Biofuels

From SourceWatch
Revision as of 22:36, 25 October 2011 by Jill Richardson (talk | contribs) (SW: →‎External Articles: add links)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Biofuels

Eliana Monteforte writing in June 2007 notes that:

"As the Bush administration continues to push its alternative fuels agenda, it has become increasingly evident that corn-based ethanol could be as much the global villain as a boon to society. Instead of improving the environment and moderating oil prices, corn-based ethanol could result in mass deforestation, strained land and water resources, increased food prices, augmented poverty and swarms of farmers uprooted from their land. While the negative effects of corn-based biofuels are obvious, Washington continues to emphasize their importance, while increasing the size and number of subventions to the ethanol industry. This is being done despite the adverse ramifications that its cultivation is having on the sites where it already is being produced, with the situation likely to further deteriorate in the near future." [1]

"A formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster"

George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian (UK) in March 2007, notes that:

"Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild."

2011 MIT study

In a 2011 study, MIT researchers found that when a biofuel's origins are factored in — for example, palm oil grown in a clear-cut rainforest — conventional fossil fuels may sometimes actually be the "greener" choice. James Hileman, principal research engineer in MIT's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and his team performed a life-cycle analysis of 14 fuel sources, including conventional petroleum-based jet fuel and "drop-in" biofuel alternatives.

In a 2011 Environmental Science and Technology paper, Hileman considered the entire biofuel life cycle of diesel engine fuel compared with jet fuel, and found that changing key parameters can dramatically change the total greenhouse gas emissions from a given biofuel. In particular, the team found that emissions varied widely depending on the type of land used to grow biofuel components such as soy, palm and rapeseed. For example, Hileman and his team calculated that biofuels derived from palm oil emitted 55 times more carbon dioxide if the palm oil came from a plantation located in a converted rainforest rather than a previously cleared area. Depending on the type of land used, biofuels could ultimately emit 10 times more carbon dioxide than conventional fuel.

Hileman said the issue is not so much the technology to convert biofuels - companies like Choren and Rentech have built small-scale biofuel production facilities and are looking to expand in the near future - but is instead the challenge in allocating large swaths of land to cultivate enough biomass, in a sustainable fashion, to feed the growing demand for biofuels. He said one solution to the land-use problem may be to explore crops like algae and salicornia that don't require deforestation, fresh water, or fertile soil to grow. Hileman also suggested using co-products like husks to produce electricity, for animal feed or as fertilizer.[1]

Critiques of Biofuel

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "MIT Study: conventional fossil fuels sometimes 'greener' than biofuels" Eureka Alert, May 11, 2011.

External Resources

External Articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Retrieved from "https://dev.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biofuels&oldid=540952"