TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bio-fuel Disaster on Food

Bio-fuel Disaster on Food

So, the World Food Program has a budget deficit of around $500 million. One of the cited causes is that farmers are starting to abandon food production in favor of bio-fuel production, thus, food supply is decreasing while demand is growing. Bio-fuels to begin with, use more energy to produce than fossil fuels, and they are only a short-term solution, because the arable land of the earth is so limited.

My solution would be to abandon bio-fuels altogether, and to concentrate on a more practical solution such as hydrogen fuel production.

I'll post up tomorrow on this when I have access to the files, but the Socialist group in the European Parliament is campaigning for a more sensible approach to biofuels because of the effect they are having not only on what you mention above, but on the effect they are having on the environment.

Personally, I like the idea of biofuels, but right now they are not being produced responsibly

This is the Party of European Socialists' position on biofuels:

quote:

As part of the effort to tackle climate change and achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the EU has indeed been looking closely at the potential of biofuels. In 2003 the EU set the first, relatively low target of achieving a 5.75% share of biofuels by 2010 which the heads of government of EU countries, at their summit meeting last year, raised to a 10% target by 2020. However, the experience of producing biofuels so far and new research that has come to light has caused the EU to reassess its approach to biofuels. In particular, concerns have emerged about the environmental impact of certain types of biofuel, about the knock-on effect on food-prices if crops switch from food production to fuel production and even about the level of the real net contributions to cutting CO2 emissions. The Commission has therefore proposed a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria so that biofuels are only allowed if it can be shown without doubt that they will be produced in an ecological and socially responsible way. This will now be considered by the European Parliament and national ministers. Labour MEPs will press for even stronger sustainability criteria to ensure that the current and future use of biofuels can reduce emissions without affecting food prices or biodiversity both in the EU and developing countries.

Re: Bio-fuel Disaster on Food

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So, the World Food Program has a budget deficit of around $500 million. One of the cited causes is that farmers are starting to abandon food production in favor of bio-fuel production, thus, food supply is decreasing while demand is growing. Bio-fuels to begin with, use more energy to produce than fossil fuels, and they are only a short-term solution, because the arable land of the earth is so limited. My solution would be to abandon bio-fuels altogether, and to concentrate on a more practical solution such as hydrogen fuel production.

I tend to be in agreement with you on this one. I think that biofuel production is a good thing when it comes to downcycling waste such as animal fats, recycled cooking oils etc, but the use of cash crops directly to produce fuel is simply stupid imo. I watched a program on a rural western canadian community that was trying to create a carbon neutral community. They didnt stop using fossil fuels and switch to bio fuels, they offset their carbon production by introducing greening programs to re absorb the carbon. IE planting a 10m by 10m tree lot for each vehicle in the community. a 10m x 10m plot of poplar and ash supposedly absorbs the same abount of CO2 in one year that a chevrolet sierra 1500 produces under normal use. I think this approach is far more sustainible.

When you look at the number of farmers that now produce corn solely for the production of ethanol to only dilute fuel by 15%, it hardly passes a cost benefit model. I see the current incarnation of the biofuel plan as a pathetic bandaid solution offered by big oil to quel speculation that they are legeslatively holding back alternative energy innovation.

I think we are concentrating on hydrogen storage. But that problem requires the work of many highly trained scientists whereas bio fuel production is fairly simple.

You may not see progress in hydrogen storage, but one of the main interests for the research group I work for is hydrogen storage. So it isn't like we're just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses ignoring the problem.

Maybe if more people would get off their asses and get a real degree instead of spending 4-7 years partying and taking bullshit classes we would see faster progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think we are concentrating on hydrogen storage. But that problem requires the work of many highly trained scientists whereas bio fuel production is fairly simple. You may not see progress in hydrogen storage, but one of the main interests for the research group I work for is hydrogen storage. So it isn't like we're just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses ignoring the problem. Maybe if more people would get off their asses and get a real degree instead of spending 4-7 years partying and taking bullshit classes we would see faster progress.

took the words right out of my mouth..... Engineers have been saying this for years, WTF is a humanities degree anyways?

the problem is that corn ethanol is 30% more expensive to produce than sugarcane ethanol. The US has ridiculous trade barriers to protect the corn producers so we don't import corn ethanol from brazil. Moreover, most corn ethanol plants in the US are powered with coal. not exactly environmentally friendly.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the problem is that corn ethanol is 30% more expensive to produce than sugarcane ethanol. The US has ridiculous trade barriers to protect the corn producers so we don't import corn ethanol from brazil. Moreover, most corn ethanol plants in the US are powered with coal. not exactly environmentally friendly.

no the problem is this.


using energy to produce ethanol at a loss (energy losses due to mechanical friction, heat, waste etc)

Using ethanol to dilute a non renewable resource

and then having the balls to call this a sustainable solution.

thats the problem! In 100 years no one has been able to come up with a viable economic and efficient replacement for the internal combustion engine. Why?

in 40 years we have gone from vaccume tubes to computers the size of my palm, in 20 years we have gone from wired communications to digial wireless technologies etc...

Here's a great example of retarted primitive human logic - facing the inevitable climate change dilemna, humans think that by diverting some of our truly vital and decreasing farmlands into biofuel lands. Not only will nothing stop climate change, they will put us into an even worse situation by decreasing significantly the arable lands. What they dont realize is that their efforts are like throwing buckets of water into a raging forest fire. Biofuels wont tackle the climate change issue. There are far better alternatives out there .... but then again - Who Killed The Electric Car?

How does this sounds guys?



Using solar power to produce hydrogen fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How does this sounds guys? Using solar power to produce hydrogen fuel.

it's a good idea. They are talking about producing hydrogen fuel with wave and tidal power at the coasts. The problem is getting funding and the efficiency of the project. i don't pretend to be an engineer, so i have no idea how viable it is. I'm down for it. i'd pay extra gas taxes for that. we need states to take the initiative on this one because washington clearly has no interest in coming up with a real solution. subsidizing corn farmers to produce ethanol inefficiently is clearly not the solution.

Washington has lost its way. POS politicians.



If I was president, I'de make sure our coastlines had huge wind farms, and the land huge solar farms, all of which can be used to create hydrogen fuel for our cars and trucks and airplanes. Screw biofuels, people need the land to make food dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Washington has lost its way. POS politicians. If I was president, I'de make sure our coastlines had huge wind farms, and the land huge solar farms, all of which can be used to create hydrogen fuel for our cars and trucks and airplanes. Screw biofuels, people need the land to make food dammit!

the main problem with that is states control most of the lands on the coasts. i supposed, however, that the government could install wind farms off the coast without permission from states. I'm not exactly sure if states or the federal government has rights to offshore waterways. i think it's the feds though.

washington hasn't lost it's way, it was never on the correct path.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the main problem with that is states control most of the lands on the coasts. i supposed, however, that the government could install wind farms off the coast without permission from states. I'm not exactly sure if states or the federal government has rights to offshore waterways. i think it's the feds though.

As president, I would deal with that. States would probably bend over backwards to have this done, especially states like Florida and California.

quote:

washington hasn't lost it's way, it was never on the correct path.

Well, we have the constitution as our guide..

Denmark produces 40% of its electricity by offshore wind farms.

The US coastline is notorious for high wind areas due to the gulf stream currents. but it seems the yanks are only concerned with building offshore oil platforms....

The problem is that our educational systems are pumping people out to be like clones in the corporate production machine.

We also are moving towards a trend of over-shielding our children from having imagination and desire to ask questions, not necessarily on purpose, but as a side effect of television, internet, and harm reduction (did your chemistry class give you any motivation to actually want to *know* chemistry? did you get to experiment with cool stuff or was vinegar labeled "dangerous acid"?)

That plus various government regulations on chemicals and activity means less inventions, less inventors.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton As president, I would deal with that. States would probably bend over backwards to have this done, especially states like Florida and California. Well, we have the constitution as our guide..

you think so? people who live along the coast have severe NIMBY syndrome. they don't want to hurt property values by having offshore windmills visible from their homes. I personally think it looks appealing, but not everyone does. i'm sure alot would embrace, but many would also protest.

Re: Bio-fuel Disaster on Food

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Bio-fuels to begin with, use more energy to produce than fossil fuels,

How?

quote:

and they are only a short-term solution, because the arable land of the earth is so limited.

What about algae bioreactors? They don't need arable land (soil). They only need carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. It's called photosynthesis.

A lot of fossil fuel based power plants such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum are the primary emitters of CO2, especially the plants that run on coal. Non-fossil fuel based power plants such as those which run on nuclear power emit water vapor and extremely low levels of CO2, but I digress. If these algae bioreactors were integrated as part of the emissions cleaning process for all fossil fuel based power plants, the U.S. would cut about 20% CO2 emissions worldwide. That's a significant benefit to reducing greenhouse gases and slowing down global warming. If only we could get the EPA to regulate CO2 as an air contaminant. There's a lawsuit about that right now. I really hope it passes. Bush had a chance with the stroke of a pen to make this happen but he decided against it.

quote:

My solution would be to abandon bio-fuels altogether, and to concentrate on a more practical solution such as hydrogen fuel production.

Abandoning biofuels is a dumb idea. By the way diffusion is your enemy when it comes to hydrogen. Take the space shuttle as an extreme example. It runs out of hydrogen really fast and they spend millions of dollars refueling the damn thing. Now take cars that run on hydrogen as a small case. If you don't use your car continuously it will run out of hydrogen by the end of the week.

Re: Re: Bio-fuel Disaster on Food

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 How? What about algae bioreactors? They don't need arable land (soil). They only need carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. It's called photosynthesis. A lot of fossil fuel based power plants such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum are the primary emitters of CO2, especially the plants that run on coal. Non-fossil fuel based power plants such as those which run on nuclear power emit water vapor and extremely low levels of CO2, but I digress. If these algae bioreactors were integrated as part of the emissions cleaning process for all fossil fuel based power plants, the U.S. would cut about 20% CO2 emissions worldwide. That's a significant benefit to reducing greenhouse gases and slowing down global warming. If only we could get the EPA to regulate CO2 as an air contaminant. There's a lawsuit about that right now. I really hope it passes. Bush had a chance with the stroke of a pen to make this happen but he decided against it. Abandoning biofuels is a dumb idea. By the way diffusion is your enemy when it comes to hydrogen. Take the space shuttle as an extreme example. It runs out of hydrogen really fast and they spend millions of dollars refueling the damn thing. Now take cars that run on hydrogen as a small case. If you don't use your car continuously it will run out of hydrogen by the end of the week.

If you look at the potential chemical energy contained in one metric tonne of corn vs the potential chemical energy contained in one metric tonne of sweet crude, it doesnt take much to realize which is more efficient. not to mention in the case of ethanol, the production process is highly energy consuming. biodiesel is a different process but still requires alot of energy to produce. Oil refining on teh other hand isnt much better on the energy consumption, but when you look at the chemical energy your producing in teh byproducts of fractional distillation, it far outweighs the energy input.


Biodiesel production - you get biodiesel, of the two popular fossil fuel substitutes, biodiesel is the most efficient, but it still requires 27% more energy to produce than you get out of it. source

Ethanol production - you get ethanol (natives jump for joy), and you get corn mash which can be in turn blended with sileage and fed to cattle. It is also the Least efficient alternative as if you take into account the energy required to farm and harvest the corn, you put more energy in than you get out of it. source

Crude oil - you get kerosene (naptha), gasoline, diesel oil, asphalt, and a host of complex hydrocarbon chains which are further processed into PVC, ABS plastics, etc etc


biodiesel and ethanol are BANDAID solutions with no proven sustainability what soever.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp If you look at the potential chemical energy contained in one metric tonne of corn vs the potential chemical energy contained in one metric tonne of sweet crude, it doesn't take much to realize which is more efficient. not to mention in the case of ethanol, the production process is highly energy consuming. biodiesel is a different process but still requires alot of energy to produce. Oil refining on the other hand isn't much better on the energy consumption, but when you look at the chemical energy your producing in teh byproducts of fractional distillation, it far outweighs the energy input. Biodiesel production - you get biodiesel, of the two popular fossil fuel substitutes, biodiesel is the most efficient, but it still requires 27% more energy to produce than you get out of it. source Ethanol production - you get ethanol (natives jump for joy), and you get corn mash which can be in turn blended with sileage and fed to cattle. It is also the Least efficient alternative as if you take into account the energy required to farm and harvest the corn, you put more energy in than you get out of it. source Crude oil - you get kerosene (naptha), gasoline, diesel oil, asphalt, and a host of complex hydrocarbon chains which are further processed into PVC, ABS plastics, etc etc

This is why I propose using algae oil as a biofuel. This gets rid of the energy problem you mentioned earlier. Look how much algae oil can be produced vs. other crops:

Sources: http://www.algaefuel.org
http://oakhavenpc.org/cultivating_algae.htm

In addition, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory within the Department of Energy states that:

"Under optimum growing conditions micro-algae will produce up to 4 lbs./sq. ft./year or 15,000 gallons of oil/acre/year [I know the graph I posted above says 10,000 but it is around that ballpark]. Micro-algae are the fastest growing photosynthesizing organisms. They can complete an entire growing cycle every few days." Sustainability is not an issue.

Also algae are low input-high energy yield source producing 30 times more energy per acre than feedstock land (aka ethanol from food crops such as corn)
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8010303907.html

Another benefit to using algae oil is that we don't have to deprive farmers of their corn crop anymore. "According to a U.N. expert....Jean Ziegler, the United Nations special reporter on the right to food and sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris....he stated that blame for the record high price of some staple grain crops is directly attributable to biofuel initiatives.

"This much is factually accurate it appears. Between September 2006 and November 2006 corn prices rose 55 percent. Corn prices are at record highs of over $3 USD per bushel. The Wall Street Journal says this is largely due to the new industrial demand for corn for ethanol conversion. This has caused food producers such as Tyson to struggle."

All in all poor people have more to eat around the world and famers get to keep a roof over their heads which is mainly what this thread was originally about.
Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Biofuels+S...article9436.htm

Last but not least is that algae fuel are biodegradable so if it leaks into the ground or atmosphere it will do no harm to the environment. In fact another way they are beneficial is that they suck up CO2. This is why the best to place algae bioreactors are next to the top source of CO2 and that would be fossil fuel based power plants such as coal.

The only problem here is not energy efficiency because as I noted above algae yields a high energy output, but rather the cost to run this type of technology. I think these guys said it best:
"The biggest challenge is cutting the cost of production, which by one Defense Department estimate is running more than $20 a gallon.

�If you can get algae oils down below $2 a gallon, then you�ll be where you need to be,� said Jennifer Holmgren, director of the renewable fuels unit of UOP, an energy subsidiary of Honeywell International. �And there�s a lot of people who think you can.�
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/u...r=1&oref=slogin

I believe in that last sentence. There are a lot of people including me who await a cost effective technology to come to fruition.

A cool fact. If you exclude the cost of biofuel production, "according to Michael Briggs: �The operating costs, including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the $100 - $150 billion the U.S. spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of that money leaving the US economy.� Scientists at NREL think that these new fuels will become competitive by 2010."
Source: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/algaefuel.pdf

Conclusion: What have we learned?

-Algae type of biofuels are sustainable and yield a high energy output.
-Algae can displace corn as a biofuel and poor people can eat again!
-Reduce greenhouse emissions, particularly CO2
-Reduce, if not, eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and maybe terrorism in the Middle East. (<---think about that one)

Surely, scientists have been able to come up with ways to produce adequate and stable flow of this algae for energy ... must be a very fun job scraping that thin layer off lakes and ponds.

Basically I know it sounds like a great idea, but I dont think its feasible. Besides, growing algae will involve sacrificing huge sections of our precious waters - harvesting it in the ocean will not be easy to collect.

Algae oil doesn't seem that bad..

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Surely, scientists have been able to come up with ways to produce adequate and stable flow of this algae for energy ... must be a very fun job scraping that thin layer off lakes and ponds. Basically I know it sounds like a great idea, but I dont think its feasible. Besides, growing algae will involve sacrificing huge sections of our precious waters - harvesting it in the ocean will not be easy to collect.

They won't grow it in the oceans. They have farms and containers and such

One of the biggest problems with biofuels is the rise of food prices ...

UN report blames bio-fuel programme for world food price rise

http://www.financialexpress.com/new...ce-rise/290862/

quote:

The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in its recent annual survey report for the region has cautioned that the global food prices will remain high and has held bio-fuel programme responsible for the same. "With grains and oil seeds the key feedstocks for bio-fuels, the oil price rise exerted by a strong push on agriculture commodity prices in 2007 which enjoyed their best performance for almost 30 years. As oil hit $100 per barrel in January 2008, soybean prices jumped to a 34-year high, corn prices approached their recent 11-year high, wheat prices were just below their recent all-time high, rapeseed prices rose to record highs and palm oil futures hit a historic high," the report said. Not only ESCAP but also UNCTAD, other UN agencies and OECD in their earlier reports had also held the bio-fuel programme responsible for the rise in global food prices. ESCAP noted that for many countries in the region, food prices were a bigger inflationary concern than oil prices. "Food price inflation hits low-income households, so governments may need to target the poor with food stamps and cash," it said As the march towards bio-fuels seemed apparently unstoppable, the ESCAP report said that the region needed to prepare for imported inflation through higher food prices ."Governments need to carefully consider the impact of bio-fuels on the poor," it said. In a box item in the report entitled - Bio-fuels: Friend or foe of the poor? - it said that as per some projections, global demand for bio-fuel could rise from 10 billion gallons in 2005 to 25 billion gallons in 2010 or 20% rise per year. The United Nations projects that bio-fuels will be "one of the main drivers" of projected food price hikes of 20% to 50% by 2016. Higher food prices will most hurt the urban poor and the rural poor who are net food consumers, for whom food is usually the biggest expenditure item. The box item, however, documented some potentials of bio-fuel programme for reducing poverty like farmers benefiting from higher demand for agricultural products (which has not yet occurred), increase in number of jobs and Markets for small farmers, environmental benefits (which is also controversial in many cases). By saying "sugarcane for ethanol has become more attractive for developing countries farmers," the box failed to distinguish between the ethanol programme and the... (continues on page 2 of the link)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.