{"id":477,"date":"2008-02-12T11:04:09","date_gmt":"2008-02-12T11:04:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.energyrefuge.com\/blog\/biofuels-2\/"},"modified":"2017-09-05T17:54:51","modified_gmt":"2017-09-05T21:54:51","slug":"biofuels-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.energyrefuge.com\/blog\/biofuels-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Biofuels"},"content":{"rendered":"

Another bad week for biofuels. According to two new studies being published by Science magazine<\/a> this Thursday, biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these ‘green’ fuels are taken into account.<\/p>\n

According to an article in the New York Times<\/a>, “The first study, led by Princeton University environmental law researcher Timothy Searchinger, found that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol – the darling of the U.S. biofuel industry – would double greenhouse gas emissions for the next thirty years. Even switchgrass, seen as a far more efficient alternative, would produce a 50% bump in emissions”.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The article added: “Over time, as the incremental sequestration of CO2 in their roots matched the CO2 once stored by cleared vegetation, using biofuels probably would cut emissions – but that could take decades. And the second study, authored by Nature Conservancy researchers, pegged that timetable at the level of centuries.”<\/p>\n

The only exception right now is the sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel.<\/p>\n

An entry on the David Suzuki Foundation’s blog recommends that biofuels ‘need work’<\/a> while Wired<\/a> says it would love to see presidential candidates grilled on this topic.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Related Posts:<\/h3>