[Gasification] new studies on GHG footprint of biofuels darkens thepicture

[Greg Manning]

 Jim.. and list

 Energy crop (EC), and food crop (FC), TF (Timber farm)

 Other relations are:
Refuse Derived Biomass (RDB)
Reclaimed Construction Waste (RCW)
Municipal Solid Waste (landfill paper and cardboard) (MSW)
Liquefied Human Waste (urine and fecies with water) (LHW)
LPigW, LCowW, LHorseW, all are in there somewhere..



I would also LOVE to point out that the "Study" is TAINTED or "Slurred" in
one direction, to DIS-CREDIT the ability of "you and I" to produce our own
fuel cost effectively, AND with lower GHG footprint than petroleum !!!!

 I can directly cite one very good example of this.... "Switch Grass"(SG)
only one "planting" period ! 2 to 3 harvestings per year perpetual (at least
10 years before weeds over come it), the equipment to do the harvesting can
be run on bio-diesel, etc, etc, etc.

 The energy input on this form of "energy crop" is LESS than what it takes
to tap a crude deposit, let alone the transfer and distillation of that same
crude...

 COME on people, don't believe something just because two people THINK, they
know what they are talking about.....

 Take in the factors of pipeline costs alone, and all the trucks and cars
used in maintaining that pipeline, let alone the building of all that pipe,
the storage tanks, the buildings at the lift pump stations, good god...
these people that claim bio fuels have a larger GHG footprint are
ILL-INFORMED,  ON SOMEONE'S PAYROLL, or just plain STUPID !!!!!

Greg Manning






-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of jim mason
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:49 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification; Mechabolic List; terra
pretta group
Subject: [Gasification] new studies on GHG footprint of biofuels darkens
thepicture


a nyt article just came up referencing some new studies published
today on GHG footprint of common biofuels.

the new studies apparently take more seriously and try to quantify the
GHG effects that follow from land use changes wrought by the new
biofuel market.  they conclude that when indirect land use changes are
taken into account, biofuels have a worse GHG footprint than petroleum
derived fuels.   granted, all this is working with ethanol and
biodiesel, so is assuming reproductive plant material inputs from
purpose grown crops.  we already know those scenarios are not
attractive in the total cycle.  but the degree to which they are not
attractive seems to have just been increased.  (caveat for not having
yet found the raw papers and only summarizing the summary).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html

note the note at the end pointing out biofuel scenarios that do not
require new cropping, and can work on waste organic matter.

besides the purpose grown and waste derived distinctions, we need some
more elegant terminology to distinguish between reproductive plant
matter based biofuels, and structural matter based biofuels.
"cellulosic" doesn't really work all that well.  i don't have a better
one to offer.  but often find myself trying to explain this
distinction early in the process of explaining why gasification and
biochar is interesting, and why fire, in fact, might ultimately be a
better route for handling organic wastes than than the "no burn"
biases of most environmental discussions.

j



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
jim mason
website: www.whatiamupto.com
current project: mechabolic (http://www.mechabolic.org)
announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 2/7/2008
11:17 AM


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 2/7/2008
11:17 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 2/7/2008
11:17 AM