The Viability of Biofuels

Submitted by fyl on 18 May, 2007 - 07:17.

The viability of biofuels has been discussed here. Some said President Ortega's opposition was because of his Chavez-based pro-oil stance. The articles I point to here put a bit of reality into the equation and make it look much like any government's pro-biofuel stance is just supporting big business rather than creating a net energy gain.

Biofuels: Fact and Fiction addresses the net energy issue.

By using a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach – measuring all the energy inputs to the production of ethanol from the production of nitrogen fertiliser, through to the energy required to clean up the waste from bio-refineries – they have shown that while it takes 6,597 kilocalories of nonrenewable energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, that same litre contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy – a 22 per cent loss.(1)

Biofuels Report" is more of a political piece.

Currently politicians, global food and fuel corporations and biotech companies are all vying for position. The pieces are shifting so radically and so quickly on the global chessboard that food multinationals like Unilever, fearful of a marketplace that pits food against fuel, now find themselves using words like ‘deforestation’ and ‘sustainable farming’ and rubbing shoulders with non-governmental organisations who have been so critical of them in the past.

Finally, The Next Genetic Revolution brings up the issue of genetically modified food and how biofuel production will be the necessary "escuse".

GM corn now makes up a substantial part of all corn destined for ethanol production in the USA and Monsanto reports that sales of its corn seeds and traits have risen 38 per cent in the last year alone. However, since these varieties offer no particular advantage over conventional corn for ethanol production, it is possible that the diversion of GM maize into ethanol production reflects the extent to which this commodity has been rejected as a food and feed staple. And as biodiesel production relies on oils such as sunflower, palm or soya, increased demand will also mean more demand for GM oilseed crops, in particular soya beans.

‹ Free Nicaragua Classifieds Perspectives on Abortion Rights in the World ›
( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another Good Biofuels Article

Submitted by fyl on 16 July, 2007 - 16:17.

This article is a good analysis of the "ethanol for fuel" craze and why it makes no sense. For those who don't live here, the three "biggies" for the poor to eat are rice, beans and corn. Corn tends to cost about half as much per pound as the other two.

The article is in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Corn to ethenol

Submitted by Doug on 18 May, 2007 - 22:27.

makes no sense what so ever, unless it's moonshine.

It takes more energy to make than it delivers. Large corporations such as Cargill, Monsanto and ADM are set to make a another pile of money. And they WILL argue the point for FrankenFoods being necessary. The "shortage" of feed for chickens has already caused Belize to "temporarily" amend it's prohibition on Gm foods.

I just read "Starving the poor" by Noam Chomsky. Basically they starve while we drive our Hummers on fuel from food. It's like there is some secret government department that does nothing but figure out ways to piss off the rest of the world even more.

Biofuels are a great idea, but we need to look towards methane and biodiesel from algae, not from food stuffs

-Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

I tend to agree

Submitted by Nicamatt on 18 May, 2007 - 12:39.

I just finished a graduate level international food policy course that was very eye-opening and that gave the very same type of feedback about biofuels as FYL is presenting here.

I was skeptical at first, but looking at the numbers, the upcoming US Farm bill and recent articles from various sources I now tend to believe that there is more to biofuels and their current popularity that needs to be discussed and analyzed before we go whole hog in any given direction.

What I always seem to come back to is a balanced approach. Funny how balance seems to work best in the long run.

i thought....

Submitted by Che Guevara on 18 May, 2007 - 12:52.

oil was a biofuel? things died, got burried, decomposed into oil.

That works fine,

Submitted by Billy Bob on 19 May, 2007 - 00:07.

but the process is a little slow for a species of 6 billion plus people committed to unlimited growth and rising expectations.

Maybe the 6 billion people are the problem. Previous generations had plenty of farmland.

"Poverty is the best recycler"

slow....

Submitted by Che Guevara on 19 May, 2007 - 08:36.

if you are going to wait for the process. quick... if you open up anwar and the continental shelf. but the environmentalists don't presume to tell the middle east not to drill for oil, but the dems in the house and senate sure the heck encourage foreign dependence by not opening known reserves to modern, less intrusive drilling techniques. baffling!

ANWAR is a band-aid on a gaping wound

Submitted by Jinoturistica on 19 May, 2007 - 09:55.

You could drill every drop of oil in the entire 2 american continents and it would last 5 minutes in the growing Chinese and Indian economies. the ANWAR concept is just a political pussy in a lions den.

Being concerned about deposits and drilling is the wrong direction to look. The political and international direction is the one thats going to whack the USA up the side of the head.

Taking 2 factors and putting them together...a)India and China have rapidly growing economies thirsty for oil but no well-established large deposits in thier dominion. b) The US has a colossal thirst for oil, well-established Mid-east suppliers BUT is rapidly upsetting every single one of the source governments.

What would it take for, say, Iraq's new government or Russia or Iran to decide that India was a better sales market? Or what if the Saudia Arabian undemocratic despotic empire collapsed and the new rulers reneged on their western-oriented contracts?

I don't know the stats - how many acres of corn to make a barrel of gasoline? How many acres of the USA are in production growing agricultural crops? How many barrels of gasoline does the US consume per year?

If someone can supply those 3 numbers, we can see the viability of Ethanol from corn as a solution to US gasoline needs in a heartbeat.

lets stop talking about energy to produce ethanol, how much it would cost to make - is it even possible to get close to a solution to Mid-east political disaster? I think its not but thats just a hunch.

Tony X Robins, Jinotega

p.s. If Saudia Arabia wrote a contract with the Chinese and the US Army went in, we would be talking nuclear war.

Luxury of war

Submitted by buddyruff89102 on 21 May, 2007 - 13:07.

The US has alot of oil we choose not to exploit, its a luxury. Other countries export oil its all they have to sell. We or the US has alot of resources, we invent and make things figure out how to sell it to the world, so do alot of other countries. We can feed ourselfves alot of other countries can´t or won´t. If those other countries who make things had oil they would be more competive. Its a balance, one day we may no longer have the luxury of this choice and to be more competive we drill and fill our own tanks. Ethanol and other biofuels is just one way to show the Arabs they have a market to sell too, but they are not the only source of fuel.

nuclear war is no solution neither is a war to control resources unless they are ours from our land.

even nica is drilling on the shelf?

Submitted by Che Guevara on 19 May, 2007 - 08:38.

http://www.petroleumworld.com/story07051810.htm