A report examining the impact of biofuels on greenhouse gas emissions during the 21st century has found that carbon loss stemming from the displacement of food crops and pastures for biofuels crops may be twice as much as the CO2 emissions from land dedicated to biofuels production.
The Science Express study also predicts that increased fertilizer use for biofuels production will cause nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) to become more important than carbon losses, in terms of warming potential, by the end of the century.
Using a global modeling system that links economic and biogeochemistry data, the researchers examined the effects of direct and indirect land-use on greenhouse gas emissions as the production of biofuels increases over this century.
Direct land-use emissions are generated from land committed solely to bioenergy production. Indirect land-use emissions occur when biofuels production on cropland or pasture displaces agricultural activity to another location, causing additional land-use changes and a net increase in carbon loss.
No major countries currently include carbon emissions from biofuel-related land-use changes in their carbon loss accounting and there is concern about the practicality of including such losses in a system designed to reduce fossil-fuel emissions. Moreover, methods to assess indirect land-use emissions are controversial. All quantitative analyses to date have either ignored indirect emissions altogether, considered those associated from crop displacement from a limited area, confused indirect emissions with direct or general land-use emissions, or developed estimates based on a static framework of today's economy.
Using a modeling system that integrates global land-use change driven by multiple demands for land and that includes dynamic greenhouse-gas accounting, Melillo and his colleagues factored in a full suite of variables, including the potential of net carbon uptake from enhanced land management, N2O emissions from the increased use of fertilizer, environmental effects on carbon storage, and the economics of land conversion.
"Our analysis, which we think is the most comprehensive to date, shows that direct and indirect land-use changes associated with an aggressive global biofuels program have the potential to release large quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," says Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) senior scientist Jerry Melillo.
Melillo and his colleagues simulated two global land-use scenarios in the study. In Case 1, natural areas are converted to meet increased demand for biofuels production land. In Case 2, there is less willingness to convert land and existing managed land is used more intensely. Both scenarios are linked to a global climate policy that would control greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel sources to stabilize CO2 concentrations at 550 parts per million, a target often talked about in climate policy discussions.
Under such a climate policy, fossil fuel use would become more expensive and the introduction of biofuels would accelerate, ultimately increasing the size of the biofuels industry and causing additional effects on land use, land prices, and food and forestry production and prices.
The model predicts that, in both scenarios, land devoted to biofuels will become greater than the total area currently devoted to crops by the end of the 21st century. Case 1 will result in more carbon loss than Case 2, especially at mid-century. In addition, indirect land use will be responsible for substantially greater carbon losses (up to twice as much) than direct land use.
"Large greenhouse gas emissions from these indirect land-use changes are unintended consequences of a global biofuels program; consequences that add to the climate-change problem rather than helping to solve it," says Melillo "As our analysis shows, these unintended consequences are largest when the clearing of forests is involved."
In their model, Melillo and his colleagues also simulated N2O emissions from the additional fertilizer that will be required to grow biofuel crops in the future. They found that over the century, N2O emissions will surpass CO2 in terms of warming potential. By 2100, Melillo and his team estimate that in both study scenarios, biofuels production will account for more than half of the total N2O emissions from fertilizer.
"Best practices for the use of nitrogen fertilizer, such as synchronizing fertilizer application with plant demand, can reduce N2O emissions associated with biofuels production," the scientists say.
Comments
I agree with this comment. If I may quote from the Science Daily, (and quickly cross the border to escape the Inquisition)
So biofuels per se are far from being a dumb idea. Do not put out statements like this, lest they be picked up by politicians who have mislaid their party brain cell.
Jatrophization, indeed, seems to be a positive and productive idea.
Biofuel Displacing Food Crops May Have Bigger Carbon Impact Than Thought
MBL senior scientist Jerry Melillo and his colleagues have found that carbon emissions from land-use change caused by the displacement of food crops and pastures by a global biofuels program may be twice as much as emissions from lands directly devoted to biofuels production.
So biofuels per se are far from being a dumb idea. Do not put out statements like this, lest they be picked up by politicians who have mislaid their party brain cell.
Jatrophization, indeed, seems to be a positive and productive idea.
Robert H Olley | 10/26/09 | 15:10 PM
Did they say which biofuels? Or did they lump them all together? I mean, ethanol, sure, a dumb idea in hindsight. But do biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, tidal, wave or wind energy all have the same carbon footprint? I thought some were more carbon neutral and/or negative than others. For example, switchgrass is vastly superior to corn-based ethanol. Besides, farming practices themselves contribute. Fertilization emits nitrogen oxides, which are 140 times worse than CO2, and tilling soil allows even more CO2 to escape.
Becky Jungbauer | 10/26/09 | 15:25 PM
MBL senior scientist Jerry Melillo and his colleagues have found that carbon emissions from land-use change caused by the displacement of food crops and pastures by a global biofuels program may be twice as much as emissions from lands directly devoted to biofuels production.
I perfectly agree with this comment but the question is displacement of food crops and pastures by a global biofuels program is not recommended strategy and only fences for fuel i.e. raising biofuels on the fences of the farms without disturbing agriculture of pasture land or alternatively selecting local plants which can grow on wastelands which are neither used for food crops nor for the pastures could be the answer and I perfectly agree that there are different forms of biomass and there are different countries on the globe and different geophysical conditions which have to be dealt case by case and generalizations are not possible.
I perfectly agree with this comment but the question is displacement of food crops and pastures by a global biofuels program is not recommended strategy and only fences for fuel i.e. raising biofuels on the fences of the farms without disturbing agriculture of pasture land or alternatively selecting local plants which can grow on wastelands which are neither used for food crops nor for the pastures could be the answer and I perfectly agree that there are different forms of biomass and there are different countries on the globe and different geophysical conditions which have to be dealt case by case and generalizations are not possible.
Ashwani Kumar | 10/26/09 | 20:56 PM
Christina Znidarsic | 10/28/09 | 09:31 AM
None of these are expected to replace petroleum or change the economics of petroleum. They are intended to change the economies of farms and the communities that sponsor the projects.
Two years ago a friend in Portugal installed a corn burner in his house, not for corn cobs, or for dried corn stalks. The burner was for edible corn. It was the cheapest fuel he could get. In the USA upper Midwest people burn wood pellets in the same type of equipment and for the same reasons. The pellets are made from saw dust at lumber mills.
There is a limit to each of the alternative fuels, but taken as a group with solar and wind added in, maybe with ocean currents, waves and tides in some places, there is a credible future in alternative energies.
When I read a news story about why we can not or should not develop alternative energies, I always try to discover who paid for the study. That usually explains the advice and conclusions. In these types of studies the conclusions are largely determined by how the hypothesis is made and who bears the burden of proof.
USA has a long history of disparaging ethanol from university studies that are dominated by petroleum. During that time some developing countries like Brazil continued to make progress with alternative fuels. Now developing countries like Denmark have become leaders in alternative energy. They are exporting green energy and the technology to make green energy.
News articles on alternative energy are usually out of date, long before they are published. There are some easy things to look for in making conclusions about alternative fuel. One item I look at often is the difference between the cost gasoline and the price of crude oil (42 gallon barrel). In recent years the gasoline cost has been less than that of crude oil at times. Now oil companies are buying distressed ethanol plants in the Midwest.
Another number I look at is the cost of a pound of corn (56 lb in a bushel) compared to the cost of crude oil ( about 7 pounds per gallon). Corn is usually al lot cheaper than oil.
In the developed countries we aren't likely to see twice as much land under cultivation, or radically different crops, except for GMO varieties of traditional croups that are already used in many places. We are likely to see a shifting from grain alcohol to biomass alcohol in small steps that are retrofitted into existing factories with new bio-technology that makes it economical. Also the waste that gets buried now will be converted to synthesis gas and the product mix that comes from reforming. The biomass will not replace food crops. It will be taken from the part of existing crops that are presently thrown away or fed to cattle.
The economics of meat production will change.
Claims about CO2, NOX, and other green house gasses could be told either way. One of the biggest gains that can be made is to build better fuel efficiency into automobiles and better environmental protection in their catalytic converters. Digging up fossil fuel from the ground and putting it into the air has got to be a lot worse than taking CO2 out of the air and putting it back into the air.
For sure the bio-diesel that is made from soy beans is not adding NOX to the air. It is adding natural fertilizer to the ground. Corn traditional production methods have serious environmental loads for fertilizer, but there are ways to mitigate that, for example by rotating corn after soy beans.
In conclusion the concept of fuel form biomass makes a lot of sense to the people who are benefiting from it, and to the larger community when it is combined with other energy sources.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 10/31/09 | 02:27 AM
Choices are driven by cost. A few days ago a gallon of crude oil was selling for $1.86 giving a production cost of around $2.20 for gasoline and a delivered cost of about $2.25. That’s $0.42 per pound of gasoline (6 lb per gallon)or $0.265 per pound of crude oil (7 lb per gallon0.
At the same time corn was selling for $0.067 per pound. If you figure the corn has 8,000 btu and the crude oil has 19,000 btu, the cost of energy from corn was $0.084 per 10,000 btus and from crude oil was $0.139 on the same basis.
So the corn energy was selling at a 40% discount to crude oil. The margin changes some when refined fuels are compared, and the economics get harder to find in public.
A well run ethanol plant with a well operated corn purchasing program might produce ethanol for $1.07 per gallon or $1.12 delivered with 84,000 btu, compared to 114,000 btu for a gallon of gasoline. The ethanol cost would be $1.34 for 100,000 btu compared to gasoline $1.97 on the same basis.
So the ethanol energy delivery cost has a discount of 32% from gasoline delivery cost.
So who is dumb, and how long will that last?
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 23:04 PM
The meaning of renewable enrgy sources is different in different parts of the world. For developing world where primary energy needs for cooking are met with deforestation activities legally or illegally, widespread desertification is coming into force. Growing renewable energy in the poor soils where agricultural yields are low and inputs of water and fertilizer are beyond the reach of poor people some alternatives have to be developed in the form of local vegetation which could provide fuel for cooking and in that way Jatropha or any other oil seed crops, hydrocarbon yielding plants which can provide fuel for rural people in Asia, Africa and Latin America will help to prevent destruction of forests. In addition to this additives to the petroleum products as per Kyoto protocol is another priority to be met for which Jatropha is a better candidate but others are not to be excluded. Developing fuel efficient stoves to prevent womenfolk from the drudgery of smoke and respiratory diseases is another priority.
For the developed world e.g. US , Europe etc where fallow lands are adequate and excess production of food grains has to be checked by set aside lands or alternatively grains are to be dumped in sea encouraging farmers to grow grains for fuel is good buisness for health of the farmers and rural economy. If you remember farmers were complaining of poor prices for their grains and were prepared to dump in the sea.
Biofuel concept has to be seen in global perspective considering social political and agro economical aspects in totality and our considerations for happy and healthy future generations to come who can breathe in pure air.
For the developed world e.g. US , Europe etc where fallow lands are adequate and excess production of food grains has to be checked by set aside lands or alternatively grains are to be dumped in sea encouraging farmers to grow grains for fuel is good buisness for health of the farmers and rural economy. If you remember farmers were complaining of poor prices for their grains and were prepared to dump in the sea.
Biofuel concept has to be seen in global perspective considering social political and agro economical aspects in totality and our considerations for happy and healthy future generations to come who can breathe in pure air.
Ashwani Kumar | 11/01/09 | 23:48 PM
The solar constant of Earth is about 1366 watts per square meter, much of which doesn't reach the ground.
Sunshine of 120 watts per square meter is considered normal in cold climates, but in tropical areas, the useful sunlight reaching ground can be 2 or 3 times as much.
Reflective materials are a useful way to collect sunlight and focus it to a small cooking space.
Also reflective materials are an economical way to boost the output of solar cells, in places where solar cells are not economical otherwise.
On a scientific blog site, I hope to hear some ideas about how problems can be made smaller through technology and education, instead of a fatalistic approach to life and the choices for energy.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 12:41 PM
In USA there is a lot of talk about switch grass as a source of ethanol and bio-gas. Farmers are being approached with recommendations from private groups who promote switch grass. Yesterday I heard a conversation of local farmers discussing switch grass with the opinions that it is a risky venture in a free market economy. The grass only has the one use, and the market for it is not well developed.
Considering the wide price swings that occur in well established crop commodities, the farmers will probably continue with traditional crops. Those crops have more than one use and more than one market.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 12:58 PM
I have contact with an ethanol project from biomass in Eastern Europe now in a situation of great benefit to the local community that is supporting the project.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 13:04 PM
Anyone who is planning to have an economic recovery should realize that ethanol has changed the economics of corn. and other commodity grains. That’s what is driving the decisions about ethanol.
In congress it looks like petroleum has an advantage in the House of Representatives, but ethanol has an advantage in the Senate.
Ethanol is here to stay, and will form a part of the future, but not the total replacement of petroleum.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 13:15 PM
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 13:18 PM
Environmental effects are arguably in favor of bio-fuel to the extent that waste products are converted to fuel. There is no way that biomass will replace all of the petroleum consumption.
Increase of food prices is not entirely off set by lower energy cost, at least in the short run.
The case against ethanol is driven more by inflation of food cost than it is by environmental concerns relative to petroleum.
For that reason there is a shifting in ethanol production from grain to fiber, the part of plants that we don't eat.
Cattle eat those other parts of the plants, so the next several years may see a higher inflation of meat prices than of average food prices.
The remedy if there is one can be found in eating a healthier diet with some moderation about quantities and waste.
Already some moderation is occurring in restaurants. Two year ago traveling on expense account in USA and eating at a typical restaurant, the plate was about twice as large as it should have been, sometimes 14 inches or larger, and I often took the leftovers with me to my hotel. It was embarrassing when foreign colleagues came to visit, because of the large portions they couldn't eat. Now when I travel in the same places there are better choices for smaller meals that are still more than enough food.
It may be unpopular to mention moderation now, but for 2000 yeas the leading scientists were in favor of it.
The issue of higher food prices is not resolved. That's why I like to include wind and solar in the mix.
Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 11/02/09 | 23:04 PM













Biofuels production has to be seen in terms of greening of wastelands and true biofuel production does not replace agriculture nor it will require fertilizers or replace the food crops. The forest cover all over the world especially over populated countries is declining very fast. The source of fuel is biofuel in traditinal sense the wood. Biofuel use from the wood collected from the forests is reducing the forest cover and ultimately loss of top soil from the hills and forests is making lakes to dry up at least in fragile ecosystems. Plesae do not generalize statements as all issues depend on social behaviour , agroclimatic zones, energy use pattern and local flora. The use of biofuel means reducing dependability on the forest fuel and raising local bio energy plants available with least inputs to produce biofuel of high calorific value meaning there by three things first reducing dependence on forest wood, proper utilization of form of fuel and increasing greenery on the areas which can not support agriculture. This is highly technical area and inputs from all are needed globally in selecting what to grow where to grow and how to grow so as not to creat another green house gas emitters and compound the global problem but rather solve it with global cooperation with open mind.