Quote of the Day: David Suzuki on Biofuels
by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA on 10. 4.07
Photo credit: Lynn L. Walters/The New York Times
Proponents of biofuels, which are often made from plants such as corn or sugar cane, often point to their many advantages over fossil fuels like gasoline. Biofuels are less toxic or non-toxic in comparison to fossil fuels. They are a renewable resource, whereas once fossil fuels are gone, they're gone. And biofuels can be grown just about anywhere you can grow crops, reducing the need for giant pipelines or oil tankers, and potentially helping to reduce conflicts in areas like the Middle East.
So far so good. But things start to get complicated when you look more closely. Much has already been debated about the energy requirements to produce some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol. Ethanol made from corn only contains marginally more energy than what is needed to produce it. ... Many people argue that making corn-based ethanol is more of an agricultural subsidy for farmers than it is a sound environmental policy.
Things get even dodgier for biofuels when you look at the land area that would be needed to grow fuel crops. We use a lot of fossil fuels. Switching to biofuels would not reduce the demand for fuel, just change the way we get it. And that would require a lot of land. In fact, substituting just 10 per cent of fossil fuels to biofuels for all our vehicles would require about 40 per cent of the entire cropland in Europe and North America. That is simply not sustainable.
Of course, reducing the amount of fuel we use, no matter what the type, is very important. But the authors of [a] recent article in Science say that if our primary motive in switching to biofuels is to reduce global warming, then we have to look at all our options for the land that would be needed to grow fuel crops. ...
In other words, biofuels alone are not the quick-fix answer to global warming. In fact, strong legislated policies to improve the efficiency of our cars, homes and industries is a much more effective strategy. In the longer term, biofuels may certainly play an important role. Some technologies, like cellulosic ethanol, which is made from woody debris, are very promising and they need to be supported by government and industry now, so they can be available on a larger scale in the coming years. Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future."
—David Suzuki in his "Science Matters" column, 14 Sept 2007
Biofuels look like a politically acceptable quick fix, but as the article says - they are not wholly effective.
In fact, I believe that they are a very inefficient method of producing energy from sunlight. I would guess that a field of solar cells would produce more direct net energy over a year that a field of corn.
The obvious downside in this argument is that our current investment in transport infrastructure is suited to biofuel rather than sustainable electric power.
The problem is always bigger than we think.
The problem is always bigger than we think.
Not to mention ...they would probably be grown with chemical fertilizers too...thats alot of fertilizer!
Yeah, I don't think the fuel source is so much a problem, as the quantities we use. If our energy needs were halved (through efficiency and frugality), alternative fuels would see less opposition. For that matter, if our fuel consumption was halved, we might not even be arguing.
And that goes for all of our resources, including land, water and air.
Again, treehugger, I ask you: can we have a section like an FAQ that people can refer to when frequently debated subjects come up to? It can be in a point/counter-point format. And I was glad to see that this article didn't resolve the EROEI debate the way the last one did written by a treehugger blogger, because here Suzuki is recognizing that there is some net energy benefit of even corn ethanol, but I'm tired of having the EROEI discussion. And as usual, I agree with what he's saying.
Yet, I still maintain Treehugger could use a knowledge bank for controversial topics setting forth the state of the art of the debate.
(EROEI= energy returned on energy invested)
These are genetically engineered crops were using for fuel, right? Starting off on the wrong foot...
Yeh the issue here is the fact that biofuel requires a lot of energy to produce. ie the EROEI is very low. From my guess the energy source with the highest EROEI would have to be Nuclear Power. Hence electric cars charged from Nuclear Power generated electricity might be the best option.
Since neither treehugger nor Suzuki bothered to include it, here's the reference to the Science article:
Science 17 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5840, p. 902
DOI: 10.1126/science.1141361
Policy Forum
ENVIRONMENT:
Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests?
Renton Righelato and Dominick V. Spracklen
Great! having tens of thousands of farmers wiping out the Amazon rainforest to grow soya beans so Europeans can put it into their cars! Malaysia, and Indonesia- the same thing but for palm oil plantations.Most of south east asian forests have been destroyed and no one does anythig so it continues on a massive scale- even in national parks! Then we get fed this crap about changing a lightbulb or useing biofuel to stop climate change!
This is a good start however, Wired Magazine did a story on switchgrass being used as a BioFuel. I make BioDiesel from waste oil from a couple local restaurants.
If the era of cheap oil is over, these ideas become possible and more attractive.
Keep coming up with solutions to the problem.