Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat

[nels76]

From the New York Times....

Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...=1&oref=slogin

So, gagamit pa ba tyo ng biofuels?

[Bogeyman]

Any word on which group actually funded that study?

Seems like the petrol lobbyists are at it again...

[CVT]

Lahat naman talaga,- may side effect.....

5303:burp:

[mazingerZ]

Exaggeration na naman ang news na yan. Pati utot nga natin contributes to the greenhouse effect kung iisipin natin. Pero fossil fuels are one of the prime causes of global warming.

[nataraki®]

From the New York Times....

Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So, gagamit pa ba tyo ng biofuels?

I dont see any reason why not?

If you look at the issues raised, it all boils down into implementation of a better policy in biofuel farming and not biofuel use per se! As presented and deemed side effect seen on other countries, it is only the threat of massive land and forest conversion into biofuel plantation. Brazil was highlighted when theyve deforested the Amazon to convert it to soybean plantation. We in the Philippines dont have to worry much about deforestation because it has been done by the illegal loggers for the longest time. Our choice of feedstock for ethanol is not soybean or wheat but sugar cane which is very common to us and is not really a threat to our available land area nor to our food security. This have also been presented and discussed during the recent 2008 Philippine Energy Summit.

As quoted on the article you posted,” Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.”

As for biodiesel, jatropha curcas is what we believe and promote to be the answer to the growing concerns on mass land accumulation for biofuel farming. As a feedstock, this tree doesn’t threaten arable/agricultural land area because it is economically better to purchase idle or marginal lands to plant it than use it in agricultural lands. Also, it is really unwise to cut trees in the forest to plant trees. This tree is an ideal tree for reforesting denuded mountains and/or sloping lands.

So all in all, there is really no problem in biofuels, it is only the ones who have implemented it on the basis of greed that is the problem.

So gagamit pa ba tayo ng biofuel? DEFINITELY! That is the best way to go now!

“And Geronimo Velasco, first energy minister, the very same person who led the development of the entire geothermal energy program, wrote these words, and I quote, “the crisis made us realize that the world’s oil supply had become so volatile that dependence on oil imports was no longer a reliable option to fuel the country. If we were to make progress, we had to develop our own energy sources.” We knew this 35 years ago. Where are we today?”
- Jose Ma. Lorenzo Tan, Vice-Chairman, WWF Phil
Capitalizing On A Renewable Present, 2008 Philippine Energy Summit.


[SIZE=4]THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW BEFORE AFFORDABLE OIL BECOMES A DISTANT MEMORY![/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][/SIZE]

[Flagg]

Hehe, the 'scientists' reasoning sounds stupid to me. Parang yung conventional wisdom before na the world is flat.

[yebo]

the first thing you should ask when faced by such studies is this: who sponsored it? in the US, and much of the developed world, those studies are done using grants from corporations that in most instances have an agenda. i'd bet that study was done using money, cleverly channeled so it does not point to the source, from US big oil. since the US has now laws that will make it mandatory in the future to mix biofuels in bigger and bigger percentages then guess who are not happy with the situation. if the law says gasoline will be mixed with 15% methanol/ethanol then that is 15% less oil coming out of the oil wells. duh!

[niky]

Actually, there is a point there...

Within just the past year, food crops and food prices have been adversely affected by the growing use of biofuels... the one advantage of fossil fuels is that most of the processing is done for us, already... it doesn't take that much, in terms of resources, to "farm" fossil fuels... whereas growing enough biofuel to meet global demand will definitely put a strain on our arable lands... it's not just a question of proper farming practices... it's exactly how much biomass we need to create biofuels.

But then again... the teeming masses of humanity already demand the use of a vast amount of land resources to provide food... the question, really, is if there is any way to sustain the current world population above the poverty threshold in any reasonably sustainable manner.

Biofuels may be part of the solution, but that's just short term. In the long term, we have to look at processing more fuel from wastes, or synthesizing fuel from naturally occuring, renewable sources like solar, hydroelectric, wind or geothermal energy.

[coiter]

dapat kasi may wireless electricity distribution (ala wireless broadband). then use satellites positioned around the world (para kahit gabi pwede) to collect the sun's energy and beam it to our cars. tapos may electric meter na lang mga auto. then ibibill na lang tayo ng local distributor natin. no more plug ins, no more solar panels, etc. hehehe

i also believe that these studies are funded by oil companies.

[ILuvDetailing]

how about converting used cooking oil to Bio Diesel, I've seen it featured on Dirty Jobs.