Bio-fuels produce more CO2

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Greenhouse Affect - WSJ.com

Greenhouse Affect

The ink is still moist on Capitol Hill's latest energy bill and, as if on cue, a scientific avalanche is demolishing its assumptions. To wit, trendy climate-change policies like ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Then again, Washington's energy neuroses are more political than practical, so it's easy for the Solons and greens to ignore what would usually be called evidence.

The rebukes arrive via two new studies in Science, a peer-reviewed journal not known for right-wing proclivities. The first, by ecologists at Princeton and the Woods Hole Research Center, reviews the environmental consequences of increased biofuel consumption, which had never been examined comprehensively. Of course, that didn't stop Congress and the Bush Administration from jacking up the U.S. mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022, a fivefold increase from a mere two years ago. Such policies are supposedly justified because corn-based ethanol and other "alternatives" result in (very modest) reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions when mixed with gasoline.

The researchers break new ground by exposing a kind of mega-accounting error: Prior studies had never credited the carbon-dioxide emissions that arise when virgin forests, grasslands and the like are cleared to grow biofuel feedstocks. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when these areas are cleared (often by burning) and the soil is tilled. Compounding problems is the loss of "carbon sinks" that absorb atmospheric CO2 in the bargain. Previous projections had also ignored the second-order effects of transferring normal farm land to biofuels, which exerts world-wide pressure on land use.

So, incredibly, when the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol "pays back" the carbon released by land-use change. As they say, it's not easy being green.

The second study comes out of the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy and explores what the authors call the "carbon debt" when native ecosystems are converted to biofuel stock. Until the debt is repaid, biofuels from those fields will be greater net emitters than the fossil fuels they replace. The authors find that the debt for corn ethanol in the U.S. is between 48 and 93 years. In Indonesia and Malaysia, which have a 1.5% annual rate of deforestation to produce palm oil for Western European biodiesel, the debt is as high as 423 years. Yep, that's four centuries. Even Fidel Castro won't last that long.

If all this doesn't lead to a great awakening among policy makers, we don't know what will. The studies are even more damning because they examine the issue with the theories of the global warmists and conclude that biofuels actually exacerbate the problem they're supposed to solve. On top of that, they're creating new environmental troubles like deforestation and a reduction in biodiversity that may be worse over time than whatever the importance of observed climate change. In either case, or both, they're damaging the planet more than they're helping it.

Ethanol and biofuel proponents always point out that current options are little more than placeholders, temporary fixes until the technology advances and "second-generation" options emerge: "It's just around the corner," we're told. "No, really, this time it's real." That's why the Congressional energy bill put a cap on corn ethanol and, with lavish subsidies and tax credits, essentially legislated the creation of a speculative new biofuel industry from scratch. One hitch is that the technology never seems to turn that corner. Another is that, as the blockbuster Science studies imply, the unintended consequences of such divination matter more than the self-congratulation that "doing something" provides.

Yet special blame also belongs to the environmentalists, who are engaged in a grand bait-and-switch. They stir up a panic about global warming, and Washington responds to the political incentives. Then those policies don't work and the greens immediately begin pushing a new substitute, whose outcomes and costs are equally uncertain. But somehow, that never seems to discredit the entire enterprise and taxpayers keep footing the subsidy bill. Our guess is that these new revelations will also be ignored. They're too embarrassing.

[StuartDH]

So I guess what you're saying is the answer is that we should have more wind turbines instead

[Paul mabbott]

This isn't new and it doesn't show that biofuels are 'a bad thing'. It does clearly demonstrate that some biofuel producers are just in it for the money and don't give a damn about nature!
No one should be digging up virgin forest, especially in the tropics. Any biofuel production should be done on current agricultural land.
Governments need to take a firmer hand in what producers are allowed to do.

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Greenhouse Affect - WSJ.com

Greenhouse Affect
The researchers break new ground by exposing a kind of mega-accounting error: Prior studies had never credited the carbon-dioxide emissions that arise when virgin forests, grasslands and the like are cleared to grow biofuel feedstocks. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when these areas are cleared (often by burning) and the soil is tilled. Compounding problems is the loss of "carbon sinks" that absorb atmospheric CO2 in the bargain. Previous projections had also ignored the second-order effects of transferring normal farm land to biofuels, which exerts world-wide pressure on land use.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Greenhouse Affect

I find it hard to take seriously the arguments of anyone who doesn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect".

Now I know people will say that I'm just being pedantic but if you can't get the simple, trivial things right then what are the chances that you got the difficult and complex science stuff right?

Dave P.

[Mercadante]

This article is not just old hat, it's fundamentally dishonest in its characterization of greens and environmentalists, who have been raising serious concerns about biofuels for years - as you could easily see if you checked the websites of e.g. FoE, Greenpeace, the Green Party, etc.

Some people are always going to try to make money by promoting their products as 'green'. Some of those products will be bad. Blaming 'environmentalists and greens' for that is muddleheaded.

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

So I guess what you're saying is the answer is that we should have more wind turbines instead

Progress at last! Alternative energy is legitimate if the method is rational, efficient and reliable. Knowing the cultural mindset in the UK, the religion of Global Warming has often eliminated the former condition.

Industrial Wind Turbines fail under condition two and three under most circumstance. If siting guaranteed that locations would not harm the public health and safety of residents, then you can buy and rezone all the locations you want if you pay for the development out of private funds.

Now I’m well aware this is a foreign concept to the EU political system. Off shore locations that have consistent wind patterns may well be viable instillations.

Some of the intense object that has formed in the US is based upon our own laws like Anti-trust and RICO. The new “robber barons” aren’t building railroads, they are LLC foreign companies with several ex-Enron executives at the throttle.
Do some homework. Clipper Windpower is traded on the London exchange in order to avoid SEC reporting and regulation.

Check out the ownership bio’s of UPC (and the 100+ LLC’s family of shell game companies). One principal fled to London to do his business and to avoid potential litigation.

Now look into Iberdrola and the current row of its own hostile take over. NYS Public Service Commission has not approved the acquisition of Energy East (mid-Atlantic region) utility because of questionable circumvention of regulatory statues. The second largest worldwide Wind Turbine Developer wanting to take over electric utilities in the Northeast of the US will guarantee the doubling of electric utility rates in the near future.

Point is simple. Industrial wind turbines are not the correct alternative energy method for our region in the US.

Make a sincere effort to go beyond a ‘PC’ ideology and employ common sense.

Per you private message, the url for CWW archives will not be included in future posts. However, without the source location, other members may ask the address of the item on the web.

James Hall

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Dave P.

Greenhouse Affect - WSJ.com

Guess you will need to that this up with the WSJ. Looks like Mr. Rupert Murdoch hasn't trained his colonists with the proper King;s English just yet!

James Hall

Originally Posted by pressld2

I find it hard to take seriously the arguments of anyone who doesn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect".

Now I know people will say that I'm just being pedantic but if you can't get the simple, trivial things right then what are the chances that you got the difficult and complex science stuff right?

Dave P.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Dave P.

Greenhouse Affect - WSJ.com

Guess you will need to that this up with the WSJ. Looks like Mr. Rupert Murdoch hasn't trained his colonists with the proper King;s English just yet!

James Hall

"Colonists"?! (Columnists?)
"KING;S"? (Queen's)
"you will need to that this up"?! (You will need to take this up)

Hmmmm.

3/10
Could do better.
Must try harder.



Doug

[Paul mabbott]

I think that it is rather offensive to say that most of the people contributing to these debates have not employed 'common sense'. Most of us applied it many decades back and have been working in a rational manner ever since.

Industrial turbines may not be the appropriate technology for your part of the USA but what has that to do with people on a British Isles website?

I, for one, would likewise state the blooming obvious: wave power is not much use in Switzerland, solar power is not much use in winter Icelandic nights, hydroelectricty is unlikely in the Sahel .... so please, don't be so arrogant and try to be rational ....

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

..........
Point is simple. Industrial wind turbines are not the correct alternative energy method for our region in the US.

Make a sincere effort to go beyond a ‘PC’ ideology and employ common sense.

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Progress at last! Alternative energy is legitimate if the method is rational, efficient and reliable. Knowing the cultural mindset in the UK, the religion of Global Warming has often eliminated the former condition.

I'm listening, what is the cultural mindset of the UK exactly?

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Industrial Wind Turbines fail under condition two and three under most circumstance. If siting guaranteed that locations would not harm the public health and safety of residents, then you can buy and rezone all the locations you want if you pay for the development out of private funds.

Can anything guarantee not to harm the public health and safety? Even a cotton wool factory can catch fire. Public money is also needed for public projects...like energy.

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Now I’m well aware this is a foreign concept to the EU political system. Off shore locations that have consistent wind patterns may well be viable instillations.

Some of the intense object that has formed in the US is based upon our own laws like Anti-trust and RICO. The new “robber barons” aren’t building railroads, they are LLC foreign companies with several ex-Enron executives at the throttle.
Do some homework. Clipper Windpower is traded on the London exchange in order to avoid SEC reporting and regulation.

Check out the ownership bio’s of UPC (and the 100+ LLC’s family of shell game companies). One principal fled to London to do his business and to avoid potential litigation.

Now look into Iberdrola and the current row of its own hostile take over. NYS Public Service Commission has not approved the acquisition of Energy East (mid-Atlantic region) utility because of questionable circumvention of regulatory statues. The second largest worldwide Wind Turbine Developer wanting to take over electric utilities in the Northeast of the US will guarantee the doubling of electric utility rates in the near future.

Point is simple. Industrial wind turbines are not the correct alternative energy method for our region in the US.

Wild About Britain

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Make a sincere effort to go beyond a ‘PC’ ideology and employ common sense.

How to make friends and influence people.

My common sense dictates that I do things for the greater good of the community and the wider environment...not me, me, me. I think it's only reasonable to consume less energy and find alternative sources than burning fossil fuels until we really know what's going on.

If that means I have to give up some of life's little luxuries, have a wind turbine in the back garden or think a bit more about what I buy and where it comes from, so be it...I'll probably still be amongst the top 1% of the world's most well off, and can hardly whinge about life when I compare it to the problems of billions of others around the world.

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

"Colonists"?! (Columnists?)
"KING;S"? (Queen's)
"you will need to that this up"?! (You will need to take this up)

Hmmmm.

3/10
Could do better.
Must try harder.



Doug

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Guess you will need to that this up with the WSJ.

It's the journalists I was complaining about, James, not you. I guess I could have made that a bit clearer!

I try hard never to comment on typos, spelling, grammar etc. on the forums (unless the slip-up is really funny) but these people are making their living from writing for a prestigious publication and apparently do not know the difference between a verb and a noun! The chance that they know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates is vanishingly small. So it may be silly of me but I am afraid I have discounted the entire article as being written by an idiot.

Dave P.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

Ah.... as in Colony. I see now James!
Or perhaps... colon?

Doug

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Dave P.

I understand and agree. Just because the WSJ writes it, doesn't make it true. So too, that which is penned by any Green doesn’t make the author a real environmentalist!

Balance in any system of energy production is a fair issue to discuss and investigate. That’s the reason I started posting such items.
CWW stands on its own content, which is mostly directed to local and regional issues. However, folks who dismiss litigate concerns about the siting industrial wind machines near residents are making a huge mistake.

If a serious understanding can be forged to respect real health and safety issues, and eliminate the “wind gold rush” and use the public funds that are being wasted on a flawed technology for true long term uses, we would all be better off.

Thanks,

JH

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Dave P.

I understand and agree. Just because the WSJ writes it, doesn't make it true. So too, that which is penned by any Green doesn’t make the author a real environmentalist!

Balance in any system of energy production is a fair issue to discuss and investigate. That’s the reason I started posting such items.
CWW stands on its own content, which is mostly directed to local and regional issues. However, folks who dismiss litigate concerns about the siting industrial wind machines near residents are making a huge mistake.

If a serious understanding can be forged to respect real health and safety issues, and eliminate the “wind gold rush” and use the public funds that are being wasted on a flawed technology for true long term uses, we would all be better off.

Thanks,

JH

Am I missing something? What has it all got to do with bio-fuels? You're obviously anti wind turbines in your own back yard...so why post lots of threads about other environmental topics? Wouldn't your time be better spent on wind-related discussions in the US...just a thought.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by cohoctonwindwatch

Doug,

Colonists is the correct usage. I'm the Columnist! Sorry you will have to search for the links yourself.

I'll get on it straight away . . .

JH

No, the 'colonists' were the Europeans who colonised N. America. You're a 'colonial' or, since the rebellion, an 'ex-colonial'. Whereas Rupert was a 'colonial' until he became a USAmerican citizen. Don't know what that makes him ... (well, I do really but it's too rude to print here .... ).

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, the 'colonists' were the Europeans who colonised N. America. You're a 'colonial' or, since the rebellion, an 'ex-colonial'. Whereas Rupert was a 'colonial' until he became a USAmerican citizen. Don't know what that makes him ... (well, I do really but it's too rude to print here .... ).

A colon Paul?

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

A colon Paul?

... colonic produce for sure but I think I could go further!

[cohoctonwindwatch]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Am I missing something? What has it all got to do with bio-fuels? You're obviously anti wind turbines in your own back yard...so why post lots of threads about other environmental topics? Wouldn't your time be better spent on wind-related discussions in the US...just a thought.

We are involved full time already. So what is the question, why post on your forum? Because we have friends in the UK.
Campaign Windfarm Action Groups

Did you not move the WSJ post to this topic on your forum? I made it originally under the Wind Energy section.

JH

[StuartDH]

Exactly, the WSJ post isn't about wind. I added a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment in post #2 then you've replied with 'Progress at last!' in post #6 ??? I take this to mean that you finally got on to the subject that wanted to bring up in the first place

You seem keen to just post links to your own site, other sites, or long texts that other people have written, mostly talking about issues specific to the US.

[witham]

I have today had an email from the R.S.P.B. entitled 'Don't put wildlife in your tank' and says,

Dear Friend,

The government plans to put bio fuels in the U.K.'s transport fuel from April, sounds like a good idea right, WRONG, The drive for biofuels is wiping out precious wildlife habits and some biofuels are causing more problems for the climate than they solve.

A deal in Europe to force us to increase the amount we use could make things even worse.

Why wreck our planet while pretending to save it ? It makes no sense.
SPEAK UP before it's too late, and they urge us to contact the Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly to ditch this misguided policy

They have an easy to use online form on their web site to send an email directly to her, you don't have to be a member to use it

[Earth Hart]

The race to produce Bio-fuels over the past few years, has pushed up grain prices around the world. What with poor harvests, floods & drought, it's forcing up food prices and the poor suffer. Wheat prices globally, have doubled in the last 4yrs, & Rice has risen by 74% in the same time.

More farmers are getting greedy, turning away from food production & servicing the bio-fuel industry. And then there's Palm oil & the destruction of the Indonesian Rainforests. Sadly, bio-fuel is not the way to go unless there is strict global regulations on its production.

[nightshade]

As you say,Earth Hart, some governments would see their people starve to produce bio-fuel.
I will believe it is all going to change when America punishes it people with swingeing petrol taxes and puts a wind turbine atop the empire state

[Earth Hart]

But sadly I don't see that happening, yet. Though the US Intelligence Assessment http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080625_testimonies.pdf may change that. All we can do is pray

Originally Posted by nightshade

As you say,Earth Hart, some governments would see their people starve to produce bio-fuel.
I will believe it is all going to change when America punishes it people with swingeing petrol taxes and puts a wind turbine atop the empire state