Re: [Biofuel] Research calls into question biofuel usage - The Michigan Daily
Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. The importance of biofuels is not that they increase removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Their importance is that they do not increase the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as fossil fuels do. The problem: Burning fossil fuels release carbon that had been sequestered in the ground for tens of millions of years. This carbon is not part of the current carbon cycle and therefore adds to the carbon in the atmosphere. Biofuels are composed of carbons recently fixed into organic compounds by the photosynthetic activity. They do not introduce carbon from ancient times into the atmosphere. Burning biofuels result in no net gain in atmospheric carbon. Tom On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:21:35 -0400 Thomas Kelly ontheh...@fairpoint.net wrote: Hmmm “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. One would hope that the fields used to grow soybeans for biofuels are simultaneously growing crops for food. Oils pressed from soy beans for biodiesel production leaves behind the proteins and carbohydrates that make for excellent animal feed, which is what soy should probably be grown for anyway. Pig farmers feed soy to their pigs because its protein is high in the amino acid lysine. In fact, the removal of the oil may make for better feed in that soy oil has a poor balance of omega 3:omega 6 fatty acids. Animals fed soy should also be grazing. The use of soy oil in human diets should be replaced by olive, canola or some other veg oil with higher omega 3 fatty acids. My point: Much of the carbon captured by plants growing in a field used to produce soy oil for biodiesel production still enters the food chain as food. Tom On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:33:57 -0500 Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/research-questions-effectiveness-biofuel [links in on-line article] Research calls into question biofuel usage By Samiha Matin, For the Daily Published February 9, 2015 Though expanding biofuel production is often lauded as a key strategy for decreasing carbon emissions, a University-based analysis found that the benefits might not be so extensive. John DeCicco, a research professor at the University’s Energy Institute, reviewed existing studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biofuel as an alternative energy source. He discovered that the variety of computer models used does not accurately represent the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when biofuels are produced. Though biofuel, an energy source composed from organic or food waste products, has generally been deemed a leading eco-friendly option for reducing gasoline consumption, DeCicco said many of the studies are misleading. “The government has sponsored computer models which have made a very basic accounting mistake,” he said. “Particularly, they count carbon dioxide uptake as it happens. They completely offset the carbon dioxide admitted when the biofuel is burned.” In recent years, scientists and researchers have debated the advantages and disadvantages of biofuel compared to petroleum production. DeCicco, however, said his work takes a step back to research fundamental mistakes made when measuring carbon dioxide uptake throughout the decades. His research argues against the assumption that biofuels decrease net carbon dioxide emissions. Using a field of soybeans as an example, DeCicco talked about how these models fail to recognize that lands are constantly being used for production. Fields previously used to grow food are now providing for biofuel production. “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. The research paper also highlights the use of carbon footprint models and their incorrect calculations that carbon dioxide emissions are lower with biodiesel than petroleum. The results are inconsistent with the realities of the carbon cycle, causing carbon footprint calculators to incorrectly estimate carbon dioxide uptake by crops like soybeans. However,
Re: [Biofuel] Research calls into question biofuel usage - The Michigan Daily
Hi Tom, isn't spin fun? The WRI 'study' blurs biodiesel and ethanol with solar photovoltaics and wind turbines as though they are completely interchangeable, but cannot be accommodated in a shared land use arrangement. This completely distorts the real discussion where biodiesel and ethanol are intended primarily as transportation fuels displacing petro-diesel and gasoline use (mostly because of the predominant drive trains in use today), and where PV and wind power are primarily displacing coal and natural gas for electricity generation. This piece confuses the function of biofuels as a 'zero-net-carbon' fuel to displace fossil carbon fuels with the idea of long-term carbon capture, and blames the solution for not solving the problem it was never intended to address. But the meme of 'biofuels don't reduce greenhouse gases' lingers, even after we try to straighten the thing out. This is the role of corporate mass media and its allies (funded, 'scientific' disinformation). It is disheartening some days to have to keep going back to 'square 1' fact-checking and calling out the disingenous. It is also time-consuming, and in my case, unpaid. In my 'real' world, that means it sometimes loses out to doing things for which I get paid (my creditors seem to prefer it this way). One reason I post the URL for on-line articles is so others can also comment on them on-line, in hopes of un-skewing the messages being delivered. I'm facing a related issue in the world of charging electric vehicles, and that is getting the bulk of my 'spare time' in the area of responding to bad assumptions and attempts to steer discussions to 'solutions' aligned with specific agendas. Darryl On 11/02/2015 12:05 PM, Thomas Kelly wrote: Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. The importance of biofuels is not that they increase removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Their importance is that they do not increase the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as fossil fuels do. The problem: Burning fossil fuels release carbon that had been sequestered in the ground for tens of millions of years. This carbon is not part of the current carbon cycle and therefore adds to the carbon in the atmosphere. Biofuels are composed of carbons recently fixed into organic compounds by the photosynthetic activity. They do not introduce carbon from ancient times into the atmosphere. Burning biofuels result in no net gain in atmospheric carbon. Tom On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:21:35 -0400 Thomas Kelly ontheh...@fairpoint.net wrote: Hmmm “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. One would hope that the fields used to grow soybeans for biofuels are simultaneously growing crops for food. Oils pressed from soy beans for biodiesel production leaves behind the proteins and carbohydrates that make for excellent animal feed, which is what soy should probably be grown for anyway. Pig farmers feed soy to their pigs because its protein is high in the amino acid lysine. In fact, the removal of the oil may make for better feed in that soy oil has a poor balance of omega 3:omega 6 fatty acids. Animals fed soy should also be grazing. The use of soy oil in human diets should be replaced by olive, canola or some other veg oil with higher omega 3 fatty acids. My point: Much of the carbon captured by plants growing in a field used to produce soy oil for biodiesel production still enters the food chain as food. Tom On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:33:57 -0500 Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/research-questions-effectiveness-biofuel [links in on-line article] Research calls into question biofuel usage By Samiha Matin, For the Daily Published February 9, 2015 Though expanding biofuel production is often lauded as a key strategy for decreasing carbon emissions, a University-based analysis found that the benefits might not be so extensive. John DeCicco, a research professor at the University’s Energy Institute, reviewed existing studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biofuel as an alternative energy source. He discovered that the variety of computer models used does not accurately represent the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when biofuels are produced. Though biofuel, an energy source composed from organic or food waste products, has generally been deemed
Re: [Biofuel] Research calls into question biofuel usage - The Michigan Daily
Hmmm “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. One would hope that the fields used to grow soybeans for biofuels are simultaneously growing crops for food. Oils pressed from soy beans for biodiesel production leaves behind the proteins and carbohydrates that make for excellent animal feed, which is what soy should probably be grown for anyway. Pig farmers feed soy to their pigs because its protein is high in the amino acid lysine. In fact, the removal of the oil may make for better feed in that soy oil has a poor balance of omega 3:omega 6 fatty acids. Animals fed soy should also be grazing. The use of soy oil in human diets should be replaced by olive, canola or some other veg oil with higher omega 3 fatty acids. My point: Much of the carbon captured by plants growing in a field used to produce soy oil for biodiesel production still enters the food chain as food. Tom On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:33:57 -0500 Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/research-questions-effectiveness-biofuel [links in on-line article] Research calls into question biofuel usage By Samiha Matin, For the Daily Published February 9, 2015 Though expanding biofuel production is often lauded as a key strategy for decreasing carbon emissions, a University-based analysis found that the benefits might not be so extensive. John DeCicco, a research professor at the University’s Energy Institute, reviewed existing studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biofuel as an alternative energy source. He discovered that the variety of computer models used does not accurately represent the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when biofuels are produced. Though biofuel, an energy source composed from organic or food waste products, has generally been deemed a leading eco-friendly option for reducing gasoline consumption, DeCicco said many of the studies are misleading. “The government has sponsored computer models which have made a very basic accounting mistake,” he said. “Particularly, they count carbon dioxide uptake as it happens. They completely offset the carbon dioxide admitted when the biofuel is burned.” In recent years, scientists and researchers have debated the advantages and disadvantages of biofuel compared to petroleum production. DeCicco, however, said his work takes a step back to research fundamental mistakes made when measuring carbon dioxide uptake throughout the decades. His research argues against the assumption that biofuels decrease net carbon dioxide emissions. Using a field of soybeans as an example, DeCicco talked about how these models fail to recognize that lands are constantly being used for production. Fields previously used to grow food are now providing for biofuel production. “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. The research paper also highlights the use of carbon footprint models and their incorrect calculations that carbon dioxide emissions are lower with biodiesel than petroleum. The results are inconsistent with the realities of the carbon cycle, causing carbon footprint calculators to incorrectly estimate carbon dioxide uptake by crops like soybeans. However, DeCicco remains optimistic for the future and believes that scientific critical analyses will help to remove these assumptions. “I, alongside many researchers around the world, have begun peeling the layers of the onion,” he said. “It’s necessary because the scientific community has made some erroneous decisions.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Research calls into question biofuel usage - The Michigan Daily
http://www.michigandaily.com/news/research-questions-effectiveness-biofuel [links in on-line article] Research calls into question biofuel usage By Samiha Matin, For the Daily Published February 9, 2015 Though expanding biofuel production is often lauded as a key strategy for decreasing carbon emissions, a University-based analysis found that the benefits might not be so extensive. John DeCicco, a research professor at the University’s Energy Institute, reviewed existing studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biofuel as an alternative energy source. He discovered that the variety of computer models used does not accurately represent the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when biofuels are produced. Though biofuel, an energy source composed from organic or food waste products, has generally been deemed a leading eco-friendly option for reducing gasoline consumption, DeCicco said many of the studies are misleading. “The government has sponsored computer models which have made a very basic accounting mistake,” he said. “Particularly, they count carbon dioxide uptake as it happens. They completely offset the carbon dioxide admitted when the biofuel is burned.” In recent years, scientists and researchers have debated the advantages and disadvantages of biofuel compared to petroleum production. DeCicco, however, said his work takes a step back to research fundamental mistakes made when measuring carbon dioxide uptake throughout the decades. His research argues against the assumption that biofuels decrease net carbon dioxide emissions. Using a field of soybeans as an example, DeCicco talked about how these models fail to recognize that lands are constantly being used for production. Fields previously used to grow food are now providing for biofuel production. “The computer-analysis methods forget to check what land is doing before it is used to grow soybeans for biofuels,” he said. “They think that the land is completely barren. That’s a very big mistake.” Consequently, there has been no increase in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of increased biofuel production because the fields were already being used to grow food. The research paper also highlights the use of carbon footprint models and their incorrect calculations that carbon dioxide emissions are lower with biodiesel than petroleum. The results are inconsistent with the realities of the carbon cycle, causing carbon footprint calculators to incorrectly estimate carbon dioxide uptake by crops like soybeans. However, DeCicco remains optimistic for the future and believes that scientific critical analyses will help to remove these assumptions. “I, alongside many researchers around the world, have begun peeling the layers of the onion,” he said. “It’s necessary because the scientific community has made some erroneous decisions.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
