Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Biofuels: 'Green gold' or problems untold?
As I was looking through cnn.com for an article, I ran across this artcle concerning biofuel. I found this interesting because I had just read another article about ethanol and biofuel in a national geographic article. The issue of biofuels is quickly becoming a major discussion topic for our world leaders. We need to find a energy source that is dependable and doesn't hurt our planet more than it already is. Biofuel could be the answer to alot of the problems our societies face today, but until we are able to refine its production and solve the problems that arrive after it is harvested we are not ready to replace oil with this substitute. Biofuels bring up many more issues that hurt our enviroment than help it including releasing more greenhouse gases, reducing land for producing food crops, and diminishing our water supply by demanding such a large amount of water in production.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree that research on biofuels is necessary. While there are many limitations and criticisms of biofuels, by researching alternative energy sources, we are taking a step in the right direction. Even though we will probably never completely rely on biofuels as an energy source, we must work to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
This article reminded me of another piece by George Monbiot from the Guardian that I was reading on the subject a while ago. I have posted the link and an excerpt below. In his piece, Monbiot refers to some of the problems of biofuel mentioned in the posted article. What really struck me was his statement that there was "no substitute for cutting back". I strongly agree with him. As many studies have demonstrated, biofuel is not sustainable or even completely carbon neutral. The growth of biofuel crops and the actual production of biofuel itself costs just as much (if not more in some cases ) carbon as is being 'saved' by not using conventional fuels. In the face of these facts, I think that we, as a national and even a global community, should provide much stronger incentives for cutting back on carbon consumption.
Currently, many people don't seem to have a strong enough incentive to change their consumption patterns. This problem can almost be categorized as a risk perception issue. An immediate risk for heavy carbon consumption is not readily evident. As such, there is no incentive to cut back on consumption.
George Monbiot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/06/transportintheuk.comment
Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic.
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.
The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - that seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one substitute is worse than the fossil-fuel burning it replaces.
After reading this article, I feel I share some similar concerns about the future of alternative fuels. Much of the communication on the issue of biofuels involves praise from politicians seeking to gain public support. However, as the article points out, the production of ethanol from corn to fuel our automobiles could have devastating environment impacts. Further, the feasibility of the development of such fuel sources must also be questioned. I recall reading an article by David Pimentel of Cornell University that claimed if ethanol were to be a substitute for gasoline, and fuel all the cars in the United States, 97 percent of the land in the US would have to be planted with corn.
I am surprised that other fuel sources like low sulfur diesel have not stimulated as much discussion. I suppose there is still a bias against any petroleum based fuels.
Looking back at the incentives for development of alternative fuels such as current gas prices and the issue of global warming, I can understand how society would be willing to accept alternatives to gasoline without much consideration of any of the associated negative effects. However, I feel it would be beneficial to have more exposure to the criticisms (such as those present in the article posted) associated with these alternative fuels in order to develop an opinion based on both pros and cons.
I agree with reducing the reliance on fossil fuels but I think there are other more efficient alternatives than biofuels. Yes! I agree that biofuels are a clean source of energy but we must judge decisions/alternatives based on cost and benifits. And when it comes to biofuels especially ethanol and biodiesel the costs far exceed the benifits. For instance, most of these lands being opted to cultivate crops primarily to produce biofuels could be used to cultivate food to eliminate world hunger. Many of the poorer nations are opting to cultivate crops for biofuels rather than food to put on the table. These are some of the extreme cases where I think biofuel is not the answer to solve our dependency on fossil fuel energy.
Currently, I think the role of biofuels right now is a lose-lose situation. It is unfortunate to say, but the truth is is that biofuels will never replace coal and oil as the primary form of energy production. Yes, I do believe that biofuels are a step in the right direction, however they are merely a stepping stone in our search for a real substitute for oil and coal. Similar with cancer research, all we are really missing is that one “big discovery” to solve the problem. I do believe it is in our grasps, and there is no telling what the future has in store, but the fact of the matter is, without the groundbreaking discovery it would take to find a substitute for coal and oil, we are still stuck in our world of air pollution and diesel engines.
Biofuels could become a very reasonable option for the reduction of carbon emissions. I think it is very important not only for this reduction in carbon footprint, but also becuase of the simple fact that at some point the oil is going to run out in the world. I think we need to change policy and get some government funding in order to research such great energy alternatives.
Post a Comment