Comments on: Evolving Useful Bacteria

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:45:47 +0000

You are correct only to the point that if it takes the same or more energy input to create a gallon of biofuel as you get out of it, then it is no different than just burning the oil directly as energy. That is the real question of biofuels – can they be produced efficiently enough so that you can get more energy out of them than is put into them.

Any NET energy produced by biofuels is carbon neutral (to clarify my point). If biofuels cannot be made to produce excess net energy, then they are a worthless dead end. Right now ethanol made from corn produces little or no net energy – it is a worthless endeavor, and may even be net energy negative.

But – if we can make biofuel from stuff that would be left on the field anyway, or from grasses that don’t need fertilizer and produce more energy than corn, in an efficient enough process, then we can net energy that would be carbon neutral.

The whole point of domestic production is irrelevant, because it is really the same point – it only helps to the extent that biofuel energy content exceeds input from fossil fuels.

By: Brian M

Brian M — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:56:59 +0000

Exactly.

How is producing the fuel from the biomass any different from, say, letting those crops grow wild and not harvesting them but getting them from the infinitely more efficient oil wells?

If that crop, in a single field, did some how remove as much CO2 as was produced, and someone proved that, then perhaps it would make sense. Thus far, it doesn’t. Especially since biofuels often cannot be transported via pipeline, so they require more fuel consuming transportation. The last time I looked for some studies on this showed that biofuels from corn were actually worse then standard oil, and getting it from corn is a lot more efficient then current ways to extract it from biomass.

Ultimately, I think biofuels will be a dead end. I won’t invest in them.

By: LovleAnjel

LovleAnjel — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:30:15 +0000

Biofuels are NOT carbon neutral. The carbon that goes into them includes that used by the farm equipment and manufacturing of fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention production (turning the plant into liquid fuel) and transport (just like fossil fuels). You are producing more than you save no matter what. The merits rest more on satisfying demand without importing fuel and employing Americans.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:12:25 +0000

@Feralboy
Creationists don’t seem to realize that they are essentially the same thing. Macro is just the small steps of Micro extended over geologically epic spans of time! Some Creationists accept the small variations but not the direct result of those variations stacked over a long period.

An analogy: “I get how one tree can drop seeds that grow more trees… but there is NO way that it would make a forest! It’s just not possible!”
Sciences Response: “Um, give it enough time and, Yes… Yes it is! *grumble stupid people grumble*”

~Ben

By: Feralboy

Feralboy — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:30:36 +0000

Of course, the creationists have begun differentiating between “micro-evoloution” and “macro-evolution” (sound of goalpoasts being uprooted and moved). Gah.

By: oldebabe

oldebabe — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:28:26 +0000

What about the energy etc. that is used in making the biofuel?

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:24:00 +0000

John is right, but to finish the story – fossil fuels are not carbon neutral because burning them is putting carbon in the atmosphere that had been sequestered underground for millions of years. Burning biofuels only returns what was just taken by growing the plants.

By: John Powell

John Powell — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:34:01 +0000

Biofuels are carbon neutral – when you burn them, you are only returning to the atmosphere the carbon the plants extracted while living. They neither add or subtract from the total atmospheric carbon.

By: Brian M

Brian M — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:25:18 +0000

MAGE seems fascinating. But this Biofuels thing utterly baffles me. They still burn and produce CO2. How does this solve the problem? It doesn’t. Sure, it is renewable, but you are not helping the environment. Its funny how the environmentalist shell game collapses. They seem to substitute “renewable” for “environmentally friendly”, then things like biofuels appear to be helping the environment when they really are not.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:20:18 +0000

I will be watching for further developments in this area with interest. The potential is incredible and has possible applications for so many different industries and on so many levels. Biofuel, medicine, synthetic chemicals, etc… the list goes on. Science FTW!

Most Creationists have already taken steps to seperate their belief from logic and reason… This will be no different.

~Ben