Smithsonian scientists highlight environmental impacts of biofuels
January 3rd, 2008Biofuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in comparison to fossil fuels. In the Jan. 4 issue of the journal Science, Smithsonian researchers highlight a new study that factors in environmental costs of biofuel production. Corn, soy and sugarcane come up short. The authors urge governments to be far more selective about which biofuels they support, as not all are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
Because fossil fuels contribute to global warming and supplies are dwindling, more eco-friendly alternatives are required. However, biofuels may not be superior if their production results in environmental destruction, pollution and damage to human health, argue postdoctoral fellow Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
A new study by Zah et al., commissioned by the Swiss government, calculates the relative merits of 26 biofuels based on relative reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions and an environmental-impact index, which includes damages to human health and ecosystems and natural resource depletion.
The Swiss study identifies striking differences in the environmental costs of different biofuels. Fuels made from U.S. corn, Brazilian soy and Malaysian palm oil may be worse overall than fossil fuels. The best alternatives include biofuels from residual products, such as recycled cooking oil and ethanol from grass or wood.
The Zah et al. study falls short in that it fails to consider secondary consequences of biofuels, such as rising food costs, but it is a big step forward in providing a way to compare the environmental benefits and costs of dozens of different biofuels.
“Different biofuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are,” said Laurance. “We need to be smart and promote the right biofuels, or we won’t be helping the environment much at all.”
Source: Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
May 28, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
1. They are essentially the same old technology, meaning that they probably won't spur the major development of any really useful technologies.
2. They offer a strongly constrained benefit in terms of the environment, if they prove beneficial at all. To produce them you need HUGE amounts of plants (which require land), a very efficient conversion system, and a very efficient delivery system. And, in the end, just how clean are they?
3. Are they being used as an excuse for governments to spend less money, rather than actually take the time to develop a better, electricity based technology?
4. They are another reason for the government to ignore our failing power grid... Remember the east coast blackout? Shifting fuel to the power grid would force them to finally upgrade it into the modern world.
Honestly, we should be using solar power. Even if they cost a lot right now, it would create the necessary infrastructure for later upgrades, and a lot of scientists would move into the electricity sector, increasing the rate of advancement.
Call it an investment in the future.
-Axemaster
Besides.... solar means batteries. When is the last time you saw an even halfway decent battery? Oh yeah, that's right. Never. Cause they haven't been invented yet and they aren't even on the distant horizon (unless we make one of those neat accidental discoveries:)). We can't have real electric cars because we don't have real batteries. Our current low density garbage just isn't up to the task. Even the best Li-ion batteries have far, far, far to low an energy density and lifespan to be truly useful for this kind of thing. And they are expensive to boot. I guess you could just have bank after bank of Lead Acid batteries. And then we could all die from the toxins they release after they are completely replaced and tossed in a trash heap every 10 years:). Niiiice. Sign me up for that sweet solar!
But just like you I don't understand the lack of research funds being committed by governments. WTH is wrong with them? Even though we don't currently have the tech for decent solar power we'll never GET that tech without dumping at least a bit of money into R&D.
I don't imagine that we will ever completely switch to solar and wind, so regardless, we could always cover any gaps using existing power plants.
I know this sounds like wishful thinking, but eventually we will have stable fusion - it's inevitable. Ah, no more nuclear waste! And remember, nuclear is the biggest energy source out there, solar and wind are just using the trickledown.
-Axemaster
The point is, no matter where we think we're getting our energy from, it's all coming from the sun. We just have to find the most efficient and eco-friendly way to harness it.
And yay for fusion! Ashibayai: In most cases we do get our energy from the sun, but there are a few exceptions.
1) Tidal Power: Not hydro, that's different even though the capture proccess is similar. Unlike hydro, which is solar powered and gravitationally transferred (water running downhill and all that), tidal is wholly powered by gravity. Sweeeeet!
2) Geothermal: This is partially powered by the gravitational compression of Earth's centre regions, residual heat from the initial formation of Earth (which is the same thing I suppose), and partly by radioactive decay.
Everything else ultimately comes from our astronomically large naturally occurring neighbourhood stellar fusion reactor!
And Geothermal energy is only possible because of the more massive elements that were created by a previous sun and formed into the earth, once again, by the protoplanetary disc.
Although I will give you that these energies aren't created by energy currently emanating from the sun, which would seem the most obvious way of referring to solar energy.