If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels

Guardian UK ^ | 3/27/2007` | George Monbiot

[Uncledave]

It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless.

{snip}

So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats.

{snip}

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.

{snip}

Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.

[GunRunner]

An energy imbalance is a wholly different problem than foreign oil dependency. Post #55 failed to differentiate the two.

[JamesP81]

I have yet to hear any elected official familiar with the industry make the claim that such a thing is even contemplated.

Then why is anyone bothering with it? It's a net loss on energy to produce biofuels; we'd be better off without it.

I think the pols just want to look like they are 'Doing Something' even if that something doesn't really help.

[P-40]

Post #55 failed to differentiate the two.

I think I'll use something besides the Sierra Club for my analysis...

[Mr. Lucky]

My guess would be that the silos are full of silage.

Silage is produced on-farm. Raising the ingredients to feed dairy (or beef) cattle is a pretty effective hedge for dairy or cattle farmers against feed price movements.

[P-40]

It's a net loss on energy to produce biofuels

Actually it is a net gain and the gain is growing all the time.

[thackney]

Already the diesels are more than 50% of sales of new cars in Europe

Yes, if we double the price of our fuel with taxes, the higher mpg of diesel engines would outweigh the higher cost of diesel engines for most of us here as well.

But I would rather see some other method of getting there.

[from occupied ga]

An energy imbalance is a wholly different problem than foreign oil dependency. Post #55 failed to differentiate the two.

If you think that's true, then this conversation is hopeless.

[Mr. Lucky]

Increased production doesn't result in increased cultivation, just the opposite.

My best corn ground came in at over 200 bushels per acre last year. The ground was cultivated far less to produce that crop than it was 75 years ago when my grandfather was happy with a yield of 25 bushels per acre.

[JamesP81]

Actually it is a net gain and the gain is growing all the time.

And until you can get as much energy from from ethanol as gasoline with same input effort to produce it, then we're wasting resources that could be used to drill more oil or research alternatives that actually have a chance of replacing crude oil products as a primary energy source for transportation.

[JamesP81]

My best corn ground came in at over 200 bushels per acre last year. The ground was cultivated far less to produce that crop than it was 75 years ago when my grandfather was happy with a yield of 25 bushels per acre.

And if we want to replace gasoline with ethanol, we'll have to get that 200 bushels per acre up to 800 or so, or we'll need a strain of corn that will yield four times the potential energy of what we have now.

Soil depletion would be inevitable.

Bio fuels simply cannot replace crude oil as a fuel.

[P-40]

The finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline.

[G Larry]

Until Hollywood and the Dem's in the House and Senate all support nuclear power and are driving hybrids, they can take a flying leap!

[Mr. Lucky]

Soil depletion is not inevitable. My farm, as is almost any other corn belt farm, is more fertile, more productive and less tilled than at any time in history.

[thackney]

The finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline.

Are you trying to claim the production of gasoline consumes more energy that is available in the fuel?

[saganite]

If you think that's silly you're not informed. Do a little research to find out the level of subsidy for ethanol. Bush talks about other means of producing biofuels but those aren't viable yet. Meantime, our govt has placed import duties on Brazilian sugar based biofuel. Why do you think that is?

[P-40]

That is from the 'input efficiencies' discussion. Here is an example:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

[P-40]

I have done plenty of research...just not using information from the Sierra Club and the like.

[thackney]

That is a very deceptive way of comparision. It is using the BTU content of the crude oil as an energy input to the process. In other words it uses the BTU available in the fuel as an expenses to making the fuel. Ethanol takes several times the energy to produce compared to gasoline. You may want to read through a previous FR debate on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795008/posts?page=132#132

[saganite]

Well if you've done your research and you know about the subsidies you're a big govt advocate and don't believe the market can solve the problem. You have friends on the left. They believe govt intervention in health care is the answer to the "health care crisis". Same philosophy, just a different issue.

[Uncledave]

I think the pols just want to look like they are 'Doing Something' even if that something doesn't really help.

The farm vote, and Iowa caucus in particular, has plenty to do with it. Perhaps with other states moving up their primary schedule Iowa's influence will be reduced.