>>>>The first comprehensive analysis of the full life cycles of soybean biodiesel and corn grain ethanol shows that biodiesel has much less of an impact on the environment and a much higher net energy benefit than corn ethanol, but that neither can do much to meet U.S. energy demand.
Oh the irony!
but of course it does!
and I'm sure Monsanto is somewhere behind paying for this analaysis!
To the contrary, these "boutique" ideas will never amount to a hill of beans in terms of energy contribution to the global economy. Furthermore, as the article points out, diverting crops to fuel will shut off a higher-value use, namely feeding the world's growing population.
We definitely need the gonads to drill more holes in the earth to recover natural resources like oil, tar sands, coal and uranium.
How much grease does McDonalds, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, Crispy Cream and KFC dispose of in a week?
All can be converted into Bio-Diesel.
I am not sure of all the details, but alternative fuels are really popular here in Thailand. Ethanol is a major seller. Thailand has a very big rice surplus and without researching it more, that is probably where the ethanol is coming from.
I think it will take a lot to have an impact on the US, but in other developing countries, these alternative fuels do make sense.
As we've seen on earlier threads, there's room for niche markets for biodiesel, making use of stuff like used frying oil from fast food restaurants and other waste products. But there's not much sense in replacing food crops with fuel crops, when our country is already starting to become a net importer of food.
That is certainly bad news. For most of the twentieth century we were net exporters of food on a large scale, but that is no longer true, apparently.
The problem with the environmental movement is that it becomes fixated on the latest chic fad. Then you get an unholy alliance between the environmental whackos and the corrupt politicians, pushing public tax money into factory farms owned by big political donors, for instance.
I'm all in favor of genuine innovation and discovery, but you have to take the politics out of it, and you have to be VERY careful of any program that involves huge government subsidies and bureaucracies, because then the vested interests take over and could care less whether the program is actually helpful or economically viable.
I think we definitely need the legislature to overturn all the EPA laws that keep us from drilling off shore and in Alaska, and that keep us from expoloring for new oil. Also eliminate the idiotic rules for building refineries. Bio fuels suck and will never ease our need for oil. We need to reocgnize the fact that we haven't found a substitute for petroleum yet and need to get with the drilling program!
Until we do that, we will keep fooling ourselves that "biofuels" will solve our problems or at least lessen them.
The only biofuel I have seen that actually works only works for generating electricity and that is manure turned into methane and other products.
Chicken feed.
Then if we take into consideration other studies suggesting that ethanol actually produces negative energy, I'd say we need to look elsewhere.
Malarkey alert!!! Removal of the "biofuel" portion of the crop does not destroy the nutritional value of either corn OR soybeans. The solids are quite nutritional.
My instinct, distilled from this article and all the other science reports like it that I have read, suggest to me that only a radically different energy paradigm, unrelated to chemical based fuels (from "fossil" origins or from plants), will come out ahead for our transportation fuels for the future; i.e. hydrogen or electric (connected to the grid on the highway, battery in town).
Refutes other studies?
What other studies? Inquiring minds want to know. This article is worthless unless it can reference the "other studies".
Scientists and engineers differ all the time. But the lay public, since they make their decisions based on what "expert authorites" tell them, need to know how the studies differ and why?