The failure of BioFuels

[Vargha Poralli]

I have always looked biofuels as an renewable alternative to Oil. But recent studies have pointed out that they are totally unreliable and might have the most negative impact on environment and the worst part is that they will lead to food shortages world wide as these crops would compete with food crops.

Monbiot on Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2043724,00.html)
Science News Online Article (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060722/food.asp)
Another article (http://www.dailymail.com/story/Business/2007040246/Palm-oil-deemed-biofuel-failure/)

/. discussion on these three articles (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/2144205)

I would certainly be against starving some millions of people for some people to drive cars.

So Biodiesel gets out of the reneable alternative to Oil. Hydrogen fuel cells remain as an alternative for the time being.

[ComradeRed]

One thing I don't understand is that: why don't we just genetically engineer crops to grow "super fast" (supposing that such a thing is possible, I'm not geneticist!) and use these crops as biofuel?

You don't even need good land to do it!

Just a thought.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And here I thought that sugarcane was OK :(

[Janus]

why don't we just genetically engineer crops to grow "super fast" (supposing that such a thing is possible, I'm not geneticist!) and use these crops as biofuel?
I believe that's possible through the manipulation of growth hormones though great care must be taken to select the right type of crops as well as ensure and control the plant's conditions (possibly so that weeds don't "catch" such traits).

But as far as bio-fuels go, the main problem right now is that their production still uses oil so it's not a totally alternative energy source atm.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:03 pm
One thing I don't understand is that: why don't we just genetically engineer crops to grow "super fast" (supposing that such a thing is possible, I'm not geneticist!) and use these crops as biofuel?

You don't even need good land to do it!
There are no magic wands or free lunches in agriculture. Or anything else, but especially agriculture, where the process of production has natural limits. Technology will raise crop yields, but not instantly or without cost. And if crops grow faster, of course they need to take more nutrients from the soil (or applied fertilizers.)

It should be no-brainer obvious that turning food into fuel is not efficient and will raise the social and environmental costs of energy production. And of course it's turned out that way in practice, as Monbiot summarizes in the Guardian.

Now making fuels from crop byproducts, that is, waste, like corn husks, sugarcane bagasse, maybe wood, etc., is a worthwhile idea, but harder. For now, it's possible on a smaller scale and usually not for fueling vehicles.

The very fact that these "biofuels" need huge subsidies tells you they're not energy-efficient.

Rather than subsidizing forms of energy, it'd make more sense to put that money into researching new ways of generating or conserving energy.

The only reason anyone has ever supported ethanol, etc., is to appear more green without ever actually having to do anything for the environment. Or, of course, to make money off it.

***

Today, there are 3 practical ways of generating large amounts of energy: fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric. And hydroelectric has its limits. Recognize and deal with that reality until it changes, which may not be soon.

[Vargha Poralli]

Now making fuels from crop byproducts, that is, waste, like corn husks, sugarcane bagasse, maybe wood, etc., is a worthwhile idea, but harder. For now, it's possible on a smaller scale and usually not for fueling vehicles.


But that would never meet the demand which is today. It can be added with Petrol and diesel to make them cheaper but they are no replacements to them.

The only solution that seems sensible to me(as far as India is concerned) convert all the current Train Networks to Electricity and build more Nuclear reactors to produce current.

The only trouble here is that our government is rather interested in building Nuclear Bombs.

[ichneumon]

this is as much a problem with overpopulation as with energy resources. hell, if the oceans had been correctly managed, we could feed most of the earth from that source alone.

[razboz]

I went to an information session on the G8 a few weeks back and a very interesting man talked about some of the main issues that were going to be raised by the Gangsters. One of these was biofuels. indeed it appears that the most powerful men int he world have suddenly become interested in the environment. this man was arguing that if biofuels are allowed to proliferate this could have devastating effects on the ecosystms as well as the standards of living of many equatorial countries (so called "Southern Countries") such as central and south america, central Africa, and southern Asia. If biofuels become the primary source of energy for "Western" Countries then it will have to be made at the expense of these. Increased sugar cane production is only viable in tropical climes, and if sugar cane production increases other crops will suffer. People will have less food. As the need for energy increases, tropical rainforest's (in the Amazon or Congo Basins for example) will be cut down for the land to be used. Other plants (pests) will be destroyed further reducing biodiversity. Natural predators to sugar cane (or whichever crop) will be destroyed as well.

Biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels will be a catastrophe for third world coutnries which will surely accept this ready supply of cash with open arms.

According to this man anyway.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that considerable amounts of ethanol can be produced without harming the environment or creating food shortages. The world has more arable land than is being currently cultivated. Much of it is managed poorly, much of it is not irrigated properly, much of it is not treated with modern fertilizers and pesticides. The world can yield a lot more fuel and food than it does now. Food shortages are already a reality. Under the current conditions, or even without considering current ethanol production, our current global agriculture is unable to provide food for everyone. It's a mere assumption that it can. It's an even more far-fetched assumption that it cannot if ethanol production rises. What a completely arbitrary variable in the equation. Also, sugar cane is not cultivated in the amazon.

[apathy maybe]

What razboz has said is pretty much it.

And as Severian has (indirectly) pointed out is that there are no good ways currently of producing large amounts of energy (well, that is my reading of it anyway).
So, I started a thread over at http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=65254 to discuss how we could make do with what we have.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11, 2007 09:32 am
What razboz has said is pretty much it.
No it isn't. I appreciate your attacks against the globally nefarious ruling class of the third world, but you made some grave factual errors.
I don't know where people are getting these hypotheses that affirm that the existence of a valuable crop leads to the annihilation of the cultivation of other less valuable crops. This simply doesn't happen in the contemporary world. Furthermore, Brazil, which I can tell is among your main targets here, does not plant sugar cane in the amazon, like I already said. We also don't use fuel for the generation of electricity. Most of our electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants. So ethanol certainly won't replace that. I also certainly hope you're not suggesting that third world countries restrict our economic development in favor of saving some trees.

[Vargha Poralli]

Dr.Rosenpenis I think you have misunderstood Razboz'a and other's opinions. They were talking about Bio Fuels completely replacing Fossil Fuels. Which cannot be achived in the real world without starving Millions of people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you and razboz misunderstand the articles linked in the opening post of this thread and the proposal of the proponents of bio fuels.
Nobody wants or expects biofuels to replace all fossil fuels. I don't think anyone wants solar panels to replace fossil fuels either. It's obviously impossible. These are just alternatives that help reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. Do you honestly believe that George Bush wants to phase out all use of fossil fuels? The very articles that you guys are using to back up your claims aren't trying to criticize the use of biofuels as a means of reducing the use of fossil fuels to zero. Because that proposal doesn't exist. Even in a country like Brazil, where the use of fossil fuels is limited by the more affordable and cleaner use of hydroelectricity and ethanol, nobody is talking about ending the use of fossil fuels entirely.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 10, 2007 05:32 pm
I don't know where people are getting these hypotheses that affirm that the existence of a valuable crop leads to the annihilation of the cultivation of other less valuable crops. This simply doesn't happen in the contemporary world.
In fact, that's exactly what's already happening. (http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1176192966257330.xml)

In that case, farmers are switching from cotton to corn; but farmers are switching from other food crops to corn for the same reason.

That reason, again: Because corn prices are going up. Due to ethanol subsidies.

Ethanol subsidies are not automatically going to bring more land into cultivation, unless it is profitable to cultivate it. Just as it's technically possible to make ethanol from switchgrass - but not commercially possible.

Why? Because this is a capitalist economy. If land in the U.S. could be profitably cultivated, it already would be. A rise in food prices changes the equation some, but it'll take a sizable increase in price to change it much.

And of course ethanol production uses almost as much fuel as it produces.

Now, in some parts of the world new demand can bring new cropland into production - for example, cutting down rainforests. As Monbiot point out.....

vast amounts of Indonesian rainforests are already being cut down for palm oil production (biodiesel). Subsidized and mandated by European regulations. Again, not speculation.


Nobody wants or expects biofuels to replace all fossil fuels.

That's nice. But the point is, there's unlikely to be any significant reduction of global warming.

So far, the impact has been to accelerate global warming if anything, including the acceleration of Indonesian rainforest destruction. Again, already happening. Read the Monbiot article.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fidel wrote something on this a few weeks back: More than three billion people in the world condemned to premature death from hunger and thirst (http://granma.cu/ingles/2007/marzo/juev29/14reflex.html)

Another article from Granma on this: The South Keeps Paying For The Addictions Of The North (http://granma.cu/ingles/2007/abril/juev12/15biocomb.html) ... very interesting stuff in that one.

[blake 3:17]

I heard an interesting discussion on this a few weeks ago. A leader of Brazil's landless movement was talking about the devastation that that corn and soy were having for peasants and their negative influence on eceology. Forests are being burnt down to plant corn to make alcohol. Good one!

A fellow from the a Left religious group made a point of calling them agro-fuel not bio-fuel. Bio is life, and he was saying they were death.