Biofuels Do More Harm Than Good, Leaked UN Report Warns

[Frodo]

I've always had my doubts about ethanol:

Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns

By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
8:45AM GMT 23 Mar 2014

The United Nations will officially warn that growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices, The Telegraph can disclose.

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

The draft report represents a dramatic about-turn for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Its previous assessment on climate change, in 2007, was widely condemned by environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale biofuel production. The latest report instead puts pressure on world leaders to scrap policies promoting the use of biofuel for transport.

The summary for policymakers states: “Increasing bioenergy crop cultivation poses risks to ecosystems and biodiversity.”

The report into the impact of man-made climate change is the most authoritative of its kind. For the first time, it considered the impact of biofuels on the environment.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Good.  They're walking back the more unworkable "solutions" to "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" that probably isn't going to happen anyway.

They've already lowered the lower bounds on climate sensitivity and rescinded their "most likely climate sensitivity" value.  They know what the future of climate science portends... and they know it won't progress on the backs of Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation.  It'll progress by people who deny the phony consensus and study the complex processes that govern our climate.

They'll find it's more complicated than a thermostat labeled Co2.  Killing ethanol is only the first positive step in rectifying the issue.

[TJ in Oregon]

I can believe that biofuels are in practice a net harm today, but there is a lot of potential for using other parts of the plants besides those used for food, such as corn stover, as a fuel source. A lot of research is going into viable ways of processing cellulose, so biofuels may be a much better option in the future.

If there's a general lesson to be learned from this, it's not to push implementation of new energy technologies before they're actually beneficial.

[Hatman 🍁]

Duh, isn't this common knowledge?

[TJ in Oregon]

They'll find it's more complicated than a thermostat labeled Co2.  Killing ethanol is only the first positive step in rectifying the issue.

There's nothing inherently terrible about the idea of burning plant products or ethanol as a fuel source as long as we can do it without upsetting food markets and can do so for reasonable costs. There may very well come a day when it is cheaper and more practical to produce ethanol from corn stover or some woody waste product than it is to extract oil and refine it to make gasoline. However, that day is not today.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Biofuels do have potential... but probably in more specialized uses like producing plastics or gas.

You make an excellent point on pushing energy sources before they're beneficial.  That is happening currently in Europe with wind and solar.  Europe just isn't sunny or windy enough to power their economy on renewables... YET.  That day will come soon enough.

That day is already arriving in the central U.S. where wind is more reliable.  Xcel energy is actually reducing natural gas overall as a percentage of total energy produced by the company... not by much.. but slightly.  Coal use will plummet.  

Why would Xcel plan to slightly reduce natural gas usage when natural gas is so cheap in the U.S. and the future looks pretty bright?  Because wind has become viable.  Maybe not all on its own (no energy really is).  So the percentage of all fossil fuels will decline while renewables make up all of the difference plus the new demand as well.

I may be a stupid denier... but I know the best energy policy is one that is sustainable... and the source must be renewable to be sustainable.  In 100 years we may still be burning natural gas for some purposes.  I'd bet that gas will be produced in a renewable way, though... bacteria poots and algae farts perhaps.

[AggregateDemand]

Atmospheric biofuels are generally carbon-neutral, and they produce pollutants that are comparable to fossil fuels. Non-atmospheric biofuels generate more energy per kg of carbon by making use of CO2 from fossil fuel power plants. Furthermore, biofuels can be produced on non-arable land using saltwater.

The report singles out biofuels made from crops, like corn or sugar cane, which governments subsidize to buy farming constituents and agricultural donors.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, corn ethanol is a bad joke, and everyone now knows it's a bad joke except for the farmers in Iowa who benefit from it (and are the real driving force behind its widespread adoption, not enviro groups).  Getting fuel from cellulosic or alage sources has more potential, but yeah we're not quite there yet.  Hopefully we will be in my lifetime.

[MalaspinaGold]

Duh, isn't this common knowledge?

[Zioneer]

Yeah, corn ethanol is a bad joke, and everyone now knows it's a bad joke except for the farmers in Iowa who benefit from it (and are the real driving force behind its widespread adoption, not enviro groups).  Getting fuel from cellulosic or alage sources has more potential, but yeah we're not quite there yet.  Hopefully we will be in my lifetime.

Yeah, I was under the impression that corn and other crops were terrible for ethanol, but seaweed and algae were fantastic and good for the environment. I once read an article which advocated replacing the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico with algae farms or something like that.

[Blue3]

I'm pretty sure I read about this back in 2007/2008...

[7,052,770]

Everything I've read says that only reason ethanol is even an issue is because the Iowa Caucus comes first, and presidential candidates have to support it.  It's a really great argument for why the primary schedule needs to be reformed.

[AggregateDemand]

Everything I've read says that only reason ethanol is even an issue is because the Iowa Caucus comes first, and presidential candidates have to support it.  It's a really great argument for why the primary schedule needs to be reformed.

Just a rumor. We import vast amounts of Brazilian cane ethanol and agricultural-biodiesel.

The US-Brazil trade is a big part of what the UN rant is about. They don't want countries like Brazil to use large portions of their arable land to grow fuel for the US.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everything I've read says that only reason ethanol is even an issue is because the Iowa Caucus comes first, and presidential candidates have to support it.  It's a really great argument for why the primary schedule needs to be reformed.

Yes, except for McCain, generally President candidates have been totally for corn ethanol for that reason.  And McCain got 4th place in Iowa.

[Ban my account ffs!]

They grow vast groves of hybrid poplar trees in various areas of the U.S.  They grow at an incredible pace, as much as 10-15 feet in height in one year!  The bamboo of the western hemisphere!

They are generally harvested within 15 years.

[Badger]

Isn't this based on the politics of biofuel requiring production from biomass conversion weak, but politically powerful crops like corn, as opposed to far more efficient sources like switchgrass?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I remember watching a documentary on biofuels, some guy who promoted them, just can't remember what it was called, dangit.

[MaxQue]

Isn't this based on the politics of biofuel requiring production from biomass conversion weak, but politically powerful crops like corn, as opposed to far more efficient sources like switchgrass?

Well, even if using switchgrass, the issue is than it's using land which could be used to grow food.

[Badger]

Isn't this based on the politics of biofuel requiring production from biomass conversion weak, but politically powerful crops like corn, as opposed to far more efficient sources like switchgrass?

Well, even if using switchgrass, the issue is than it's using land which could be used to grow food.

But far less land than is being used to produce corn and sugarcane for biofuel. And if cheap fuel can in turn increase the efficiency of under-mechanized third world farms......

[MaxQue]

Isn't this based on the politics of biofuel requiring production from biomass conversion weak, but politically powerful crops like corn, as opposed to far more efficient sources like switchgrass?

Well, even if using switchgrass, the issue is than it's using land which could be used to grow food.

But far less land than is being used to produce corn and sugarcane for biofuel. And if cheap fuel can in turn increase the efficiency of under-mechanized third world farms......

But would that really lower fuel price. I think it's more likely than the money difference will be used in profits and dividends by the fuel companies.

[muon2]

There's another use of ethanol as fuel that predates the discussion on CO2 and climate. Oxygenates like MBTE were added to gasoline to replace tetraethyl lead in the late 70's. The EPA started to require oxygenates to reduce smog in 1992. Ethanol is an oxygenate that was initially used primarily in the Midwest, but with the controversy over MBTE in the early 2000's, states have switched to ethanol as the preferred choice of antismog oxygenate and many banned MBTE.