玉米——以及纖維素——制造的生物燃料是“最糟糕的選項(xiàng)”
一項(xiàng)根據(jù)能源使用的影響為未來(lái)能源排序的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)生物燃料是最糟糕的選項(xiàng)。
根據(jù)這項(xiàng)分析,，使用乙醇導(dǎo)致了最多的氣候破壞,、空氣污染、陸地和野生生物的破壞,，以及化學(xué)廢物,。
該研究稱這是“首次對(duì)已經(jīng)提出的全球變暖、空氣污染和能源保障的大規(guī)模解決方案的全面比較性評(píng)估”,，它考慮了利用11種不同的能源為3種新技術(shù)汽車提供能量的影響,。這些汽車使用電池、氫燃料電池或者乙醇燃料,。
它權(quán)衡了它們對(duì)于全球變暖,、空氣和水污染以及熱污染（例如電廠把冷卻液中的熱傳遞給水）。它還考慮了它們對(duì)于水資源供應(yīng),、陸地使用,、野生生物和資源可用性的影響,。研究還考慮了對(duì)能源保障、核擴(kuò)散,、死亡率以及營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良的間接影響,。
該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)為電池汽車提供能量的風(fēng)力發(fā)電的表現(xiàn)最佳。這一組合在7個(gè)問(wèn)題上都表現(xiàn)最好,，“包括最重要的問(wèn)題——降低死亡率和氣候破壞,，”該研究的作者、美國(guó)斯坦福大學(xué)的大氣/能量項(xiàng)目的負(fù)責(zé)人Mark Jacobson說(shuō),。風(fēng)電為燃料電池汽車提供能量的組合稍遜于前者,。
居于第二層次的是利用太陽(yáng)光伏發(fā)電或聚光太陽(yáng)能發(fā)電（把大片太陽(yáng)光聚集成高能量的光束）以及地?zé)帷⒊毕筒ɡ税l(fā)電的電力的電池汽車,。第三層次包括利用氫能源,、核能、使用碳捕獲和貯存技術(shù)的煤電廠提供電力的電池汽車,。
兩個(gè)液體燃料選項(xiàng)——玉米-E85和纖維素-E85乙醇——排在最后,。
但是約旦原子能委員會(huì)的燃料循環(huán)委員Ned Xoubi說(shuō)：“發(fā)展中國(guó)家急需能源。能獲得的可持續(xù)的,、廉價(jià)的,、清潔的能源的最佳選擇是核能。”
“它是全世界最有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的能源之一,，比風(fēng)電成本更低，需要的土地更少,。”
埃及開(kāi)羅的國(guó)立研究中心的生物技術(shù)專家Magdi Tawfik Abdelhamid說(shuō)：“沒(méi)有科學(xué)理由把生物燃料放在最糟糕的能源選項(xiàng)的清單上,。發(fā)展中國(guó)家利用海藻生產(chǎn)生物燃料可以被認(rèn)為是一種廉價(jià)、對(duì)環(huán)境友好的能源,，它不會(huì)危及糧食安全,。”
該研究發(fā)表在上月（12月1日）出版的《能源和環(huán)境科學(xué)》雜志上。（生物谷Bioon.com）
生物谷推薦原始出處：
Energy Environ. Sci., 2009DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
