Malcolm, Disclaimer: Please don't take any of this tirade personally. I am venting my frustration with the press more than anything.
This statement that biofuels are combustables, and therefore give off CO2, is a commonly promoted oversimplification, oft stated by less- than-knowledgeable reporters. The carbon in biofuels WAS in the atmosphere last winter/growing season (depending on your latitude) and therefore biofuels are technically C neutral from the perspective of the C Cycle. Just like the rain/snow that falls on us today was in the ocean days/weeks before and does not contribute to the sea surface level rise. Also, the technology for "C sequestration" from fossil fuels is still very much in the R&D stage and has yet to be proven. Whether the CO2 will stay where its put and whether it's deep injection either to the lithospere or ocean beds will cause unforeseen consequences is debatable. Other "promising" technology to "sequester" C from fossil fuel power plants suffer from similarly glib myopia. I am speaking of capturing emissions in biomass (algae) and using it for biofuels. This will, at best, only serve to marginally increase the efficiency of electrical generation and do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Just like the ethanol from corn/stovers/switchgrass/ or manure was in the atmosphere last year, this CO2 was in dinosaurs, tree ferns and primordial ooze millions of years ago. Therefore growing then burning coal-fed algae will only slightly delay the release of fossil C. Some of you may also note that I am not monolithic supporter of biofuels and this should not be taken as support for unsustainable production of biomass => fuel programs. David Bryant On Jan 14, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > Ultimately, biofuels are still combustables and undergo a combustion > reactioin to give us energy, albeit no all give the same amounts of > energy, but they all give off carbon dioxide. Better to have electric > cars and all combustion in a single factory that can be easily > regulated > and monitored than in 50 billion combustion engine cars. Also, the > emissions can be captured at these factories and used in other > processes > or disposed of/neutralized in a environmentally friendly manner. > > The general combustion reaction is: > CHO + O2 => H20 + Co2 + energy > > Combustion of Methane: > CH4 + 2 O2 => Co2 + 2 H2O + Energy > > Combustion of Ethanol: > CH3OH + O2 => CO2 + 2 H20 + Energy > > Combustion of Octane: > 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 => 16 CO2 + 18 H20 + Energy > > So are biofuels really the answer to climate change emissions? > They may slow it down, but they are still producing two key climate > change > gases, carbon dioxide and water. > > malcolm mccallum > > > On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:19 pm, William Silvert wrote: >> The British Royal Society has issued basically the same warning this >> morning, and it has received quite a bit of press coverage. It was >> the >> lead >> story on BBC World for example, and will have a signaficant effect >> not >> only >> in Britain but throughout the EU. >> >> Bill Silvert >> >> January 14, 2008 >> Biofuels 'do more harm than good to environment' says Royal Society >> Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter of The Times >> Biofuels will cause more harm than good to the environment unless >> strict >> controls are imposed on how they are grown, the Royal Society has >> cautioned. >> >> While they have the potential to help reduce the greenhouse gas >> emissions >> that are driving climate change, biofuels will devastate forests >> and other >> habitats unless controlled, scientists said. >> >> The Royal Society report of a 14-month inquiry was published as the >> European >> Union announced that its targets for biofuels are to be re-examined >> because >> of fears of their impact on the environment. Stavros Dimas, its >> Environment >> Commissioner, said that the environmental consequences of boosting >> biofuel >> production and the effects on poor communities were bigger than >> originally >> thought. >> >> The misgivings followed increasing anxiety about forests being cut >> down >> and >> savanna and other habitats being dug up to make room for biofuel >> crops. >> Communities living on the lands often had little say in the >> decisions and >> there is rising concern about the competition for agricultural land >> between >> biofuels and crops to feed the expanding world population.... >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nadine Lymn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:28 PM >> Subject: ESA Press Release: Nation's Ecological Scientists weigh >> in on >> biofuels >> >>> Biofuels Sustainability >>> Nation's ecological scientists weigh in on biofuels >>> >>> The Ecological Society of America, the nation's professional >>> organization of 10,000 ecological scientists, today released a >>> position >>> statement (www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/#energy) that offers the >>> ecological principles necessary for biofuels to help decrease >>> dependence >>> on fossil fuels and reduce carbon dioxide emissions that >>> contribute to >>> global climate change. The Society warns that the current mode of >>> biofuels production will degrade the nation's natural resources >>> and will >>> keep biofuels from becoming a viable energy option.... >> > > > Malcolm L. McCallum > Assistant Professor of Biology > Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology > http://www.herpconbio.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
