Howdy Webriders! Dr. VW here. I know that most of you have probably had it up to your ears with all the eco-tree hugger green sentimentality round here, but this one really ground my gears the wrong way. Whenever there’s a revolution, there’s someone getting screwed. The green revolution is no different, and good intentions don’t always mean good solutions. Hit the jump to hear the latest on…

Baloney- I mean Bio- Fuel.

Now most of us have heard of Biofuels. E85 ethanol from corn and other Biofuels made from sugarcane and other plants are a part of a growing industry, and many people are of the opinion that one day they could be a renewable source of energy to power our cars. Biofuels act very much like gasoline, but unlike oil can be replaced by planting a new field of crops. Furthermore, the growing plants take in the CO2 created from burning them as fuel. Sounds win-win right?

Well there are several problems with that scenario, least of which is the jump in price for staple food crops like corn and sugarcane as demand rises. New reports, like the story from Bloomberg.com, show that clearing land for cultivation of these crops could do more harm than good. Deforestation ends up getting rid of the primary source of CO2 clean up and oxygen renewal, while eroding the soil and causing other imbalances in nature. Even worse, the CO2 created from the technology used to create the Biofuels ends up outweighing the savings, making the entire endeavor a moot point. According to the scientists quoted in the Bloomberg article, “converting new land to cultivate biofuel crops can cause emissions of carbon dioxide 420 times greater than the annual savings”. Sounds like biofuels are more like Baloney Fuels.

If Biofuels are off the table, then what can we as consumers do? Well aside from using our wonderful democratic process and the ability to write your senator, not much. E85 ethanol is being mandated by congress to be mixed into our standard gasoline, and major car companies are touting it as proof that they care about the environment. While wasting time and money on an obviously flawed concept, we lose focus on the fuel of the future… Hydrogen. Sigh.

In the meantime, I’ll just save up for the Tesla Roadster, at least until someone invents a closed loop hydrogen fuel cell. As for the rest of you, think about getting those fancy new hybrids or a smaller car. With gas topping $115 a barrel, your wallet will thank you.

Remember to swing down to the forums and hang out for some round table discussion! Leave a comment too, I thoroughly enjoy pretending to be popular around here. This is Dr. VW- out.

Comments

coug45 on 18 April, 2008 at 7:22 am #

I have read your blog, and the report on Bloomberg.com, and frankly think there are some errors in reasoning behind them. First the assumption that new farm will have to be created, is just that, an assumption. If crops for producing E85 are planted on farmland that is already being cultivated there is no new C02 released. Also, if new land is cleared for farming high amounts of CO2 are only released once. The land can continue producing crops for many years to come.
Biofuels aren’t only a good option because of their enviromental-friendlyness, but also because they are an energy source that the US and other countries can produce themselves. With oil prices rising daily, the US and other countries that don’t produce much oil are left at the mercy of oil producing nations.
However, I do agree that hydrogen is the fuel of the future. If only it was easy to store and produce cheaply. As for the Tesla roadster, although it is really cool, it is only environmentally friendly if the electricity it runs off is produced from a clean source. If its not then it’s not that much better than a Honda civic.


beanier on 22 April, 2008 at 11:24 am #

Exactly. You wanna know even more, though?

What has been the driving principle behind the entirety of plant cultivation by the human species? Give up? Returning organic matter to the soil! What is the one thing that making biofuels out of plants does not do? Return organic matter to the soil! Completely sucking the soil dry, and giving absolutely nothing back in return! Brilliant! How “green”!


beanier on 22 April, 2008 at 11:29 am #

I meant exactly to the article, not the post above.

Taking more energy to make than they give in return, therefore causing more greenhouse gases to be released than if you just burned fossil fuels isn’t exactly what I’d call being ‘environmentally friendly’.


Post a Comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Comments: