Whether or not the numbers on N2O are accurate, it is widely recognized that current biofuel crops simply don't yield enough energy per unit to be an effective wholesale replacement for gasoline and diesel.

There simply isn't enough land to produce the fuel we need while still feeding the world and maintaining the forested and other natural lands we currently have. That is why research continues toward the goal of finding a more efficient way of deriving ethanol and biodiesel from resources as varied as prairie grasses and algae. Some of these methods are closer to reality than others, but bringing any of them to market will likely take a decade or more.

In the meantime, our focus as a society should be on increasing the energy efficiency of our houses, cars, and appliances. In the long run, it will be those endeavors that make the most positive impact--not only on our energy security, but also our environment and our economic security.

In today's enviornment of Dueling Lobbyist's 'Scientific Studies' are a commodity that is bought and paid for by whomever wants to parade their viewpoint through the world of public opinion. All studies in today's world are suspect.

Growing food for fuel is sheer folly. With people starving all over the world there is simply no excuse for this.
Here's another story where blaming global warming for a problem is totally false. Agenda anyone?
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2007/10/137_11332.html
"PARIS _ A World Health Organization official has claimed that the current chikungunya outbreak in Northern Italy is the result of climate change: this widely reported absurdity undermines rational debate at a time when world leaders were negotiating climate policy in New York and Washington."...

the search has delivered a list of possible options that can deliver economically viable alternatives compared to fossil fuel.

This rule or terms of reference separates these first generation of products from the clean green substitutes that may one day reduce co2 emissions.
They found what they were looking for, another fuel. The mistake was in thinking renewable fuels are good.

There are two forces at work to encourage a development of alternative fuels. There is the hopeful crowd who wish for clean and efficient fuel. However The most powerful lobby group are the current energy brokers who realise that traditional fuel reserves of both coal and oil are running out and therefore the industry must develop an alternative if the established players intend to remain in the business.

These alpha groups will marry a blend of all fuels and gain some support from AGW concern. Their aim is only to supply growing markets where the very best and most potent fuels will be tried refined and tested in order to monopolize future markets where greatest players will always be able to control supply.

In the rush to find the most sustainable and potent fuel that emits the lowest co2 emissions a great number of failed products will be discarded for a number of very good reasons, some might be the counterproductive emissions of other GHG but if the source has a high energy yield it will be retained.
The main consideration for business remains that any innovation should make money while not negatively affecting any other established business. With this in mind any alternative fuel may just drive the cost down for all fuel supply therefore making demand rise and delivering us into a future where all fuels are burnt regardless of co2 emission.

Unless there are plans to phase out fossil fuels and make it illegal to light fires, we shall burn even more if we have the fuel available all because consumerism will thrive on all the extra energy.

Why don't you people just go away and let the rest of us live.

LOL

National Geographic just had an issue on BioFuels.

Some like soybeans and corn are much more suited for human consumption than for autos.
Others like sugar cane and cellulose from various grasses.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html?fs=mountain.nationalgeographic.com

They also examined what it would take to turn global atmospheric CO2 levels around. In short, it will take a lot.

How about 6 billion cars that get 60mpg.
Or driving each car less than 5000 miles per year.
Or a 1000 Nuclear Plants.

In short Global Warming from CO2 is here to stay wether it is welcome or not.

WHA WHA WHAT????? Bu-bu-But Brett, I thought these biofules were the answer to all of our problems???? You mean burning corn syrup and rice crispies actually do more harm to the envrionment than fossil fuel??? You mean they are actually warming the planet too????...GASP!!!...Now let'see, we can't use fossil fuels cause that's just plain dirty....Can't use nuclear because, well No Nukes is Good Nukes, and now we can't use biofuels because they are just as bad as fossil and nuclear!!!!...Oh well, I guess we are just going go the way of the Amish and start using candles and the horse & buggy to satisfy Mark and BT and the rest of our friends at the Daily Kos! But that's OK, the harm to this countries economy will be miniscule compared to the good feeling we all have knowing that we saved the planet from exploding!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

About N2O. You think the Ozone layer has problems now?
Why do you think the fossil fuel plants monitor the amount of N20 they emit? More heating for sure will occur.

The majority of tropospheric ozone formation occurs when nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as xylene, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. NOx and VOCs are called ozone precursors. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents are the major anthropogenic sources of these chemicals. Although these precursors often originate in urban areas, winds can carry NOx hundreds of kilometers, causing ozone formation to occur in less populated regions as well. Methane, a VOC whose atmosperic concentration has increased tremendously during the last century, contributes to ozone formation but on a global scale rather than in local or regional photochemical smog episodes. In situations where this exclusion of methane from the VOC group of substances is not obvious, the term Non-Methane VOC (NMVOC) is often used.

The chemical reactions involved in tropospheric ozone formation are a series of complex cycles in which carbon monoxide and VOCs are oxidised to water vapour and carbon dioxide. The reactions involved in this process are illustrated here with CO but similar reactions occur for VOC as well. Oxidation begins with the reaction of CO with the hydroxyl radical. The hydrogen atom formed by this reacts rapidly with oxygen to give a peroxy radical HO2

OH + CO → H + CO2
H + O2 → HO2
Peroxy radicals then go on to react with NO to give NO2 which is photolysed to give atomic oxygen and through reaction with oxygen a molecule of ozone:

HO2 + NO → OH + NO2
NO2 + hν → NO + O
O + O2 → O3
The net effect of these reactions is:

CO + 2O2 → CO2 + O3
This cycle involving HOx and NOx is terminated by the reaction of OH with NO2 to form nitric acid or by the reaction of peroxy radicals with each other to form peroxides. The chemistry involving VOCs is much more complex but the same reaction of peroxy radicals oxidizing NO to NO2 is the critical step leading to ozone formation.

Biofuels look like a politically acceptable quick fix, but as the article says - they are not wholly effective.

In fact, I believe that they are a very inefficient method of producing energy from sunlight. I would guess that a field of solar cells would produce more direct net energy over a year that a field of corn.

The obvious downside in this argument is that our current investment in transport infrastructure is suited to biofuel rather than sustainable electric power.

The problem is always bigger than we think.

Why can't we keep it simple? Can we agree that carbon dioxide is the most troublesome "greenhouse gas?" OK, now we need to ALWAYS remember that complete ("efficient") combustion of carbonaceous material (gasoline, diesel fuel, "biofuels,") ALWAYS produces carbon dioxide. Therefore, the problem we should focus on is finding and using some form of non-carbonaceous fuel, such as hydrogen or such. Until this happens, all of this chatter regarding biofuels and "efficiency" is just that - chatter! It is really unnerving when the government tells about a plan to tax motor fuels and carbon loads WITHOUT TELLING what they will do with my money! Formulate a workable plan and we all be part of the solution; until then, we are part of the problem!

I'm old enough to remember when the adverse health consequences of tobacco were first revealed. Not just lung cancer-- but:
> Other cancers (bladder, oral, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, cervix, kidney, pancreas, stomach, etc.
> Heart disease
> Stroke
> Chronic obstructive lung disease (Emphysema, Chronic bronchitis)

The tobacco industry, of course, steadfastly denied all of these. Fortunately, the scientific establishment was strong enough -- and had enough integrity -- to ultimately prevail.

PH has shown us an example of how dangerous our addiction to fossil fuel consumption really is. Not just AGW and CO2, but all the other noxious substances that unrestricted burning of fossil fuels produces.

The list of those impacts looks strikingly like the list of health consequences from cigarette smoking. The denial from the fossil-fuel industry -- and its corporate apologists -- is all-too-familiar.

In the midst of this, up chimes Oiznop with another of his head-in-the-sand rants. Oiznop apparently cannot believe that fossil fuel use might actually cause harm -- serious harm. The world of 1964 had its own population of those who reacted to Surgeon General Luther Terry's initial report in exactly the same way. Ridicule. Contempt. "I've smoked all my life, and I'm FINE". The fact that a HUGE portion that population died long, painful deaths of the very disorders they so scornfully ignored is an irony that apparently escaped them.

Perhaps Oiznop remembers the response of RJ Reynolds, for example, when they broadcast commercials like
More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette. Our grandchildren will surely view the aggressive anti-AGW stances of our contrarians/deniers in the same way.

In the meantime, biofuels make matters worse, not better. I think it's fairly clear that some combination of safe nuclear energy generation and affordable solar energy storage is the only possible way modern civilization can satisfy our energy requirements and preserve our way of life.

I note that the prime motivator for the US biofuel initiatives comes from Corn Belt, and has far more to do with the home-grown economics of corn prices than anything else.

Biofuels are bad energy policy, bad food policy, bad land-use policy, and bad economics.

Oh no, we hit 80 degrees today here in North West Jersey. It must be CO2 from my SUV causing it. It can't possibly be the ball of hydrogen and helium that's 93 million miles away. That would be just silly of me to think that.

I was thinking. I think most of the people today believe GW and AGW are the same thing. Is Global Warming happening? YES! Nobody is saying it's not, but is the A in AGW the source? That's ones personal opionion and I respect that to the fullest.

Most people do not have a very good understanding of climate change and why a none biased movie should be made to help people understand it better and get both sides of the story!

Is there need for biofuels? No! We need to concentrate on new forms of energy, how about fusion??? If man can harness the power of fusion then anything is possible. That could be an infinate power source, clean energy, easier energy, and maybe even make interstellar travel possible? I watch Star Wars to much, lol.

safe nuclear energy

BT,

I love that concept. By all indications from the last 60 years, nuclear energy will be the downfall of civilization. Astonishing that it hasn't happened yet.

Iran (the world's third largest energy producer) is using it's "right to nuclear power" as justification to drive the world towards WWIII, and the Democrats are busy fighting the AGW paper tiger. Easier than dealing with reality, I guess.

Hi Mark,

Since you are so tuned in to science and mathematics, please explain how we get to 90% reduction in CO2 by 2050.

Agriculture currently generates about 13% of CO2 in the US. If we completely eliminated everything else in the country - people, animals, cars, industry, etc. we would still be over budget.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans support a new international treaty requiring the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001102343.htm

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within
-Ariel Durant

Poor Brookline ....talk about rants ..... Open your eyes .....Why didn't the government outlaw tobacco???????? Follow the money my friend! The governments made more money from tobacco sales than the companies did! Oh yes by the way virtually none of these collected funds (including taxes) were applied against stop smoking programs or health care or other productive programs. Now here comes global warming ........ carbon taxes etc. ever take a second to discover where these funds are going? (http://www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml) Follow the money my friend! You will see where the majority of the cash is going ....The cash grab continues ...........

Your tax dollars at work:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html

"Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill � the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. � would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.

This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill�s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we�d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it. "

Iran (the world's third largest energy producer) is using it's "right to nuclear power" as justification to drive the world towards WWIII, and the Democrats are busy fighting the AGW paper tiger. Easier than dealing with reality, I guess.

I'll try very hard not to respond to PH's tempting provocation. Apparently he hasn't read Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker piece outlining the new Bush strategy: blame Iran.

Funny how PH objects so strongly to the only alternative technology that is (a) available in a reasonable timeframe, (b) is technologically feasible and mature and (c) most directly threatens the dominance of the fossil-fuel industry.

What will happen to all of those economic catastrophe-scenarios so favored by the contrarian right-wing if safe nuclear power moots the question?

Let's see -- suppose there's abundant energy, no dependence on ME affairs whatsoever (whether or not they turn their deserts into radioactive glass), no further GHG emissions, and a whole round of investment spending on a new wave of capital equipment development. Why -- you're right! Defense contractors like Halliburton, and Blackwater are in trouble. Fossil-fuel industries are in trouble.

The economy, however, might do just fine.

I wonder why PH finds this scenario so terrifying.

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html

"Iran (the world's third largest energy producer) is using it's "right to nuclear power" as justification to drive the world towards WWIII, and the Democrats are busy fighting the AGW paper tiger. Easier than dealing with reality, I guess."

LOL. Alarmist alert. I thought Iraq's mega-arsenal of WMD was going to start WWIII? Wait, those never existed. I guess Kim Jong Il was going to start it. Oh wait, diplomatic pressure has took care of that 'threat' pretty well too.

WWIII.....lol.

Suddenly we notice Patrick now talking about the dangers of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Odd. He used to support them, now he talks ill of them.

Hi Brett,

It would appear as if some revisions have been made to Simon's comment about how he plans on whitewashing the world with his fleet of hydrogen dirigibles. Also a totally diplomatic response from me didn't seem to make the evenings cut for postings.

Rbnyc: Seriously, I do not recall cutting anything out from last evening in regards to you or Simon, but I could be wrong, since I go through a lot of comments on a daily basis. I just do not remember, honest. Brett

I'm really quite curious as to what is going on with this. Are you trying to protect him from sounding like a nut? Please send me an email if this is not in your opinion appropriate for the blog. I'm sorry to sound like a complainer but I think this is a bit odd.

Hi BT,

I think pretty much every western leader (including Democrats) have recognized the unacceptable danger of a nuclear armed Iran. But some NYT reporters will always find comfort in blaming the current occupant of the White House (whoever they may be) for everything. It is easier than dealing with reality. Look forward to more of the same in 2009. The NYT was sure that the world would be perfect with each purge since Johnson in 1968.

Tough job keeping you on topic. Ever think about what would happen if a 747 flew into a nuclear power plant at 650 MPH? Imagine Chernobylx100 thirty miles from Los Angeles.

And what do you suggest we do with thousands of tons of high level nuclear waste that has a half-life of 20,000 years?

BT,

You said:

"The tobacco industry, of course, steadfastly denied all of these. Fortunately, the scientific establishment was strong enough -- and had enough integrity -- to ultimately prevail."

and

"Our grandchildren will surely view the aggressive anti-AGW stances of our contrarians/deniers in the same way."

Let's put this in actual terms.

The AGW fanatics, of course, steadfastly denied all studies refuting global warming. Fortunately, the scientific establishment was strong enough -- and had enough integrity -- to ultimately prevail.

and

Our grandchildren will surely view the aggressive AGW stances of contrarians/deniers of natural occurances in the same way.

It works both ways, my friend. Difference is, that those you refer to as deniers, have no issue with global warming. We have issues with what's causing it and the foolishness of some, that we should try to alter a natural process that is way out of our league, as mere humans.

.
While at a conference held by an environmen