According to this weeks Time, the Bio-fuel cycle increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over fossil fuels and will have a negative impact on world hunger as well. The main points of the article are:
1) The soaring prices of corn, soy beans etc.. and the bio-fuel mandates are causing an acceleration of deforestation of the rain forests in order to grow these crops.
2) The energy required to produce bio-fuels except for sugar cane causes a net increase of CO2.
3) The movement of land usage to bio-fuel production from the production of food will cause hunger to increase.
The following is a pointer to the article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.htmlIssues:
Comments
intersting - but more quesitons about biofuels?
I read this post with great interest. I have heard similar arguments against ethanol - that the energy used to produce it far outweighs its environmental benefit.
I lack some knowledge on biofuels. However, most of the biodiesel that I've been hearing about over the past 5 years has, in my understanding, been derived from old fryolator grease from restaurants. Perhaps we don't fry enough french fries on a global scale to run our cars of the waste, but I'm curious to hear about whether deriving biodiesel from that source is as environmentally detrimental as ethanol or other biofuels. Anyone reading have thoughts/info on that? Am I wrong about the "run your car on french fry grease" biodiesel thing?
Also - what do you think is the answer to this dilemma? Solar energy to power cars? No cars at all?
Following the hype
Piedmont Biofuels blog
Ethanol vs. biodiesel
Local is better