“Study finds”. This was said by plenty of Scienctists since the start of US and EU biofuel mandates but Scoring cheap Eco points was more important than actualy doing something meaningful. We needed to wait and waste 20 years and countless useless investments and still Biofuels will go on forward as “green” Energy.
That’s so stupid. You use oil, gas and etc to grow corn and after you use this corn to burn it. No difference
>found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.
Could someone explain what exactly carbon emissions resulting from “land use changes” means here? It could be something like forests being cut down to plant corn but I’m pretty sure it should be something else.
Yea that sounds about right.
Considering what’s involved in growing a bushel of corn and then converting that into a pint of fuel it always seemed like diminishing returns
Biofuels are almost always a bad idea unless it is processed to be otherwise.
Also in the news: water is wet.
it may be … but an american study on somehting like this does not mean anything
First and even second generation biofuels are a bit of a joke. The amount of pre-treatment and conditioning needed to make the feedstock viable negates any kind of value from the resulting products.
Biofuels, unless they are made of waste, are NOT sustainable!
Then let’s use potatoes.
I once did some quick basic calculations on this. Ethanol burns clean. It only releases CO2 and water. But you’d need so much corn, or whatever other organic matter, that it’s ridiculous to even suggest using it on a mass scale.
13 comments
“Study finds”. This was said by plenty of Scienctists since the start of US and EU biofuel mandates but Scoring cheap Eco points was more important than actualy doing something meaningful. We needed to wait and waste 20 years and countless useless investments and still Biofuels will go on forward as “green” Energy.
That’s so stupid. You use oil, gas and etc to grow corn and after you use this corn to burn it. No difference
>found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.
Could someone explain what exactly carbon emissions resulting from “land use changes” means here? It could be something like forests being cut down to plant corn but I’m pretty sure it should be something else.
Yea that sounds about right.
Considering what’s involved in growing a bushel of corn and then converting that into a pint of fuel it always seemed like diminishing returns
Biofuels are almost always a bad idea unless it is processed to be otherwise.
Also in the news: water is wet.
it may be … but an american study on somehting like this does not mean anything
Not sure if this is my browser but I don’t see any link to the study in the article. [Link to it](https://www.pnas.org/content/119/9/e2101084119)
First and even second generation biofuels are a bit of a joke. The amount of pre-treatment and conditioning needed to make the feedstock viable negates any kind of value from the resulting products.
Biofuels, unless they are made of waste, are NOT sustainable!
Then let’s use potatoes.
I once did some quick basic calculations on this. Ethanol burns clean. It only releases CO2 and water. But you’d need so much corn, or whatever other organic matter, that it’s ridiculous to even suggest using it on a mass scale.