Another reason why biofuels are the wrong way

[Skybird]

Their ecological value is in doubt, at best, but by also having helped to let food prices explode, they lead to the question if filling up our car's tanks can justify to make it impossible for people inpoor nations to fill their stomach. It already leads to violence and turmoil in some countries right now.

Not to mention that food prices in our own nations also have drastically raised over the past 12 months - and new massive raises are already announced.

If your money is limited, you can feel it even in our rich Western nations that life has become - hm, let's say it became more difficult.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/11/worldbank.fooddrinks1

[SUBMAN1]

I agree. Get rid of these inefficient biofuel programs. Nice try, but they are a very poor way to gain energy anyway, in more ways than one.

-S

[Trex]

Agreed that taking food to make fuel is a bad policy. That does not mean that the concept is wrong, just the execution.

I think this has been pretty well flogged to death in another thread; more arguments there.

[bradclark1]

Yeah corn and corn byproducts have been going up over here too. Pity because this is probably the only time farmers are actually making a profit nowadays.

[Nightmare]

Since a lot of farmers are also switching their crop over from wheat to corn, it is also cause the price of wheat to rise as well. I'm telling you, between the cost in fuel for shipment of goods to the store and this, my grocery bill is quickly going thru the roof.

[joea]

Their ecological value is in doubt, at best, but by also having helped to let food prices explode, they lead to the question if filling up our car's tanks can justify to make it impossible for people inpoor nations to fill their stomach. It already leads to violence and turmoil in some countries right now.

Not to mention that food prices in our own nations also have drastically raised over the past 12 months - and new massive raises are already announced.

If your money is limited, you can feel it even in our rich Western nations that life has become - hm, let's say it became more difficult.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/11/worldbank.fooddrinks1

Did you even read my posts on the matter? There are second generation fuels coming that don't compete with food crops or require the land that they use, and also are net carbon negative and even increase soil fertility.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=821627#post821627

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=825702#post825702

But go ahead, don't read them I'm sure your minds are made up. :roll:

[Skybird]

Joea,

no I have not read your links, for they appeared in a thread by Subman and I do skip these for the most, so I was not aware of your links and haven't seen them. However, after having flown over them, I wonder what they have to do with fuel-oriented plant farming taking away the expanses that else would be used for farming on food production. This is the spin and gropwing problem in Germany, and in many other countries and areas as well where agricultural expanses are avalable in limited quantities only, as far as I know. wether the processes your links describe change the overall carbon bilance, or not, I cannot judge, nor did I aim this thread at this issue. I was about the rivalry between farming for fuel, and farming for food, since this is not often mentioned.

But regarding the issue you touch - Germany has just abandoned its biofuel goals, after it became clear that multiple times as many cars as was estimated (several millions) cannot process them without taking damage. Originally, Germany's plans in this regard went farther than anyone else's. I a thread on german internal events and issues some days ago I linked to the first news indicating that it would be cancelled. And now, it is indeed.

[joea]

Skybird, if you read them in detail you will see food and "fuel" cultivation are complimentary. I mean you can say the same about cotton, coffee and tea production, which has been harmful and competed with food especially in the 3rd world. The point is any organic biomass can be used, even human and animal excrement as wll as dead leaves and other leftover matter. The biochar byproduct also improves fertility of soil so it gives a boost to food production, as well a serving as a carbon sink. Indians in the Amazon created huge areas of fertile soil this way. I agree that scaling it up may have unknown consequences, but it is still something to be looked at IMO.

No question first generation biofuels are no solution.

[Trex]

Too many people lose sight of the fact that there is no one, single, perfect solution to all our problems.

Properly planned, managed and executed, biofuels offer an advance, not a total solution. Because they are not the full solution does not mean that they are not worth using. But it has to be done properly.

[Skybird]

Will give it some time reading. Note that what I refered to probably is what you would consider first generation biofuels: rape etc. On what you link me to now I cannot comment, I so far did not rperceive a public awareness or disucssion about these.

[Stealth Hunter]

Since a lot of farmers are also switching their crop over from wheat to corn, it is also cause the price of wheat to rise as well. I'm telling you, between the cost in fuel for shipment of goods to the store and this, my grocery bill is quickly going thru the roof.

Pace yourselves, kids. It might take a load of energy to plant your own garden...:roll:

[The WosMan]

Nothing like burning your food supply for fuel. We know for a fact that since the government here instituted that stupid ethanol program that:

a) It requires more energy to convert the corn to ethanol then you get from burning ethanol

b) If your car isn't made for it, Ethanol will tear up your motor. It also can cause water buildup in the fuel lines which destroys the engine.

c) The pollution from all that fertilizer runoff is a serious problem to the water supply and the fish. The red tide has been getting worse and worse in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to all these farmers along the Mississippi dumping all that ammoniam nitrate on the ground

d) Farmers have foregone planting wheat and opted for corn which is partially reponsible for the high cost of food we are experiencing now. Any wheat based product is up in price. For the first time ever in history the US is importing wheat from foreign countries. That is not good.

e) Farmers have been cutting down forest land on property they own to grow more corn. I know about this because I hunt and I have been reading quite a bit lately of hunters running out of hunting lands in the midwest due to farmers this season just cutting down woods on their property that hunters usually get permission to hunt on.

The solution to the problem is not so hard. The US sits on the worlds second largest oil supply. Geologists just made a huge discovery in N. Dakota called the Bakken Formation that has at least 200 billion barrels of oil. Saudi Arabia estimates it has about 230 billion barrels of oil remaining in reserves to give you a comparison. Then there is the many billions of barrels locked away in shale throughout Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and other states out west.

The US also posesses the largest supply of the cleanest burning extremely low sulfur coal in Utah within the national park Grand Staircase Escalante. There is over 7 billion tons of this coal worth over $1 Trillion dollars that is all locked up thanks to Bill Clinton and a sweetheart deal he made with an Indonesian Conglomerate that happens to own the worlds second largest supply of this coal in Indonesia. The owners of this conglomerate, the Riady family made many significant contributions to Bill in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is getting money from them now. Not only could this coal be used for energy generation, it could also be converted to natural gas or gasoline and diesel.

All this and we haven't built any refineries (or nuke plants for that matter) here in over 20 years. We have so many ways we could become completely independent of foreign energy but we just don't do it and it bothers me to no end.

[joea]

You didn't read my links either Wosman. I wonder why I bother wasting my time here. :nope:

[Skybird]

back on topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7344892.stm

[FIREWALL]

How many french fries do you have to cook to make a tank full of biofuel ?:p

[Skybird]

German TV news (ZDF heute) today:

In Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, the first of a new type of production facilities for 2nd generation biofuel has gone online, it produces biofuel of so-called second generation not only from parts of plants, but the complete plants, and wood. The capacity is described to be as enough for the yearly demand of 15.000 cars.

We have some 30 million cars in Germany (38 million I think)

At least 2000 such facilities would be needed to cover the demand of 30 million cars.

Each of these facilities needs plenty of forests and agricultural areas to produce the wood and plants needed, no matter if in Germany, or elsewhere.

Go figure.

[Trex]

Each of these facilities needs plenty of forests and agricultural areas to produce the wood and plants needed, no matter if in Germany, or elsewhere. Go figure.

Not knowing the technology, how about:

corn cobs and stalks
straw (once used for stables, etc)
scrap lumber that would otherwise be burned or go to landfills
paper and cardboard once it has gone past the point it can be recycled into more paper and cardboard
leaves, time-expired flowers and trimmed limbs from city parks if not otherwise used for mulch, etc
discarded (spoiled) vegetables from markets - you'd be surprised how much gets thrown out
roadside weed cuttingsThere are others, but that's a sample. None of them would stoke an ethanol plant for long, but put together, they can do a fair bit. Even if it is just one plant, that's 15,000 cars, which is better than none. Every journey begins with one step.

[Skybird]

Each of these facilities needs plenty of forests and agricultural areas to produce the wood and plants needed, no matter if in Germany, or elsewhere. Go figure.

Not knowing the technology, how about:

corn cobs and stalks
straw (once used for stables, etc)
scrap lumber that would otherwise be burned or go to landfills
paper and cardboard once it has gone past the point it can be recycled into more paper and cardboard
leaves, time-expired flowers and trimmed limbs from city parks if not otherwise used for mulch, etc
discarded (spoiled) vegetables from markets - you'd be surprised how much gets thrown out
roadside weed cuttingsThere are others, but that's a sample. None of them would stoke an ethanol plant for long, but put together, they can do a fair bit. Even if it is just one plant, that's 15,000 cars, which is better than none. Every journey begins with one step.

You noted the recent explosions in food prices? And foot riots in several countries - as close as Egypt? Ground and agricultural areas are not really available in unlimited quantitiews over here. That is the whole argument of this thread: that nit is perverse to reserve agricultural space for fuel production while the prices for food are going through the ceiling and in other countires people do not know how to feed their families anymore. By referring to that new site in Saxony, I was in reply to joea's argument - which technically is fine in itself, but as I understand it does not solve the problem of food production being reduced for producing fuel. That is the one thing I started this thread over.

[Trex]

Skybird - I'm not arguing in the slightest. Swapping food for fuel is stupid and any system that does that is bordering on immoral. However, if this plant can produce fuel from non-food items (short list provided), it's win-win - no less food and some more fuel. Of course there is still the polution inherent in carbon-based internal combustion engines, but that's another issue.

[August]

Assuming it is possible to reserve enough land to both feed everyone on earth and power modern civilization, even that would eventually fail as world population continues to grow unchecked, and more and more areas become modernized.

Arguing over the price of corn or wheat, or who generates the most carbon dioxide, or what lifestyle changes we should make is useless, an exercise in impotency. It is like debating the color of the brick wall that is about to crush us!

IMO, the world needs to decide two things if we want to solve our ecological problems:

1. What number human world population needs to be capped at to allow enough natural resources to provide a decent (and sustainable) life for everyone.

2. How to enforce that cap, fairly, among the many and diverse peoples of the world.

We might be able figure out the first one but we'll never get agreement on the second. Certainly not if some nations and cultures are allowed to continue living like it was the 14th century.

[Trex]

Ah, the 14th Century. Wasn't that the time of the Pest? Another award-winning population control measure by Motherr Earth.