But what about Laughing Gas Emissions?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 09.22.07
When it comes to biofuel production, nitrous oxide emissions are no laughing matter. So says Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, who just wrapped up a new study showing that the overall effect of growing and burning most biofuel crops may be to raise, rather than lower, greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, several of the most commonly used biofuel crops may release as much as twice the amount of nitrous oxide (i.e. laughing gas) gas - a GHG several hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide - as previously thought.
Therefore, Crutzen and his colleagues conclude, using biofuel could wipe out any benefits gained from not consuming fossil fuels and, more worryingly, could further contribute to global warming intensification. "The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto. What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse," said Keith Smith, the study's co-author and a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Edinburgh.
The study determined that bacteria convert much more of the nitrogen in fertilizer to nitrous oxide than previously estimated - as much as 3-5%, or twice the heretofore largely accepted value of 2% used by the IPCC to assess the impact of fertilizers on global warming. The authors found that the warming due to nitrous oxide emissions often overtook the cooling effect achieved due to saved fossil fuel carbon emissions - 1 to 1.7 times larger for rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for 80% of biofuel production in Europe, and 0.9 to 1.5 times larger for corn ethanol, the dominant biofuel in the U.S.
Out of all of the biofuel crops assessed, only cane sugar ethanol proved viable as a real alternative to fossil fuels - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9. So, again, the picture is mixed: though biofuels won't offer us the magic bullet needed to solve our fossil fuel-related woes, more work and research needs to be done before we fully embrace these alternatives.
Via ::AlphaGalileo: Biofuels could increase global warming with laughing gas, says Nobel prize-winning chemist (news website), ::After Gutenberg: Biofuel is, too, a laughing gas matter (blog)
See also: ::Round and Round We Go: Is Corn-Based Ethanol Viable?, ::Chopsticks - The new Biofuel? Japan Thinks So
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Is Your Kitchen Garden Toxic? 5 Ways To Fix Polluted Soil For Safe Homegrown Food
- 7 Energy Efficient Summer Cooling Tips from the EPA
Since native prairie biofuel planting require no fertilizer, herbicide, or watering, I wonder where they stand in regard to nitrous oxide emissions. If I had to guess, I would expect native prairie biofuel planting would have the lowest emissions of all biofuel crops especially since they actually sequester more carbon than is emitted from their use.
See the following for more information on native prairie biofuel plantings:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108206
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Back_to_the_future_prairie_grasses.html
This is entirely what the scientific community has been saying. "Do not jump to Politically volatile conclusions before the total research picture is processed". In ancient times, the researcher was chastised for his revelations by the media and the politically powerful. Some things never change. BTW, NO is also the commonly used 'Rocket fuel.' http://blogengeezer.wordpress.com/
==Since native prairie biofuel planting require no fertilizer, herbicide, or watering,==
Holy F*ck.
This bullsh*t claim is everywhere.
They only "don't require fertilizer" if you don not harvest them.
Since all the nutrients are in the plants.
If you do harvest them, and take the plants away, then you are depleting the soil like a plague of locusts.
==Out of all of the biofuel crops assessed, only cane sugar ethanol proved viable as a real alternative to fossil fuels - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9.==
And sugarcane in the tropics is inherently flawed, because it's in the tropics. The slim benefit is obliterated by the rampant massive deforestation going on in Brazil.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/27/biofuels-adding-to-destruction-of-brazilian-cerrado/
So much so that, RAN, the Rainforest Action Network is going to launch a massive campaign attacking biofuels production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgcE8czaMR4