Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
aztek

Study: Fuels from corn not better than gas.

14 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study "does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol."

The Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

more here http://news.yahoo.co...8--finance.html

Edited by aztek
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And why the hell should we take any notice of Climate Change scientists who can't make up their minds from one week to the next what Climate change is supposed to do, but no one dare question their wisdom. Everything contributes to GlobalWarming, according to them, but can they ever offer any helpful advice or suggestions? Obviously the climate Change industry wouldn't want to find any solutions to Climate Change, would they, it'd do them out of a job and very lucrative sponsorship, so obviously they're going to want to talk down any solutions that people do come up with.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the data are accurate then the auto industry will be even more likely to refuse to repair autos damaged by these fuels. The engines were not made to run optimally on this mix and long term damage to components will result. The auto industry and EPA (I think) already are in a row over this issue. Just great... pay more for proper fuel, damage your vehicle investment AND get no environmental benefit. Sounds like government is here to help again :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us who pay attention to our gas mileage could have told you that ethanol was a bust the year it was added to gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that that sort of gas (ie non-fossil fuel) wasn't to address global warming, but rather the finiteness of fossil fuel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to do studies so...

I noticed the probs with mileage quite some time ago...

Plus...I find it rather interesting that technology is supposed to be getting better and better and yet mpg for the average car has been stagnant for prob close to 20 years.

Oh well, this is where someone comes in and tells me the emission control devices put on cars cause them to work harder and thus use more fuel...which is such circular thinking it makes my head hurt.

All I can say is I had a Chevy Monza back in the early 80's WITH a catalytic converter and got 35 mpg...you can't say throwing more crap on a car to reduce emissions but causes it to burn more gas and put out more emissions is a good thing...

Edited by Jeremiah65
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn to me was always a dumb move because we already use corn for EVERYTHING. Most people don't realize the extent. So taking part of the crop for fuel just pushes prices up on other stuff.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And why the hell should we take any notice of Climate Change scientists who can't make up their minds from one week to the next what Climate change is supposed to do, but no one dare question their wisdom. Everything contributes to GlobalWarming, according to them, but can they ever offer any helpful advice or suggestions? Obviously the climate Change industry wouldn't want to find any solutions to Climate Change, would they, it'd do them out of a job and very lucrative sponsorship, so obviously they're going to want to talk down any solutions that people do come up with.

Which is exactly what happens here after every time I offer them. There's irony among those crickets. And there's no $$ in the cure.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn to me was always a dumb move because we already use corn for EVERYTHING. Most people don't realize the extent. So taking part of the crop for fuel just pushes prices up on other stuff.

This particular method uses the stalks and cobs to make ethanol out of. The problem is we burn it and it releases some of its carbon into the air. The study says that if we leave the stalks to rot in the ground the carbon in the stalks mixes with the soil and isn't released into the atmosphere. So making it into ethanol is worse off than leaving it on the ground to rot as far as global warming in concerned.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that that sort of gas (ie non-fossil fuel) wasn't to address global warming, but rather the finiteness of fossil fuel.

...and to promote corn production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was obvious from day one if you spent even a few minutes looking at the data.

The introduction of ethanol was for three purposes;

-to support farmers

-to not rock the fossil fuel and auto industry boat in any meaningful way

-for the Bush administration to appear to be doing something about climate change when they were doing nothing.

The reality is that this was a political decision and had nothing to do with sound science or climate change. No expert in the field would have recommended this course of action to cure the CO2 emissions problem.

Similar logic was applied to promoting hydrogen cars in over electric cars. Electric cars work and hydrogen cars don't - and the oil dominated Bush administration new that hydrogen was no threat to the Oil industry buddies.

Such are dishonest politicians.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the wording of the first sentence to be a bit odd.

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term...

*bolding mine

Biofuels are still admitted to be better in the long term, so what's all the hullabaloo? Bite the bullet now, reap the benefits later. The point is that we need alternative fuels. Even if there is something better on the horizon biofuels will get us through the interim and loosen the stranglehold of oil dependency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was obvious from day one if you spent even a few minutes looking at the data.

The introduction of ethanol was for three purposes;

-to support farmers

-to not rock the fossil fuel and auto industry boat in any meaningful way

-for the Bush administration to appear to be doing something about climate change when they were doing nothing.

The reality is that this was a political decision and had nothing to do with sound science or climate change. No expert in the field would have recommended this course of action to cure the CO2 emissions problem.

Similar logic was applied to promoting hydrogen cars in over electric cars. Electric cars work and hydrogen cars don't - and the oil dominated Bush administration new that hydrogen was no threat to the Oil industry buddies.

Such are dishonest politicians.

Br Cornelius

Dishonest or just grossly misled by other liars, they're bureaucrats! That's what I keep trying to tell you. And no, don't give me this p*** that it only exists in one party and not the other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

It thought gasoline was already a fairly light hydrocarbon. Can you actually burn corn biofuel and get a lot less carbon out of it? It would seem to my scientific mind that a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of ethanol would have nearly the same amount of carbon in them.

Gasoline has a density of about 0.71 to 0.77. While ethanol has a density of 0.79. That right there would tell me that ethanol is heavier then gasoline, and when you know that hydrocarbons are like 95% carbon in mass, it is not hard to figure that ethanol has as much, or more carbon in it per gallon.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.