[Terrapreta] new studies on GHG footprint of biofuels darkens the picture

[Michael Bailes]

Funny I just finished commenting on these (? or similar)articles in New
Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13289-biofuels-emissions-may-be-worse-than-petrol.html

1. usually all that is looked at for biofuel is USA  subsidised Corn
It is not the best plant or model for biofuels
2.There is great capacity in places like Queensland cane farming areas to
expand (unsubsidised) sugar cane production without any land clearing
3. Waste streams of many kinds can be made into biofuel.
4 Many crops can be grown on marginal or salt affected land for biofuel.
5. One plant "gopher weed" literally grows oil. Some old research I looked
at said it becomes viable when oil is about 465 a barrel.
6 alage show great promise for use as abiofuel especially where land is at
apremium
7 At the moment struggling Australians' farms are being snapped up at record
prices by Agri-business-multi-nationals. Why do you think?
More on plants for biofuel here
http://forums.hypography.com/terra-preta/11716-what-plants-might-grown-just-bio-6.html#post205944


On 08/02/2008, jim mason <jimmason at whatiamupto.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> b


-- 
Michael the Archangel

"You can fix all the world's problems in a garden. . . .
Most people don't know that"
FROM
http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080208/4c884a0b/attachment.html