Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday April 21 2014, @08:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the conclusions-would-damage-the-economy dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:13PM (#34818)

    I searched a little and saw (on Wikipedia) that cane can be planted, under favorable conditions, up to 33ºN. That would be a small area in the USA south (from half Texas to the entire Florida). I don't know if water is enough, maybe corn uses less.

    A problem is sugar cane can be harvested up to 10 times (Wikipedia) while corn only once. The roots would never resist being frozen, which I think does not ordinarily happen (but last time it seems it snowed in Florida).

    Well, you could always try to import ethanol from Mexico, as it seems they're in better shape to cultivate sugar cane, should they want to do it (I'm not Mexican).