Bio-Fuels Really Means More Green House Gases


A study that was put out just the other day mentions that there are 702 million hectares of land available for growing bio-fuels on the earth. In a completely different study it was found that plowing fields for producing crops would emit enormous levels of soil carbons. The primary soil carbon released is called nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas about 300 times more powerful as the dreaded CO2.

My question is simply; with all the scare about climate change and CO2 emissions shouldn’t plowing fields be scarier now that we have this new information? I never thought people would be scared of farmers plowing their fields to grow vegetables and cow farts but this seems to be where we are headed. If Nitrous oxide is 30 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 are we going to hear about this bio-fuels hazard in the news? I have not heard too much about it but I am not convinced and if anything in the news has convinced me of something it is that nuclear pollution is a real and present danger.

If you get the real strong believers in climate change to get down to their core belief it is simply this, we need to reduce the earth’s population. I would assume a good popular apocalyptic number like say 144,000 people would be a number many climate scientists would be happy with. The problem I see is that when climate scientists make weird predictions like this the media picks up on it and immediately gives it their stamp of approval. When similar predictions are made by religious fanatics the media shows them for the wacko’s that they often times are.

The absolutely bizarre alarmist predictions that keep coming from the global warming scientists are not questioned enough. When I hear that the glaciers will melt in 2 years and then find that there has been no change I begin to question. When I hear that global warming scientists in charge of the warming data did not delete their data emails and then hear 2 years later that one admits they did delete emails I question? When arctic sea ice is supposed to all melt away and polar bears are to become extinct only to hear that sea ice is back and polar bears are reaching all time high numbers I question?

We now have a bit of a problem as bio-energy, which is one of the answers to clean energy, conflicts with global warming science. What at first seems like clean energy is said to produce insane levels of greenhouse gases and is extremely land intensive. In my state of Texas there are 3 bio-mass power plants being built around my area of East Texas and this is considered green energy. Many people on the liberal side of politics see green energy and climate change science as being on the same side. Politicians on the liberal side of the aisle also portray green energy and climate science as being healthy for the environment. The issue is that bio-mass and bio-energy created electricity power is just as bad if not worse than other forms of electric power such as natural gas and coal power according to recent studies.

My conclusions is that plowing fields for creating power using bio-energy plants such as corn ethanol is where green energy science lunacy has taken us. We productively use and eat corn as a society to fuel ourselves when at the dinner table. Bio-energy may one day have a purpose but it is obvious that a coal mine and natural gas pit only serves one purpose and is dead land unless utilized for its intended purpose of creating clean cheap electricity power. When looking at the big picture natural gas and coal created power is clean compared to recent reports about bio-energy green house emissions and the nuclear radiation leaks we are seeing in the Pacific Ocean from the Japan reactor.

Resource Box

Donny Eisenbach writes about electricity comparison, climate change, and renewable energy. Donny lives in Texas and is active in the most popular deregulated electric market in the US which is also Texas. When Mr. Eisenbach is not working on commercial energy related consulting deals he is spending time with his two sons and lovely wife. To read more electricity, energy, and other related articles by Donny please visit his electricityblog.

4 Responses to Bio-Fuels Really Means More Green House Gases

  1. Stuart Hampton April 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    Interesting ideas. I have long been convinced that the Iowa Caucus has helped enshrine the corn ethanol industry as untouchable, no matter how inefficient or nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide-producing it is. As long as future Presidential candidates have to swear allegiance to the cash cow of Iowa farmers in order to get their party’s nomination, it completely distorts the options for energy policy. see

  2. Ger Groeneveld May 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    Like so many fossil fueled systems, there is no attention for the effects of the “mining” of the fuel. All is concentrated on getting the most out of one element in the chain, the power house without regards to the environmental effects. But just as land degradation is just the same big problem for food production, it is for the growing of bio-fuels if it is done in the same intensive way. Greening the environment should also mean that is production methods should be adapted. For biomass fuel there is the source of agri-cultural waste. One can turn it into compost (and release a lot of CO2) or use it to extract a part of the energy and return the left overs back to the land (biochar). Deep tillage is not necessary always: in between the rows planting can be done, not disturbing the SOM layers every year. To keep erosion under control, one can grow, after harvest, a ground covering crop, keeping the nutrients there where you want it.
    Integration is a keyword.

  3. Santhanam R. May 23, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    Zero Till is being accepted as better than deep and deeper ploughing which reach down to sub soil level.Perinnials like Jatropha, Pongamia Pinnata do not require ploughing, although inter-cropping is practiced since revenue from sale of bio diesel oil is meager.All plants should be raised only in less energy intensive methods meaning the total energy consumption going into the making of farming inputs should be reckoned with unit calories produced. Commercial chemical fertilizer+pesticides use is a defective technology and also consumes more calories than what is produced in food, fuel or fibre. I would also advocate Keshava Krishi an ancient Vedic Sciences based agronomy which recycles all manner of effluents, and solid wastes and makes a formulation called “Guruvani” which can grow any crop anywhere in almost any type of soil.

  4. Carolina Panthers Jersey August 30, 2012 at 2:08 am #

    content of New Balance 7500 all comments is released into the public domain Justin Bieber Shoes unless clearly