The widespread use of biofuels makes no sense

According to the report of the Institute of World Resources , a non-governmental organization , attempts to transfer a tangible part of energy consumers to biofuel do not actually make sense. According to their calculations, in pursuit of the extraction of biomass for processing into fuel, mankind will be unable to collect the required amount. The report summary includes the following items.

Increased biomass for fuel reduces food production opportunities

In 2050, it is projected to produce 70% more food than now. If you follow the ambitious plans of developed economies, according to which by this time it will be necessary to transfer about 20% of consumers to biofuels, then the amount of biomass collected will need to be doubled at least - and this is unrealistic.

The use of bioenergy is too inefficient

Sugarcane grown in the tropics converts only 0.5% of solar energy into sugar, and only 0.2% into ethanol. Maize, which can be grown in Iowa, processes 0.3% of its energy into sugar and 0.15% into ethanol. On three quarters of the Earth’s surface, today's solar panels can produce about 100 times more energy than plants can ever, even according to the most optimistic forecasts.

Biofuels not reduce emissions of CO ₂ into the atmosphere

There is a theory according to which excessive emissions of carbon dioxide as a result of human activity affect the climate of the planet. Proponents of biofuels love to argue that since plants need to grow and consume carbon dioxide first, this amount of gas can be “subtracted” from the resulting exhaust from the combustion of biofuels. However, since these plants would have grown in any case (for example, for food), the fact that they will be used to produce fuel does not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Biofuel benefits exaggerated

Of course, there are, for example, wastes during the processing of plants - sawdust, pruning, stems, etc. But their scope and ability to use is simply limited.

The report appeared as a result of many years of fears by various scientists who criticized the Napoleonic plans of the USA and Europe to increase the cultivation of crops for biofuel production. For example, according to a decree that has been working since the administration of George W. Bush, 30-40% of the grain harvest should be converted to biofuel for cars in order to replace about 6% of the gasoline demand.

Another example is Europe's shift to burning compressed wood waste instead of fossil coal. The Americans, who supply this waste to Europe, convince everyone that burning this waste does not increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because newly growing trees absorb it - but fossil coal adds CO ₂ to the atmosphere , which was previously stored in a bound form underground. However, scientists are worried that in reality this process reduces the number of trees on the planet.