gallon of ethanol. If you look at California and the Southwestern states, water is already another environmental disaster. And even the midwestern "corn belt" have or are soon going to have water problems.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Sep 24 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]517149[/snapback]</div> Correct me if I am wrong but corn is one of the most water intensive major crops we cultivate. It's a great small scale crop but the way we grow it is is terribly destructive. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 24 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]517005[/snapback]</div> Realclimate.org is much more credible than FoxNews by a long shot because the topics are usually posted by climate scientists and they link to peer-reviewed papers. They don't link to other columnists and news articles as if that is quantifiable proof. It reminds me of the bible trying to validate itself. Does this mean Realclimate is infalible or should be your only source? Of course not, but to compare that site to Fox news is sad imo.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 24 2007, 10:15 PM) [snapback]517260[/snapback]</div> Water intensive and fertilizer intensive as well. It's about the worst thing we could be growing on such a massive scale.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 24 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]517265[/snapback]</div> Thanks Tripp. I was pretty sure that was the case but my mind is focused on biology at the moment and I wasn't sure.
