Deforestation of the Amazon, happening at the rate of 325,000 hectares per year, is linked to to the market price of soybeans, a primary crop used for biofuel.
Biofuels invoke an image of renewable abundance that allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to present fuel from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as a replacement for oil that will bring about a smooth transition to a renewablefuel economy. Myths of abundance divert attention from powerful economic interests that benefit from this biofuels transition, avoiding discussion of the growing price that citizens of the global South are beginning to pay to maintain the consumptive oil-based lifestyle of the North. Biofuel mania obscures the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems - the agro-fuels transition.
The Agro-fuels Boom
Industrialized countries have unleashed an "agro-fuels boom" by mandating ambitious renewable fuel targets. Renewable fuels are to provide 5.75 percent of Europe's transport fuel by 2010, and 10 percent by 2020. The U.S. goal is 35 billion gallons a year. These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to use 70 percent of its farmland for fuel. The United States' entire corn and soy harvest would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel. Northern countries expect the global South to meet their fuel needs, and southern governments appear eager to oblige. Indonesia and Malaysia are rapidly cutting down forests to expand oil-palm plantations targeted to supply up to 20 percent of the European Union biodiesel market. In Brazil - where fuel crops already occupy an area the size of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Great Britain combined - the government is planning a fivefold increase in sugar cane acreage with a goal of replacing 10 percent of the world's gasoline by 2025.
The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the agro-fuels industry is breathtaking. From 2004 to 2007, venture capital investment in agro-fuels increased eightfold. Private investment is swamping public research institutions, as evidenced by BP's recent award of half a billion dollars to the University of California. In open defiance of national anti-trust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming powerful partnerships: ADM with Monsanto, Chevron and Volkswagen, BP with DuPont and Toyota. These corporations are consolidating research, production, processing and distribution chains of our food and fuel system under one colossal, industrial roof.
Agro-fuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable, they are environmentally friendly and can reduce global warming, fostering rural development. But the tremendous market power of agro-fuel corporations, coupled with weak political will of governments to regulate their activities, is a recipe for environmental disaster and increasing hunger in the global South. It's time to examine the myths fueling this biofuel boom - before it's too late.
Myth #1: Agro-fuels are clean and green
Myth #2: Agro-fuels will not result in deforestation
Myth #3: Agro-fuels will bring rural development
Myth #4: Agro-fuels will not cause hunger
Myth #5: Better "second-generation" agrofuels are just around the corner
quote:
The International Energy Agency estimates that over the next 23 years, the world could produce as much as 147 million tons of agro-fuel. This will be accompanied by a lot of carbon, nitrous oxide, erosion and more than two billion tons of waste water. Remarkably, this fuel will barely offset the yearly increase in global oil demand, now standing at 136 million tons a year - not offsetting any of the existing demand.
Posts: 8 | Location: Glendale Heights, IL | Registered: 16 November 2007
I don't think that mass conversion to biofuels is the way to go - using land and growing plants solely for that purpose is bad for the environment, generally. However, if biofuel can be made efficiently from by-products of food production or manufacturing, for example the waste from sugar production, then this can be a good thing. There is no single solution to our energy needs. We need to use a variety of energy sources, selecting those which are most suitable to each region and market.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
For the love of GOD...has anyone around here heard of ALGAE?!?!?1?!?!!?!?! I can't believe this stupid argument is still going on about soybeans vs. corn vs. sugarcane vs. whatever....and once again, today (Friday), I heard a Thom go to the Hemp for Bio-Fuel well once again.....where in the hell does he get his stats or logic on this issue?!?!?!?!?!?! ALGAE ALGAE ALGAE
* Actual biomass algae yields from field trials conducted during the NREL's aquatic species program, converted using the actual oil content of the algae species grown in the specific trials.
** Algae yields are projected based on the sustainable average biomass yields of the NREL's aquatic species program, and an assumed oil content of 60%. Actual oil content was much less.
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
as far as I, not an expert on algae, can tell, the problems mentioned in the article I linked to are transferrable to algae, so I do not think that the new mantra will get us out of trouble.
the problem is our lifestyle, not the type of alternative energy source we are going to hyperexploit next.
Posts: 8 | Location: Glendale Heights, IL | Registered: 16 November 2007
as far as I, not an expert on algae, can tell, the problems mentioned in the article I linked to are transferrable to algae, so I do not think that the new mantra will get us out of trouble.
the problem is our lifestyle, not the type of alternative energy source we are going to hyperexploit next.
I strongly believe something in rotten in Detroit.... I don't see ow, with all of this "Green" push going on, that there isn't open easy-to-digest debate going on about pushing for this country to really swing towards diesels?!?! It has worked pretty well for Europe, and there are many simple facts about pushing for most of our passenger cars and trucks to run on diesel. It seems as though so many people would rather talk about ethanol than bio-diesel in this overall debate...which is understandable to some degree, since a majority of passenger vehicles run on gasoline, and can be switched over to ethanol.....but how are people so in love with hybrids that get less MPG than diesels such as VW GTI/Golf TDI's? Not to mention the torque power benefit of Diesels.
Algae can be grown innasty ass polluted water, including acting as a "breath-mint" to coal-fired power plants by pumping the CO2 from the smokestacks through pools of water to be soaked up/absorbed by algae in the growth process....not too mention that algae can grow just as easily in salt-water....and is actually a problem in many waterways, which could be cleaned-up and turned into fuel....
i think most importantly, a transition/push towards bio-diesel would allow us to reuse/continue to use so many of the engines & vehicles that we currently use...therefore using the least amount of raw materials to implement... while all the while creating a closed-loop for the CO2 in our atmosphere
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
Here's the problems in a brief nutshell with biofuels:
1. Continue to provide a product for liquid fuels distribution companies. (i.e. Exxon/Shell/BP)
2. To make it so that car manufactures basically don't have to do anything, but add a cheap sensor, or some different tubing. Meanwhile they maintain their gas guzzlers. http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png
3. To make it so that politicians can give out tons of pork, and divert focus away from increasing energy efficiency. To appear green without actually having done anything beneficial.
4. Any significant breakthroughs in biofuels processing can be directly applied to turning coal into a liquid. Since coal is also a biomass solid.
5. According to many non-federal studies, biofuels are actually much worse in emissions than petroleum. Largely due to the fact that the federal studies use non-peer reviewed methods, and intentionally omit large portions of emissions.
6. Many studies also find that biofuels do not appreciably decrease emissions of air toxics. Many studies primarily find that rather than being lower across the board, it is usually a tradeoff. And in some cases it ends up being even worse than petroleum in cumulative emissions.
7. Then there's the water aspect. BioFuels are very water intensive. They are also very water polluting.
8. Then there's the soil quality issues. Being able
9. Then there's deforrestation issue due to displaced farmland
10. Then there's the cost/subsidies issue.
11. Then there's the issue where it diverts away from whats actually important, like increasing our CAFE standards.
12. Lastly you have all the slim ammounts of "Waste" being proclaimed as a solution to our problems. When we're really talking about less than 1% of our current demand being met by that. By comaprison, just inflating our tires better would get us 3% of our current demand met.
13. Then there's to food price issue
14. Then there's the GMO/Pesticide/FactoryFarm aspect of things.
________
The issue is much like an Artichoke. You have to peal back all the layers of detail before you really get to the heart of the issue.
_________
As for the Algae, thats about the only one which has any potential of being worthwhile. And even that has some grave problems and limits associated with it. http://greyfalcon.net/algae
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyFlcn,
-GreyFlcn
Posts: 62 | Location: California | Registered: 17 November 2007
indeed; algae are not going to do the trick. neither will diesel or any other petrol substitute. only a drastic change in lifestyle may accomplish something, if it is not too late.
Posts: 8 | Location: Glendale Heights, IL | Registered: 16 November 2007
1) Unless it uses a closed-loop system with intensive water recycling. Then it creates too many emissions (N2O decomposition), and uses too much water. 2) But if it does all that it can't possibly work economically. 3) Lastly it's inheriently limited by photosynthesis itself. Which can only yield a theoretical maximum of 11% conversion of sunlight into energy. The realistic limit is closer to 3-6%. Which is cut in half again since temperate lattitudes get 1/2 as much sunlight as the tropics. Where as you lose about 95% of that energy just turning it into a liquid and burning it.
In short, the ecology, the economics, the thermodynamics just don't pencil in.
If they can make that ALL work, more power to em, but they are fighting a losing battle against the laws of physics, and a major engineering hurdle.
_
The other reason I hate Algae is that it makes it difficult to crush all hope.
Which allows for the festering argument of "Well we must do biofuels now, even though they are an ecological nightmare, because maybe sometime in the future we could switch to this pie-in-the-sky approach. But we need to do the devestating stuff now, so we can build a market, and infrastructure." i.e. The same putrid argument that Coal-to-Liquids advocates use.
==indeed; algae are not going to do the trick. neither will diesel or any other petrol substitute. only a drastic change in lifestyle may accomplish something, if it is not too late.==
As much as I would like to say thats likely...
But what it all boils down to is heading in a similar direction. Which is higher energy efficiency for our transportation system.
And also a change in where we get that energy from.
-GreyFlcn
Posts: 62 | Location: California | Registered: 17 November 2007
Originally posted by picknroll: Not to mention the torque power benefit of Diesels.
I drive a 1983 diesel Vanagon "Original 1.6 NA". NA is Normally Aspirated (no turbocharger). 1.6 liters is a pathetically small engine, and the vehicle is slow. There is no way I can keep up with even 60 except on flat terrain with a tailwind. Hills are brutal, and I need to pull over over to let the more than 4 cars go by.
But it is extremely economical to run. I might burn 15 gallons a month, and I do a lot of frivolous driving. When the price is $5 for a gallon of diesel, I might need to cut back. I do burn B-80, which is only 20% soy-based biodiesel. But I get it at a normal commercial pump here in Santa Fe, just like it was a normal fuel. I believe this is the only place in the US where biodiesel is available in a normal pump.
American are all in such a big hurry. There is no reason for them to drive so fast all the time, when I go to Denver I am flabbergasted at how much of a hurry people there are in. The entire american economy... production... business... That is what needs to change if we are to use significantly less fuel.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Well I do have to agree there, diesels are going to be a very solid option, especially in the short term.
Starting 2008 light duty diesels will be available for sale in all 50 US states.
Reason for that is that they removed the Sulfur from diesel October 2006. And now with a particulate filter, and a closed-loop NO2 filter, new diesels can meet even the world's highest diesel emissions standards (i.e. California).
Hybrids are also expected to hit a lower price point in the next year or two.
_
That said you might want to, reconsider the biodiesel.
Since it's one of the worst offenders. Particularly soy biodiesel.
Partially because the Federal studies act like nitrogen fixation doesn't exist. (N2O, aka Laughing Gas, is 296x more potent than CO2. And the primary source of it is from agriculture. And they just "accidentally" left that out.) http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
Originally posted by GreyFlcn: And partially because soybeans are THE major reason we're getting such massive deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. http://greyfalcon.net/ran
Wow, I did not realize the Biofuels/Agrifuels frame corporations have erected for good PR. Thank you for your work GreyFlcn. I see where we are headed in the post-petroleum economy. Equatorial ecologies devastated by giant agribusiness, nations serving as biofuel republics for the wealthy industrial nations.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by GreenMachine: indeed; algae are not going to do the trick. neither will diesel or any other petrol substitute. only a drastic change in lifestyle may accomplish something, if it is not too late.
yeah algae sucks, you got me, what was i thinking??? your stats and arguments are just rock solid...man i am just so dumb....teach me ow to dream these vague, undefined utopian ways that you see to create clean, efficient, and domestic fuel sources without creating just as many parallel problems along with many others
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
"Just as cows give drinkable milk, trees can yield fuel pure enough to be burned in diesel engines. Dubbed the diesel tree, Brazil's Cobaifera tree is the Guernsey of the forest, each mature tree being able to produce 30 to 40 liters (8 to 10 U.S. gallons) per year."
"It's probably a bit too much to hope for, but perhaps someday we might view cutting a tree as killing the goose that laid...."
It seems, that with one tree, the Cobaifera, refineries don't even have to be utilized. I doubt oil companies would want to pursue this one. It makes their multi-billion dollar refineries irrelevant. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/358.html
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
yeah algae sucks, you got me, what was i thinking??? your stats and arguments are just rock solid...man i am just so dumb....
okay, I did not say that. any form of alternative energy is welcome and should help, but I do not think we can afford to be as naïve as to assume that with algae everything is solved. And that IS how you presented it.
quote:
teach me ow to dream these vague, undefined utopian ways that you see to create clean, efficient, and domestic fuel sources without creating just as many parallel problems along with many others
oh man, do not be like that. what can I say to this except "whatever"? this style of discourse will kill any conversation.
Posts: 8 | Location: Glendale Heights, IL | Registered: 16 November 2007
yeah algae sucks, you got me, what was i thinking??? your stats and arguments are just rock solid...man i am just so dumb....
okay, I did not say that. any form of alternative energy is welcome and should help, but I do not think we can afford to be as naïve as to assume that with algae everything is solved. And that IS how you presented it.
The way I am trying to present it, is that in any sort of transition to any more suitable energy source(s) than what we currently have at our disposal, we have to do something to transition us now away from foreign oil...if possible. It also makes good sense that it would be progress to utilize a fuel source that can be used in the engines we use right now (speaking primarily about Diesel). Now I also, am very convinced though, that trying to use ANY land based crop is just not going to be viable, sensible, or environmentally responsible, no matter what way you cut it. Be it Soy, Corn, Hemp, Rapeseed, Cocnut Oil, Palm Oil...whatever...its just not gonna work....so the only source that seems like it could be possible in any mathematical and pragmatic way would be algae. Nothing on the planet can grow as quickly, with as basic of a nutrient source. It can also be grown using salt water, and field run-off....
anyways, these are all old points i have made before....I just believe that with this whole biofuels debate we put our bets on algae, put it in the hands of college students in every single state in the country, and give them the money for a 5 year Research & Development contest...See if it can be made viable...if not, we just move right on to drastic new shifts in technology and lifestyles
quote:
teach me ow to dream these vague, undefined utopian ways that you see to create clean, efficient, and domestic fuel sources without creating just as many parallel problems along with many others
oh man, do not be like that. what can I say to this except "whatever"? this style of discourse will kill any conversation.
I'm just a bit frustrated with folks who offer up all negatives and naysaying, without offering up counter solutions....i'm kinda tired of counter arguments
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
Originally posted by GreyFlcn: As for Algae's problems in a nutshell:
1) Unless it uses a closed-loop system with intensive water recycling. Then it creates too many emissions (N2O decomposition), and uses too much water. 2) But if it does all that it can't possibly work economically. 3) Lastly it's inheriently limited by photosynthesis itself. Which can only yield a theoretical maximum of 11% conversion of sunlight into energy. The realistic limit is closer to 3-6%. Which is cut in half again since temperate lattitudes get 1/2 as much sunlight as the tropics. Where as you lose about 95% of that energy just turning it into a liquid and burning it.
In short, the ecology, the economics, the thermodynamics just don't pencil in.
If they can make that ALL work, more power to em, but they are fighting a losing battle against the laws of physics, and a major engineering hurdle.
_
The other reason I hate Algae is that it makes it difficult to crush all hope.
Which allows for the festering argument of "Well we must do biofuels now, even though they are an ecological nightmare, because maybe sometime in the future we could switch to this pie-in-the-sky approach. But we need to do the devestating stuff now, so we can build a market, and infrastructure." i.e. The same putrid argument that Coal-to-Liquids advocates use.
(1) As far as the water usage....I think a lot of the problem could possibly be addressed by using salt water at coastal areas, or even areas slightly inland from the ocean. Granted, there would be lots of other issues to address, such as what impact saltwater basins would have on the ecosystem. I really would not be for using any fresh water sources, except for wastewater streams from livestock areas. If the water could be diverted and channeled to algae growing pools. For 2 primary reasons, it would keep this brownwater out of freshwater supplies, and it is nutrient rich for growing algae. With the N2O decomposition factor. Could you possibly explain this a little more? Wouldn't any N2O emissions given off during the growth or burning process just be a result of the N2O that the algae had sequestered from the environment in the first place? Is there really any net gain in the amount that would be in the atmosphere as a result of the algae growth cycle? If that is the case, then that would certainly need to be a problem that would need to be addressed at the forefront.
(2) Economically, I think there could be more benefits all around than you may think. As I have said, if this is a jouney to embark on, that is pursuing using algae or any other biofuel source...then we need to utilize the bright, and generally unbiased minds that fill college campuses across this country. College students could & should be tasked with trying to resolve this argument once and for all. Part of the goal of the task would be to provide a robustly sustainable, clean burning, carbon neutral, environmentally biofuel source and production method. Not only that, but another goal would be to make whatever "crop" is determined to be the best for use in biofuels by college students, then they should also design a co-op system which would allow as many individual farmers and everyday land owning citizens to grow this crop on their property, and make a sustainable living with it. But as for overall cheapness factor, I don't see anything in the bio-fuels realm that stands much of a chance of being cheaper to grow and process than algae. In the end there is no waste product left behind. And growing it, processing it, and getting it distributed would not require much of a transition in technology. Not to mention we could get to pushing for more passenger vehicles and small trucks that are clean burning 60+mpg vehicles which can meet very stringent emissions guidelines.
(3)Well your energy conversion dynamics formula seems to miss the point i was trying to make, which is that the potential energy yield ratio benefits that algae could possibly have over any other crop makes sense to pursue. As you go on, I see you just have a basic loathing of biofuels and seemingly internal combustion as a whole. that's all fine and good, it seems like you are pushing for a solar approach?? How could this be feasible? Could you give me a timeline and potential goals for whatever method you would want to pursue? I am sincerely interested, .... in the meanwhile, i'll keep clinging on to my pie-in-the-sky notions that we can getcollege studeents to work out a sensible solution with biofuels to so much of an extent, that we could actually be meeting 100% of our own energy needs wby 2020 and exporting it significantly by 2025...therefore reaping whirlwind economic benfits for our country, farmers, public university system, and the college scientists that develop the solution.
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
Read-Only Topic
