«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Recycled Biofuel
A better way to grow biofuel crops is to re-use abandoned agricultural lands. Or farmlands that are less productive. Both are better than current practises: clearing wilderness and converting food farms to energy farms.
There are 1.5 million square miles of abandoned cropland and pastureland available around the world. Energy crops raised on these could yield up to 27 exajoules of energy a year—equal to 172 million barrels of oil. Yet even this would still satisfy only about 5% of global primary energy consumption—483 exajoules in 2005, and rising.
Better than nothing, you say. But only if it doesn't further aggravate climate change. The study by Carnegie Institution and Stanford University scientists used historical data, satellite imagery, and productivity models to estimate how to maximize the benefits from biofuels while also mitigating global warming. Recycling old farms yields the best atmospheric returns.
Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent, lecturer, and 2008 winner of the Kiriyama Prize and the John Burroughs Medal Award.
Comments
I wish MJ would finally put a foot down on one side of the fence or the other. It is shameful to even blog such drivel as this. Any mention of "bio-fuels" should be required to state in the article that not only does the bio-fuel encourage famine, it also creates more greenhouse gases than petroleum AND it is a net loss of energy because it uses up more energy in production than it delivers. Sheesh!
Douglas,
Not ALL ethanol or bio-fuel producing crops have a net energy loss.
Do some research into cellulosic ethanol produced from a variety of carbon based trash as well as crops grown specifically for cellulosic ethanol production, such as switchgrass.
Such broad sweeping statements make you sound ignorant.
Sheesh!
Posted by: SilentBob on 06/24/08 at 7:11 PM Respond
Currently available bio-diesel uses recycled vegetable oil - oil which was already produced for food processes, used up, and discarded.
There is almost zero additional carbon or energy needed to turn it into fuel.
Please stop saying "biofuel" when what you mean is "ethanol"
Posted by: Bakari Kafele on 06/25/08 at 12:32 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Making Iraq Fertile (2)
researcher wrote:
let americans pay for it.
wanna bet how much they hate us...
[more]
Brazil Changes on Climate Change (4)
Jimmy wrote:
I took care of my own guilt by getting a bunch of free car...
[more]
Steve Irwin, Illegal Whaling Ship Hunter? (11)
Thundersalmon wrote:
Steve Irwin never went about using acts of terrorism to sp...
[more]
More Genetic Tests: Still Creepy (2)
dan wrote:
Well said Michael. I'd also note for every LaBron James (...
[more]
Charge Your Cellphone By Talking (3)
Bill Moore wrote:
I think we should harness all of the hot air coming out of...
[more]
Obama's (And Our) Clean-Coal Blues (5)
Scott wrote:
The media is not the last word on all things green. Two e...
[more]
WTF? ExxonMobil Funds Research—By An Astrophysicist—On Polar Bears And Climate Change (4)
Tina wrote:
As of now, the Minister of the Environment has asked Envir...
[more]
Listen Up, Pandas, You Need to Fight (17)
ziggxzagg wrote:
i totally agree,
ive been asking for a panda for the last ...
[more]
Huntington vs. Burlington: How to Grow a Healthy City (20)
yerbatera wrote:
Great story! Have lived in both urban liberal enclaves & ...
[more]
All-Expenses-Paid India Vacation, Courtesy of Your Health Insurer (7)
fixedknee wrote:
I agree that doctors' bills are high. Part of the problem ...
[more]
RSS
Feed
Movable Type 3.33
Posted by: Douglas on 06/24/08 at 8:31 AM Respond