The idea behind switching energy usage from fossil-based fuel like gas to ethanol is that it is better for the environment. Much of the push to create alternative energy companies has been based on this premise and it has also helped the American farmer get more for crops like corn.
Now it appears that ethanol may not be so "green." According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), "a study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions." A second study appears to support those findings. Part of the CO2 increase created by biofuels is due to changing land from forest to farmland. The process causes large amounts of greenhouse-gas emissions to be sent into the atmosphere.
The news is hardly good for the hundreds of biofuel companies that have been created around the drive for "green" fuel, and it may not be good for farmers who are getting higher yield from the crops they plant to create alternative energy.
But it may be very good news indeed for Big Oil.
Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-08-2008 @ 1:19PM
Ed said...
It would be more interesting to learn about what
organization sponsored this research at Iowa State University? Big oil???
2-08-2008 @ 2:22PM
diamondeyezzzz said...
Well the bad news for the big oil companies, is the diesel engine, which can run on vegetable oil, with less polution than fossil fuel. It it is a renewable energy source. Europe is solving there oil depend-ance on the big oil comanies. There are companies, that are fighting back with low price diesel fuel, like www.biofuelbasics.com
3-28-2008 @ 5:36PM
dr david hil said...
Biofuels (and carbon capture) are a 'catastrophe' for future humankind. The decisions being taken by governments around the world in the quest for sustainability are a catastrophe for humankind in the long-term. Two of these decisions at the forefront of news are biofuels, and carbon capture and storage.
Biofuels -- the fuel revolution that will supposedly help us:
(1) Growing crops in the United States for biofuels requires around the same energy input for fertilisers and processing the crops as that saved by replacing petrol on the forecourt (Biofuels - A solution worse than the problem, Daily Telegraph).
(2) By harvesting the peat bogs for biofuels, we release 30 times more carbon dioxide than will be recouped by burning the biofuel produced (Prof. Jack Riley, University of Nottingham).
(3) Growing biofuels takes a lot of land and huge amounts of water -- neither of which the world has to spare.
(4) China and India risk famine if they proceed with their biofuels plans, because they don't have enough water to grow both fuel and food (International Water Management Institute).
(5) Biofuels are killing forests and leading to more global warming, besides taking land away from food crops (Global Forest Coalition).
(6) The diversion of land meant for food crops to agrofuel production is a "crime against humanity" (Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food).
Carbon Capture -- putting off today what others will have to solve tomorrow:
(1) Carbon sequestration and storage (under our oceans and land) is an untried method of locking up carbon dioxide forever, but there is not a 100 per cent assurance that it will not escape. Possible escape routes include earthquakes, land shifts, terrorism (holding the world to ransom) or human disasters/accidents.
(2) Sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide is not a solution, but a problem that humankind will have to face in the future -- one that might eventually threaten the existence of human life itself on Earth, for nothing ever designed has lasted forever.
(3) Governments, as usual, are only looking at solving problems today without any understanding of what this will bring in the future. They are attempting to lock up gases that are toxic to humans -- leaving any problems for future generations to solve.
(4) If there was a rupture in the storage vessel, the ramifications for the world would be immense, to say the very least. Therefore, carbon capture is a method of putting off today what others will have to fix tomorrow (if they can).
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland