Posted on 09/25/2007 11:11:13 AM PDT by neverdem
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions may be contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.
Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and corn have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels, but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.
Rapeseed and corn biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more greenhouse gases, respectively, than fossil fuels.
The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realized. The research team found that 3 to 5 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer was converted and emitted.
In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 percent.
The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.
"One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions," said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and one of the researchers.
Corn for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the U.S., where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed (one variety of which is canola), which accounts for 80...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It never fails...liberal ideas and policies are ALWAYS wrong. That’s why all my household garbage goes in both the trash and recycle bins.
Is anyone surprised by this?
Such obviously good advice would hit home a little harder, professor, if you hadn't already jumped on the GW band wagon with both feet, sans the rational decisions.
Let me just watch how fast liberals turn back from all these ethanol subsidies..
Any moment now.
They’ll race in to cancel them.
Any second now...
Really.
Not just liberals behind this biofuel scam. ADM has big bucks at stake.
wonder if albore is aware of the problems he’s caused?
Diversion: It works for three year olds too.
The development of biofuels was never about “reducing greenhouse gases”.
I hope I am understanding the global warming message correctly.
This guys got the info, spread the word.
Robert Newman's History of Oil.
What these people really want is to reduce the population by 90%.
This griping might end when the population is reduced by just 10%. The problem is making sure it is the right (I mean left) 10%.
Paging Mr. Gore - white courtesy phone, please.
ping. The science look right in this one?
Wouldn’t surprise me. There are always unintended consequences when the gov’t gets mixed in the free markets.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Alternative fuels were intended to reduce dependence on Arab oil. 34 years later, how are we doing over at Dep’t of Energy?
bokmark
Yhe science is dead-on - it takes more fossil fuel to produce “biofuel” than it it saves.
Thanks. Kinda figured that the ethanol “surge” is feel good enviro crap. I get less mileage in the winter because ethanol is added to the gas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.