The Problem with Biofuels

[xxbydesign 1]

I've had a big problem with the biofuel industry for a while now, because I just don't see the benefits outweighing the cost.  Now, both experts from the UN and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are raising concerns about biofuels: Biofuels 'crime against humanity'.

The way I see it, and this is in agreement with Mr. Ziegler's argument, is that turning what is othewise a consumable foodstuff that feeds and nourishes the body into something that is non-consumable and therefore depeleting food supplies is, for lack of a more refined term, stupid.  Despite the fact we currently grow enough food to feed everyone on the planet, it's just not distributed evenly, we are now taking some of that "excess" food and basicly throwing it in the garbage.  This also has profound effects on the market; decreased supply for human consumption with an increasing demand daily for food means that prices are rising.  Fast.  It is getting to the point (and for many is already past the point) where the impoverished are no longer in the position to buy grain or corn products (breads, cereals, tortillas, etc).

If this insult were not enough, the ultimate hypocrisy of this industry is that producing biofuels requires a large investment of fossil fuels; the argument goes that, since CO2 is consumed by plants during thier life and growth before harvesting, the CO2 generated by producing biofuels is essentially neutralized by the life cycles of the plants.  But this fails to take into account the farming practices used to get the raw materials for this fuel:  fertilizers that contaminate the water supply, tractors and harvesting machines, most of which run on fossil fuels, and lets not forget that there are places where, in order to meet this new, senseless demand, there will be greater deforestation and elimination of native species to make room for more farmland.  And to my knowlege, even if a transportation vehicle can run on these biofuels, its not like their inherent design has changed, meaning many still get dissapointing miles-per-gallon outputs.

If we as a whole expect to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, then we need a product that does not use it AT ALL in ANY part of the production process.  If biofuels are reducing CO2 emissions by plant photosynthesis, then I wonder why we just don't plant more trees and keep running our cars on gasoline??  At least then the poor would still be able to afford the food they used to be able to buy, there would be less demand for agricultural space and, therefore, reduce deforestation's pressure on forested land, and we could focus our efforts in harnessing energy from truly renewable sources that require NO human energy input to produce: solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc.

Just my thoughts; I'd be interested to hear yours...

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

If we as a whole expect to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, then we need a product that does not use it AT ALL in ANY part of the production process.  If biofuels are reducing CO2 emissions by plant photosynthesis, then I wonder why we just don't plant more trees and keep running our cars on gasoline??  At least then the poor would still be able to afford the food they used to be able to buy, there would be less demand for agricultural space and, therefore, reduce deforestation's pressure on forested land, and we could focus our efforts in harnessing energy from truly renewable sources that require NO human energy input to produce: solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc.quote>

All forms of energy require human energy input. What about the factories and mines that produced the raw materials to manufacture those solar, wind, and geothermal power plants? That definately requires a lot of energy input.

Not a whole lot of new farm land is cleared, and even if it was that would be just as bad as if you built a suburban neighborhood in its place. Most farmland in my area is taken from empty fields, as clearing trees and stumps is not as easy as technology makes it look. Plus, farms help out as far as CO2 reduction goes, since plants that can process more CO2 than the patch of grass and wildflowers that had previously occupied that space.

Biofuels is also becoming a major part of rural economies as now impoverished families now have a surge in job opportunities. This greatly affects the Plains, where little industry would otherwise exist. Just recently I toured the sites for two new bio-fuel facilities in Andaulsia, AL and Cottonton, FL. These two facililities alone are going to bring economic re-surgance to these very rural areas.

While the US has so much food at its disposal that we make up 70% of the worlds agricultural output, we also send tons of it over-seas. We give it to various nations who need it, and we still have too much left over. The government pays a lot of farmers to NOT grow food so that there is not as much of an excess. Food is sent to countries for their people, whether or not it actually gets to the people is a different arguement altogether.

[SC4BOY 21]

One thing it has been very successful in is raising the price of a broad range of foodstuffs.. It is amazing at how much of the "food chain" is linked to the same grains that are primarily used for biofuels.. In the last 12-18 months there has been about a 35% increase in most foods that are dependent on those grains.. and we've only just begun. Not to mention of course that the growth of those same grains are very demanding on petroleum products.. so it is self defeating in some ways. If we ever get to big government subsidies of biofuels, the food issue is going to become huge.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You know, this is just simple economics of the same argument as the old "Guns or Butter" dichotomy.  The only difference is that it reads "Fuel or Food".

If we take food grains that would otherwise be distributed to the world as sustenance and make automotive fuels out of them, then it is time to do something about the great demon automobile. 

The automobile and its fuel consumption, and consumption of other goods in its production may be makeing a few manufacturers and their employees wealthy but what about the rest of us?  Somehow, here, the tail is wagging the dog.

[coolotter88 2]

Human Fat powered vehicles?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 Human Fat powered vehicles?quote>

That's actually not at all crazy.  Diesel engines can run on chicken fat if it's refined properly.

The thing here that I'm glad to see is that people are starting to realize that biofuels were a dumb idea to begin with.

[xxbydesign 1]

Frankie_Grove - All forms of energy require human energy input. What about the factories and mines that produced the raw materials to manufacture those solar, wind, and geothermal power plants? That definately requires a lot of energy input. quote>

An excelent point.  I agree with you there, and did not think of that.  However, I would then argue that the difference here is that biofuels require CONTINUED energy input to convert the food into fuel, whereas a wind turbine or geothermal heatpump requires an input of energy ONCE to create a single product that then produces it's energy from natural, recurring forces.

Not a whole lot of new farm land is cleared, and even if it was that would be just as bad as if you built a suburban neighborhood in its place. Most farmland in my area is taken from empty fields, as clearing trees and stumps is not as easy as technology makes it look.quote>

Again, we are in agreement; expansion of farmland is rare, and the spread of suburban neighborhoods continues to be a detriment to both physical, mental, social, and ecological health, not to mention one of the biggest misallocaion of resources in history (but this is another discussion.  Watch this for some good laughs and an excelent perspective *some strong language*)  My problem with this comment is that it is too local, it is too narrow in its perspective, and it takes much for granted.  The United States has much more control over its avaliable land, and much of our forests are within national parks, forests, and reserves, so when we need it we can chop it down (What, you thought those parks were there for recreation? Hah!)  In other parts of the world, where agriculture makes a significant chunck of the economy, there is still much deforestation occuring on a daily basis, much of it without advanced technology (slash and burn, which is damaging on many levels).

When I said "we as a whole" I meant We as a World; the same comment holds true for Frankie_Grove's comment on benefits to rural economies (I know it seems like I'm picking here, but I'm not trying to, really).  We need to look broader and wider than just the United States, and be concerned about the poor in Mexico who can no longer afford tortillas, a basic foodstuff, and we need to be concerned about the hundreds of acres burned in Brazil for farmland, .  Don't misunderstand me; jobs for economicly depressed regions in the United States is just as noble as any other pursuit, but perhaps those created jobs are better suited for an industry with a potential for sustainablity and longevity.

I'm glad theres been so much discussion alread, and like all the different opinions and ideas expressed so far.  Looking forward to more

[Zwabberaar 18]

One thing that a lot of previous posters seem to forget that the worlds hunger is not because of lack of food. In many countries in the west we throw away enough food to feed the entie population of the world. The real problem though is one of distribution because nobody is willing to pay for the transport to get the food there where it is needed.

The idea of using food for fuel is not a bad one at all simply because now we can use it as fuel instead of letting it rot to compost.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: Zwabberaar One thing that a lot of previous posters seem to forget that the worlds hunger is not because of lack of food. In many countries in the west we throw away enough food to feed the entie population of the world. The real problem though is one of distribution because nobody is willing to pay for the transport to get the food there where it is needed. quote>

That's an excelent point.  Bio Fuels really exacerbate this problem by increasing demand for raw materials.  The very low price of grain relative to the high price of fuel is going to make grain markets very elastic.  While a small change in the top price of fuel may translate the cost/surplus directly to the grain and less to the unelastic refining end of the market.  This means that 2-3% changes in fuel prices could be magnified hundreds of times to the raw material.

The problem that arises with inconsistent markets is that agriculture takes longer to mature than the market does to fluctuate.  While a grower may begin a cash crop when it seems like something to better provide, he may be left with a useless harvest when the price crashes and he now has no subsistence agriculture to speak of.

Also, increased demand increases prices which causes problems with distribution.  For example, high value crops are worth more to rural-dominated economies on an international market.  The problem is, this is food the local people need to eat.  Agriculture-based economies that import their food (and grow export-only crops domestically) will be particularly hard-hit by increased crop prices and more fluctuating markets.  It is indeed possible to imagine a situation where a collapse in one export market will lead to a situation where a nation, otherwise wholly able to provide for its people, does not have enough money to import food for its people...much less line the corporate interests that tend to follow export-agriculture.

This problem is really exacerbated by the fact that the physical energy relationship is mind-boggling.  If a person considers their caloric intake in any given day as opposed to the caloric equivalent of fuel they use, I think you'll find the fuel end is many times higher.  This simply means there is a larger market for fuel than food.  It doesn't take Milton Freedman or Adam Smith to tell you where the market is about to subvert humanity.

It raises questions similar to the beef industry, where much more grain is required to create one pound of beef as opposed to one pound of grain (I think something on the order of 800x).  This fact alone suggests that secondary agriculture markets will be most hard-hit by the market forces when fuel and food interfere.

Consider the volitility of the market for fuel, at the moment spiking oil prices are particularly exemplary of this.  These prices fluctuate and hit the bottom end of the market almost exclusively (very little changes in the cost of refining, distributing, and taxing leaving only the raw material to absorb the price change).  The price of fuel can fluctuate wildly over the the term of an agricultural crop (corn is like 8-12 weeks, right?).  Now, consider this violent market being applied to cattle markets which take years to mature.  Cattle markets will be required to submit to the violently fluctuating grain markets imposed by fuel over the life of the cattle.  If they can afford feed for a period of time, the entire livestock markets of a nation could crash.  This of course would have repercussions back the other direction as well.

The point is, you don't want food markets to be subject to the same rampant change in value of fuel markets.  We're all already painfully aware of how much filling our cars costs and how much that can change.  Imagine if your gro

[saltandsauce 0]

wind turbines especially those on land are useless since germany has the highest number of wind turbines in the world it has not been able to switch off a single "backup" coal power stations i like the idea if undersea water turbines that use the currents but thats not viable nuclear is considered being rebranded as "green" energy

plus i think the US producing 70% of world food is a little exaggerated since the US soil farms are considered by world standard merely dust there aren't many nutrients in it the sheer size of the farms is the only reason they are profitable

[mayormot 4]

I think the idea of creating a transporation system that competes with us for food is more than a little bit insane.

[SC4BOY 21]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: coolotter88 Human Fat powered vehicles?quote>

That's actually not at all crazy.  Diesel engines can run on chicken fat if it's refined properly.

The thing here that I'm glad to see is that people are starting to realize that biofuels were a dumb idea to begin with.quote>

 

There's no "starting to realise" to it. It's always been a bad idea driven by the greenie left wingers and taken up by politicians to satisfy the hoi poloi.  However if we could only get a tap on those discards from liposuctions, we'd have a GREAT fuel.. aside from the soilent green solution..

[hamsterTK 93]

To me it was nothing but a ploy to cater to iowa voters

nah

Anyways, personally I see the future in cars powered by hydrogen extracted from water with electricity generated by either renewable or nuclear means.

The one thing I wonder about though is where plastics will be derived from after oil. This I think will still involve using organic material, probably from processed waste.

[Easy Bakes 253]

As i said once before. Biofuels are a mistake.

All were doing is makeing ADM and Con Agra billions.

not solving the issue on BURNING fuel to produce motive power for vehicles.

they will take the easy way  of doing things: that is go to the amazon  and south america were land is  and labor is cheap,  clear cut trees to grow sugar cane to turm into fuel. then move on

when the land is spent and washed away since they removed the ground cover.

 then again maybe since thier going to make all the corn into deisel the cows will eat grass again so  beef will be healthier for us just expensive.

[coolotter88 2]

well ethanol has 0 net carbon emissions because the plants that are grown to create the fuel take the CO2 out of the environment to create sugars which we ferment into fuel and burn which go back into plants to make sugars which we...well, you see the cycle

and I actually see Nuclear as virtually renewable

the biggest problem with biofuels would be higher food prices, less food for starving people in africa, and of course, clearing rainforests. another problem with burning ethanol is that it creates smog, as someone mentioned before, brasil has terrible smog.

[saltandsauce 0]

you could just not have a car at all

heat your home by burning your garbage

cook you food from the fire

only use electricity if you really need it

have candles made of human fat

[GMT 389]

imho, there're several problems with biofuels.

costs: it's a hell of an expensive work to produce them

human aspect: the place needed to grow biofuel's sources could be used aswell to produce food

environment: as I've learned recently in an scientific essay, the amount of energy put into the production of biofuels (guess where it comes from... yes, fossil fuels) and the final output are close to an 1:1 ratio, so it's really a waste of resources, because in the end, the oh so environemt-friendly use of biofuels is just as dirty as the direct use of fossil fuels

[coolotter88 2]

why do that? saltandsauce?

instead of centralized pollution, we have pollution distributed all over the place because people are burning garbage to heat their homes (this includes the foul smell of burning garbage)

natural gas or electric stoves are by far the best way to gook food, think of all the diarrhea we'd have lying around if we tried to cook food on an open flame. open flames are good for camping and the stone age

electricity is the best thing since sliced bread, why shun it?

[screamingman12 30]

Better Idea:
Choose to live in an urban area with good public transit, if that's not possible buy a hybrid.

Buy energy-efficient appliances, newer ones consume a lot less power

Use energy efficient lightbulbs (CFLs)

Recycle newspapers, bottles and cans

Put up windmills or solar pannels to generate some of your own power

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Use energy efficient light bulbs (CFLs)

quote>

1. Not all light fixtures can support CFL's
2. CFL's are expensive right now, but hopefully the price will drop.
3. How do you dispose of spent CFL's.  You realize they contain Mercury

Frankly, I would prefer more efficient batteries of LED's.  Low power, much longer life.  More work to make them brighter and cheaper needs to be done.

[screamingman12 30]

You take them to the hazerdous waste facility, or wait for the pickup date. The low-mercury CFLs contain less than 2 grams of Mercury, that's compariable to a mercury thermometer, many, many people have broken those before and haven't had any problems.

[Glenni 1,447]

"Recycle newspapers, bottles and cans"

Already mandatory here in Norway..the fact that you might not do this in some places in the USA is quite simply disappointing.

For instance at just our household alone, we collect the bottles and soda cans in bags, then return them to the RVM (Reverse vending machines)

Newspapers and other assorted papers have their own box in a some sort of small container that contains several smaller containers.

Other metal/plastic things are brought to the small local recycle stations, that have several different dumpsters labeled for each material, like plastic goes in the dumpster with the label 'plastic'

Organic materials/food are thrown in the container for organic waste, even the bags that these are in decompose. By dividing the garbage in such a way,  you also get less excess recyclable materials at the garbage dumps.

Anyway, that's just how we do it Norway. I'm sure the rest of Europe is even better than this.

It's a lot better to do than saltandsauce's downright crazy ideas, burning garbage in your fireplace just doesn't work anymore.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Glenni "Recycle newspapers, bottles and cans"

Already mandatory here in Norway..the fact that you might not do this in some places in the USA is quite simply disappointing.quote>

Pretty much every town in the US has a recycling program these days, and many states require an extra deposit to be put on bottles and cans that can then be refunded upon returning them to be recycled. The trouble is that the system doesn't work as well as it does in other countries. A lot of people are lazy and can't be bothered to seperate out recyclables as opposed to just throwing them away. And there's a lot of stuff that's perfectly recyclable which local recycling programs usually don't cover, meaning you;d have to take them to a recycling center yourself. Also, the return machines at the stores are notorious for being finicky in accepting cans and bottles... after all, the store makes five cents of profit for every can or bottle which doesn't get returned, so they purposefully make it a pain in the ass to do so to maximize that. And when the machine rejects a can or bottle, it generally ends up tossed in the trash cans which are always placed oh so conveniently right next to the recycling machines.

As for the municipal recycling programs, they exist to various degrees. New York city allows you to recycle a whole slew of things, in fact it was the first city in the entire US to start a mandatory public recycling program. On the other hand, Stamford, CT, where I live when I'm not at school, is more lacking in that department. The recycling trucks will only pick up Number 1 and 2 plastic, newspaper and mixed paper, metal cans, and glass jars. If you want to recycle scrap metal or cardboard, you have to take it to the recycling center yourself. And if you want to recycle anything else that's recyclable (Number 3-6 plastic, milk cartons, etc.), you're basically outta luck. Also, the main trucks only come once a week, and the mixed paper trucks only come once a month, so for a lot of people the bins tend to fill up faster than the trucks come to empty them... which often means people go and through the overflow in the trash. (You get the same two bins no matter what the size of your household is). We're a family of five, and we get a lot of junk mail, so our paper bin never lasts the full month. So, instead of ever putting the bins out for the trucks to pick up, my dad just takes them to the recycling center ourselves whenever the need arises (dragging me along if I'm home), and run other errands while out, too. Fortunatley we live in a part of town such that the recycling center is sort of on the way to basically everything else, so this works for us. For most of the town's residents, though, the recycling center is rather out of the way. It is relatively near the north end of one of the city's bus lines, but those buses run only once an hour usually, and it's not practical to lug all those recyclables on the bus with you, anyway.

-----------------------

As for biofuel, I wouldn't rule it out as completely stupid, though I do think it is unwise to just take crops and make them into ethanol or whatever. If you're going to make biofuel, it should be done with what would otherwise be trash, such as agricultural waste. I remember hearing about some garage in Massachusetts which retrofits diesel cars with an extra gas tank in the trunk for supplementary fuels. The most common source is used cooking oil. People have found they can pull up behind McDonalds or some Chinese place, ask for some leftover oil, and the restaurants are usually quite happy to give it to them for free, since they would otherwise have to pay to get it carted away. Though, the downside with this is that before long your car is forever going to smell of burnt McDonalds and Chinese food, and your clothes are going to pick the scent up, too. It's also only a niche th

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well ethanol has 0 net carbon emissions because the plants that are grown to create the fuel take the CO2 out of the environment to create sugars which we ferment into fuel and burn which go back into plants to make sugars which we...well, you see the cyclequote>

This is a misconception about biofuels.  Ethanol, which is nothing more than glorified alcohol, the cleanest burning of all fuels we use, still produces carbon dioxide.  The activists who like to tell people that using ethanol will radically cut down on green-house gas emissions are either ill-informed or flat out lying.

[coolotter88 2]

I never said it would cut down, it just technically has 0 net carbon dioxide emissions. So carbon levels stay the same.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Glenni "Recycle newspapers, bottles and cans"

Already mandatory here in Norway..the fact that you might not do this in some places in the USA is quite simply disappointing.quote>

As for biofuel, I wouldn't rule it out as completely stupid, though I do think it is unwise to just take crops and make them into ethanol or whatever. If you're going to make biofuel, it should be done with what would otherwise be trash, such as agricultural waste. I remember hearing about some garage in Massachusetts which retrofits diesel cars with an extra gas tank in the trunk for supplementary fuels. The most common source is used cooking oil. People have found they can pull up behind McDonalds or some Chinese place, ask for some leftover oil, and the restaurants are usually quite happy to give it to them for free, since they would otherwise have to pay to get it carted away. Though, the downside with this is that before long your car is forever going to smell of burnt McDonalds and Chinese food, and your clothes are going to pick the scent up, too. It's also only a niche thing since diesel cars are extremely uncommon in the US, because diesel vehicles have a lot of trouble meeting the EPA emissions standards for particulate matter and nitrous oxides.quote>

 

So your saying that this  waste cooking oil dosent have to be processed in order to be burned

in  a vehicle?

Wouldnt the particles of food and such suspended in the oil clog the fuel filter and injectors?

[Glenni 1,447]

"For most of the town's residents, though, the recycling center is rather out of the way. It is relatively near the north end of one of the city's bus lines, but those buses run only once an hour usually, and it's not practical to lug all those recyclables on the bus with you, anyway."

Hmm, you don't have those smaller recycle stations placed around your city, that the trucks at the recycling centres usually pick up when they're full (or at some certain time, i'm not too sure when they empty them) for so to bring them to the recycle centre itself`?)

That's how it is in my town, they're not really that big, just a small fenced in area with dumpsters labeled for all the different stuff.

[Insane Child of Bodom 1]

like Duke said....its lazyness...but it is also lack of space....

let me explain

I still recycle,but now its a pain cuz all my recyclables go onto my balcony(looks horrid and smeels bad/can't use it)

back when I had a backyard recycling was much easier and I had/was able to use the land/space,,,

now i can't use my balcony due to the cans...

EDIT...saw glennis comment....

normally American towns have one recycling center...if any...

plus in So California...if you live in an apartment you have to take the cans to the cener yourself....no trucks

[ShortStraw 1]

Recycling programs in the Rural Southern U.S. are half hearted at best.  In the dozen or so towns I've lived in in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee I've not seen any recycling centers.  As far as I know, there are no separate pick ups for recyclable waste.   In order to recycle waste in this area you have to really really go out of your way...possibly to some other state or to a metropolitan area.

There are almost certainly recycling programs I'm unaware of but they put the burden of recycling solely on the individual consumer.  I could, for example, load up a truck full of paper and/or plastic and drive it the 120 or so miles to the nearest metropolitan city then drop it off at a recycling center (if there are any and I'm not sure there are) but most people are not going to spend their time and money on that sort of venture.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So your saying that this  waste cooking oil dosent have to be processed in order to be burned

in  a vehicle?

Wouldnt the particles of food and such suspended in the oil clog the fuel filter and injectors?

quote>

It does have to be processed, partly for the reason you suggest (filtration and various chemical methods to clean it), and also because the oil has to be chemically converted to a fuel that can be combusted by vehicles. Unfortunately the processing method used in backyard operations is rather hazardous and I don't recommend it. I heard the cleaning of the fuel lines and engines using it was also rather a time consuming process, as the fuel is very heavy and sticky.