生物燃料比常規燃料排放多400%二氧化碳

生物燃料比常規燃料排放多400%二氧化碳
Biofuels emit 400 percent more CO2 than regular fuels
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A recent report issued by the European Union has revealed that biofuels, or fuel made from living, renewable sources, is not really all that beneficial to the environment. Rather than reduce the net carbon footprint as intended, biofuels can produce four times more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional fossil fuels do.
（NaturalNews）一歐洲聯盟最近發表的報告，已揭露生物燃料，或生的物製成的燃料，可再生能源，並不是真的那麼有利的環境，而不是減少如目的中的淨碳足跡，生物燃料比傳統的化石燃料的污染所做的能產生 多4倍的二氧化碳。
Common biofuels like corn ethanol, which has become a popular additive in gasoline, and soy biodiesel, which is being used in commercial trucks and other diesel-fueled vehicles, are often considered to be environmentally-friendly because they are renewable. But in order to grow enough of these crops to use for both food and fuel, large swaths of land around the world are being converted into crop fields for growing biofuels.
普通生物燃料如玉米乙醇，已成為一流行的汽油添加劑，和大豆生物柴油，正在被使用於商用卡車和其它柴油為燃料的車輛，因為它們是可再生的因而往往被認為是環保，。但為了生產足夠的這類作物以用於食品和燃料，在世界各地大片的土地都被轉換成農田以種植生物燃料。
In other words, millions of acres of lush rainforests are becoming corn and soy fields in order to provide enough of these resources for their new uses. The net carbon footprint of growing crops for fuel is far higher than what is emitted from simple fossil fuel usage.
換言之，數百萬畝的茂密熱帶雨林成為玉米和大豆田，為了提供足夠的這些資源為他們的新用途。淨碳足跡燃料作物種植是遠遠高於從簡單的化石燃料使用所排放的。
According to the report, American soybeans have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule (GJ), while conventional diesel and gasoline create only 85kg/GJ. Similarly, the European rapeseed, a plant similar to the North American canola, indirectly produces 150kg/GJ because additional land in other nations has been converted to grow rapeseed for food in order to replace the native crops that are now being grown for fuel.

Ironically, the amount of direct and indirect resources used to grow food for fuel is quite high compared to that of conventional fossil fuels. Biofuels also do not burn as efficiently and can be rough on the engines they fuel. Ethanol-enriched gasoline can also reduce gas mileage efficiency by upwards of 25 percent, depending on the vehicle.

Growing food for fuel ends up increasing the price of food for consumers. It also puts additional strain on families, many of whom are already having difficulties making ends meet in current economic conditions.

When all is said and done, biofuels seem to be a whole lot of hype with not a lot of benefit. Environmentally, fiscally and practically, biofuels are a disaster. Fossil fuels may not be an ideal form of clean energy, but at this point in time, they make a lot more sense than biofuels.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7614934/Biofuels-cause-four-times-more-carbon-emissions.html
Biofuels cause four times more carbon emissions
http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=70138

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/business/26ethanol.html?_r=1

http://www.naturalnews.com/029421_biofuels_CO2.html