SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Biofuels have direct, fuel-cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30-90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions-including from land use change-can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
The IPCC has released a finalized draft of its Working Group III report. Sourced from Forbes, their analysis: that ethanol is worse than petroleum. The Working Group itself managed to say... Well, after a quick read-through of chapter 8, it appears they managed to keep any actual meaning occluded by a thick screen of political double-speak. So, I guess they said whatever you would like them to have said since nobody can prove any different.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @08:45PM
This is exactly what ethanol was supposed to do. Extra waste turned into fuel. Somehow it turned into 'we will grow our fuel with the same stuff we use for our food'. It was not meant to be efficient. Just a good way to get rid of waste.
I remember well the giant grain piles (grew up in the midwest) of the 70s. They literally could not give the corn away. Ethanol was supposed to give the farmers a 'last resort' market to sell into. I also remember well the buses in my city running on the stuff. Popcorn smell instead of burnt diesel as diesel engines can run on pretty much any oil that burns.
Then it became a political thing... 10% mandates ... etc...
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Monday April 21 2014, @09:19PM
The 10% ethanol in US gasoline is not a mandate as far as I recall. What I know is that it's a replacement for MBTE [wikipedia.org], the former anti-knock agent that is a water pollutant. The oil industry request the Federal government indemnify it from future lawsuits over yet-undiscovered health effects of MBTE, and Congress chose not to sign that particular blank check. So the oil industry switched to ethanol.
Where the stupidity creeps in is that the ethanol is made out of grain that would otherwise be food, instead of (as others have suggested) waste or grass or something else cheap. Since the sudden huge demand for ethanol was a giant windfall for big farmers (causing a spike in corn prices several years ago), you can expect a lot of political resistance to changing to a more sensible source for the ethanol.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 21 2014, @10:18PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @10:20PM
Your understanding of history is completely conflated on this issue and the MBTE issue which were completely separate and unrelated issues. Ethanol is not an anit-knock agent, and your car actually runs better without it.
In 2005, there was already [wikipedia.org] a requirement for biofuel mixture in gasoline, but it was somewhat voluntary. It did spawn the infamous "Flex Fuel" vehicles, that nobody wanted.
There was a industry wide discussion about the blend level, and congress was informed that the US fleet would not tolerate more than 10% without massive changes, hence in 2007 the timeline extension to 2022.
Then in 2007, the actual mandate was defined. It was written into TITLE II of the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 [gpo.gov]. See section 202.
It has percentages of biofuel for each forward year. (Same act promulgated the death of Incandescent bulbs). See also the Wiki Article [wikipedia.org].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:44AM
When I'm towing and expect to be climbing hills, I've found I get about 10% better fuel economy with straight gas, and don't lose power on long upslopes like I do with ethanol blend. There are still a few places in MT where I can buy straight gas, and when the truck is going to really work, it's worth the 1-2% higher price.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:46PM
I've found a 10% mileage hit using 10% ethanol. In fact my owners manual for the car states this clearly.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:05PM
Makes a person wonder how massaged the "fuel saving" economics were, eh?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:23PM
Well, the push to ethanol was never about fuel saving, it was always about energy independence.
The sad bit about is that it appears to have failed to meet either goal.
Note also an interesting wiki artical on cellulosic ethanol [wikipedia.org]. It explains the various means of getting from plants to ethanol, as well as some research that is in the pipeline.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:28PM
Too bad that using cellulose didn't become a Thing back when we had mountains of used newspaper... wonder if disposable diapers are a prospect.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Monday April 21 2014, @09:19PM
Diesel engines can't run on alcohol, so that makes no sense. Did you mean corn oil?