How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007

[Martyn]

It's a long article but interesting and to the point. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html

For those of you who have read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan it's an other twist to the story of corn in the military industrial complex.

We are not disheartened, the newly acquired FJ55 will go through a total restoration and biodiesel conversion with a turbo charged 2.5 L International. More on that as we progress.

Recycled - Restored – Modified - Eco Friendly - Biodiesel. Want to join the club?

[pskhaat]

There are a few bio-fuels that could quite easily solve many of the problems on both sides of the fence.

http://tinyurl.com/3xmf9b

Problem is it's got quite a bad name worldwide, plus quite a bad problem to overcome too! But very powerful possibilities for fuels.

[Martyn]

There are a few bio-fuels that could quite easily solve many of the problems on both sides of the fence.

http://tinyurl.com/3xmf9b

Problem is it's got quite a bad name worldwide, plus quite a bad problem to overcome too! But very powerful possibilities for fuels.

Hemp is a wonderfully useful plant and is a good oil producer, but it sits about half way down the scale for oil production per acre. In New Zealand they are producing oil rich algae for bio diesel in the settlement pools of sewage treatment plants. Now that's innovative!

[pskhaat]

oil production per acre

I'm no biologist by any stretch, genuine question: isn't it the highest yielding oils plant based on cost and it's ability to grow in nearly any soil condition.

That's pretty cool about the sewage plants. There was a radio article a month or so ago on some late night AM station that talked about the benefits of flushing food wastes down the disposal vs. into a composter for urban areas, and discussed the energy potential of doing this if municipalities would harness that energy.

[HongerVenture]

Martyn, what a great article to post! The money quote for me:

The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.

So much of our environmental, economic, and developmental policy is reactionary. Government is about the worst forum for acting in a proactive, premptive, forward-thinking manner. There is very little consideration given to unintended consequences.

Government thinking looks like this:
1. Fuel prices are rising and voters are unhappy
2. Voters like the idea of energy independence and paying less at pump
3. Politicians see that ethanol will reduce dependence on oil yet is economically unsustainable
4. Government subsidizes ethanol production thus artificially boosting the demand for ethanol and then corn
5. Corn prices skyrocket... feed prices rise, other grain prices rise, etc.
6. Costs are passed on to consumer in beef, dairy, grains, etc.
7. Final outcome... see the last sentence of quoted paragraph.

I know that the idea isn't popular with everyone, but private companies are the best means to more efficient resource consumption/production.

Private business thinking looks like this (ideally):
1. Fuel prices are rising and that cost has to be passed on in our products/services
2. Consumers aren't happy with rising prices and our demand shrinks
3. Private business must find cheaper alternative or more efficiency in production/service
4. Product/services prices decrease or stabilize
5. Final outcome... more efficient production/service. Economic and environmental sustainability are advanced.

Now I know that this is the ideal situation, but for the most part it holds true. The problem is when the government does something like subsidize research or mandate restrictions... the cost will always be passed down to the consumer through taxes or high prices. I'm all for regulations, but subsidization and mandates often have unintended consequences.

Just some quickly-thrown-together thoughts. Again, great link Martyn!

Joel

[DesertRose]

Very interesting - I've been following this subject, too, as we start the process of building our FJ60 biodiesel.

I'm looking for U.S.-soy or local WVO (high quality) production. Locally, there is a good effort to collect waste vegetable oil and turn it into high quality fuel that can be sold at retailers (rather than DIY). I like this idea. Most major metro areas have lots of WVO.

I also like smart crop ideas - jatropha, hemp, algae.

I think corn (ethanol) is a huge disaster, the trouble is as has been said, it reeks of government involvement and thus squashing other efforts (market driven).

Argh. Time to Lobby in Washington, guys - I'm serious!

It's been a while since I've walked the D.C. Senate and House office buildings, but I still know some of the AZ Representatives and their staff - it's the only way to make a difference.

[HongerVenture]

I also like smart crop ideas - jatropha, hemp, algae.


Now you're talking! Switchgrass is another one starting to get better exposure...
Linky... although it is a government info page. (http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html)

[DaveInDenver]

Just an example that comes from something I recently read. If the price of something like corn goes up, two things would seem to happen. First, the people issue where food could become no longer affordable. But, second the market now moves to increase corn production. That could mean in countries trying to keep up with the world economy you could see an increase in conversion to farm lands of places that are currently rainforests. So the move to a biofuel could paradoxically cause increased environmental damage, which has a secondary affect of further reducing the earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen as the rainforests are crucial for this and actually accelerating the presumed build up of greenhouse gases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm

[Monkeyboy]

Virtually all of the farmers through the office this Spring have told me of their plans - and their neighbors plans - to grow far more corn this year and fewer soybean acres.

Hmmm, I've got a quarter acre of prairie grass in the back yard already ... all I need is a still and ...

:)

KAA

[Kermit]

So the move to a biofuel could paradoxically cause increased environmental damage, which has a secondary affect of further reducing the earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen as the rainforests are crucial for this and actually accelerating the presumed build up of greenhouse gases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm

We are F%&ked....aren't we?

To hell in a handbasket....*sigh*

[DaveInDenver]

We are F%&ked....aren't we?

To hell in a handbasket....*sigh*
Well, now that's a defeatist attitude. We are not screwed, despite the gloom and doom you hear all the time. ;-)

My point in posting that was that there is no perfect solution, biofuel is not the holy grail necessarily. Biomass takes significant investment of resources to produce, which by using petroleum we are not paying for right now. The earth has already expended the energy to convert dinosaur biomass into a fuel that can be utilized with less new energy investment, where as fuel stock from things like corn require us to invest energy right now. Just paying the price in a different way.

[Kermit]

Just a little sarcasm...Dave ;)

[DaveInDenver]

Just a little sarcasm...Dave ;)
I'm soooo bad at picking that up.

[Kermit]

I'm soooo bad at picking that up.

I tend forget to ad this.... [/sarcasm] ..when I am being sarcastic...which is most of the time. ;)

One of the hardest things to convey via the internet...is emotion and tone.

Maybe why people tend to get into drama?

Alot easier to understand one's tone, talking to them directly.

I probably come across differently in person than on this computer screen.:sombrero:

[DaveInDenver]

I tend forget to ad this.... [/sarcasm] ..when I am being sacastic...which is most of the time. ;)

KC and I have been through this, you can trust me that I don't take things too seriously on the Internet. Emicons or not, I figure most of the core people here are pretty mellow and nothing they type is meant to be particularly abrasive. Honestly I took your post at face value more as a sign of resignation than anything and just thought a virtual slap on the back was called for. Bottom's up, drink 'em if ya got 'em.

[dieselcruiserhead]

It is true and there are no easy answers. Here we are GMO and that is the way it is, and I don't think biofuels production will hurt much (is my guess), it will just change things.. But in other countries particularly the third world, yes I think it will be an issue. I believe about 25% of the world right now "goes to bed hungry" or something to that extent.. Also about 20-25% don't even have clean drinking water..

Anyway, at least if we are conscious about it we can be aware of it IMO...

PS welcome to the club Martyn! If you get a chance check out the links in my sig.. Especially the '69, it has pics of our bioidesel processor.. Totally by coincidence we have a group from Congo coming to visit the processor next week...

[grahamfitter]

Just an example that comes from something I recently read. If the price of something like corn goes up, two things would seem to happen. First, the people issue where food could become no longer affordable. But, second the market now moves to increase corn production. That could mean in countries trying to keep up with the world economy you could see an increase in conversion to farm lands of places that are currently rainforests. So the move to a biofuel could paradoxically cause increased environmental damage, which has a secondary affect of further reducing the earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen as the rainforests are crucial for this and actually accelerating the presumed build up of greenhouse gases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm

And unless something is done to prevent it, the nitrate fertilizer required to grow all that extra corn ends up in the rivers and ultimately in the ocean where it robs it of oxygen and kills the fish. Farms in the Mississippi watershed are already causing havoc in the Gulf of Mexico:

EWG Report: Dead Zone - Targeted conservation spending can restore the Gulf and clean up the Mississippi River (http://www.ewg.org/reports/deadzone/execsumm.php?print_version=1) (Hopefully this isn't another piece of dodgy research!)

Ironically, when Herr Diesel invented his engine, he envisaged communities would grow fuel oil for local consumption. I doubt he anticipated our insatiable appetite for fuel and the depths we're willing to sink to get it.

Cheers,
Graham

[calamaridog]

They had tortilla riots in Mexico this year. Cost of corn goes up and poor people starve to death. Unintended consequences my ***:shakin:

[Erick Lihme]

A combination of of technologies, from fuel cells to microbiology, as well as fuel sources, from coal to methlhydrate will compete and compliment each other to lower the cost per mile. Solutions might specific to regions and nations, and found in unexpected fields. Transportation consumes about a 5th of the energy used. Improvements in building materials, variable tint glazing techs to practical architectural designs, microhydo electic, thin film photovoltaics and super conductors transmitting power can contribute. It is an amazing mix and revolution to watch as it is all in the pipeline. Incremental application of the least expensive individual solutions and combinations, and fuel sources evolving may offset the tightening supply and demand.

Where there is a will there is a way. The recent concern about global warming helps us focus on our energy problems sooner than we might have otherwise. Co2 production issues complicates matters though. Remember the Deloraian in Back to the Future the last sequal, and the banana peel dropped into the "Mr. Fusion" brand generator, they are getting closer to that everyday.

[calamaridog]

Interesting 7 part article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479922,00.html

Another one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479940,00.html

[Doin_It]

Here is an interesting article on the up comming oil supply gap. (the writer states, I have been writing on oil supply issues since 1995, in particular the imminent supply gap and the looming new energy era; forecasting a peak in global oil supply arriving between 2010 and 2020 depending on demand growth.) He also has a grat slide presentation, under "presentations" You sure don't have to know what all he's talking about the graphs say it all, very interesting.

[cruiser guy]

I don't know how current this is but it sounds intriguing to me!

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[Lynn]

Article on the news last night said that Mexican farmers are cutting down their agave to plant corn.

So, the poor won't starve, you'll just have to pay more for Tequila. ;)

Maybe I'm simplistic, but it seems to me that if vehicle fuel can be farmed, it puts poor people to work. Dino oil requires big 'start-up' bucks to extract.

Didn't I read somewhere that Jatropha plants have a high oil yield and grow in arid areas?

The market will meet the demand.

[DaveInDenver]

Ethanol article with curious quotes. Do these stats seem reasonable or silly?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21699

"It takes 1 acre of corn to produce 300 to 330 gallons of ethanol fuel. (To replace the 200 billion gallons of petroleum products we now consume yearly, we would need to commit 675 million acres of our farmland to its production. That would be 71% of all available farmland in which case we would have to start importing our food products.)"

"It takes 4,000 gallons of fresh water per acre per day to replace evaporation in a cornfield. The crop will require 129.9 pounds of nitrogen and 55.5 pounds of phosphorus fertilizer per acre."

"...fields must be ploughed and cultivated, and crops must be harvested -- all by petroleum-driven farm equipment. That requires 6.85 gallons of diesel fuel and 3.4 gallons of gasoline per acre. And to finish the distillation process after harvest requires 3.42 gallons of LPG and 33.49 kWh of electricity per acre."

"All in all, it takes 1.597 gallons of diesel and gasoline used in the corn crop growth, harvesting, shipping of corn to ethanol production, and distribution of ethanol to the consumer for every 1 gallon of ethanol that is produced."

[TxRider]

Seems silly to me.

First they say an acre will produce 300 gallons, then they say it costs about 13 gallons of fuel and 33kwh of electricity. That doesn't sound like a 1.5 to 1 ratio to me.

As well, farmers I've heard from say the corn mash left over from distilling is better for cows (who aren't meant to eat corn in the first place) easier to digest and more nutritious, and it all goes to livestock feed and gets used twice. Then you can haul the 18 wheeler loads of cow manure from the feed lots and use it on the corn fields........

Of course you could also make alcohol from sugar cane a lot easier, and you could grow that in mass all along the gulf coast.

[dieselcruiserhead]

This was posted on the forum I own about biodiesel / ethanol by a farmer. Probably the best first-hand info I have read specifically about it... ([http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10600&postcount=13]original post[/ul]).




ECONOMICS OF BIODIESEL and or ETHANOL

CORN, is and has been primarily raised to feed cattle, hogs, chickens, ect. Previously, corn has been raised then directly fed. With ethanol the corn is fermented, cooked, the mash is then fed resulting in a small loss in feed and around 3 gallons ethanol retained for fuel out of each bushel of corn. THE CORN WILL BE RAISED AND FED REGARDLESS IF THE ETHANOL IS EXTRACTED OR NOT. Therefore should ALL of the fuel used for production be calculated against ethanol production????????

Now, Soybeans are primarily a high protein hog (pork) food. To feed soybeans to hogs the beans must be cooked. The most economical way to cook beans is to run them through a extruder (large screw press) which heats the beans from the extreme pressure, in this process it separates the oil from bean meal. The meal is fed to hogs, fish, chickens, etc. The oil is still leftovers about 10% which can be used for cooking oil or biodiesel. Sunflowers net about 48% oil but the feedstock is not as desirable as it doesn't have as much protein content per ton as beans, however the oil is a lot easier to refine into fuel and is thinner than bean oil which is easier to mist through the diesels injectors than bean oil. NOW, taking these factors into the equation, is it more economical to raise corn then feed it or is it better to retain the fuel then feed it???? The bean oil that is already being extracted, should it be dumped into the ocean or should it be used for fuel???????? Switchgrass may produce more ethanol but may not have good feed value if any therefore you may have to factor all of the switchgass production costs and fuel consumption towards the fuel gained, where here in the USA the corn and beans are a multi-use product that can easily be stored for long periods(a year) ,where switchgrass may have to be used up in very short term, resulting in delivery problems and major crop losses, ethanol plants can only process so much at one time, some countries are in a warmer climate where they can produce grass year round but in the USA we have winter and not much of anything grows in the frozen dirt, we only have around 3 months of production, then nothing.

The Einsteins (or so they think) who doubt the feasibility of ethanol work very hard gathering all the data they can get to make sure they don't leave out any factors, however they get lost in all the data and numbers and forget about the primary purpose for which corn was raised, the primary purpose is feeding livestock which turn into people food. The primary purpose does not get figured into there equations. WHY????? Corn will be planted, harvested, and trucked to elevators to be trucked to point of usage even if ethanol is not removed beforehand. Making ethanol from corn does NOT destroy feed value, the primary purpose for which corn is raised. Corn averages 150bu per acre @ 3 gal ethanol per bu that is 450 gal acre (don't forget primary purpose) how much more productive can we be??? Another point is that it does NOT require anywhere close to 450 gal of fuel to raise an acre of corn and deliver it (unless you're delivering it to the moon or Venus), so therefore the farmers are still feeding the dense Einsteins (along with the general public), except now they are producing energy at the same time! Whats not to like????? Bean oil production could easily be increased by 3 times as much just by planting a different variety of beans that currently exists, however the primary purpose is hog feed which in turn is Bacon, Pork Chops, and such, and the high oil beans don't work so good to produce as much Pork, so which is more important, eating or driving an Escalate / Excursion????

[dieselcruiserhead]

Also National Geographic has an excellent article about it this month as well...

[Erick Lihme]

The price of wheat and other crops are going up as they are being replaced with corn. Not good. Conservation is still the best method. From what I'm seeing, it appears that coal-gasification is the way to go. The process is clean with modern plants and is now cost effective. The problem: coal has a dirty name, and strip mining is ugly. However, the future high price of fuel may force adaption and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

[Martyn]

The price of wheat and other crops are going up as they are being replaced with corn. Not good. Conservation is still the best method. From what I'm seeing, it appears that coal-gasification is the way to go. The process is clean with modern plants and is now cost effective. The problem: coal has a dirty name, and strip mining is ugly. However, the future high price of fuel may force adaption and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

South Africa is the leader in turning coal into fuel. It's how they drove their industrial complex during the apartheid era, and they continue to use the process today. China is utilizing their expertise as they have huge coal reserves but little oil.

The problem I see is that coal is a fossil fuel so it is adding pollutants and carbon to the atmosphere. Bio fuels are a closed system so they are not adding new carbon to the atmosphere.

[dieselcruiserhead]

The problem I see is that coal is a fossil fuel so it is adding pollutants and carbon to the atmosphere. Bio fuels are a closed system so they are not adding new carbon to the atmosphere.

Agree here as well...

[Kermit]

Yawl realize, that we have no control on what type of fuel is going to be use for energy for the masses. You can talk until your blue in the face...or should I say, type 'til your fingers bleed...it isn't going to change what the government and huge corporations are going to do.

On the other hand, on a personal level, you can make a choice on where your energy comes from. Like the saying goes, "Whatever makes you sleep better at night..."

[Ursidae69]

Another article came out similar to what Dave posted. This was in the New York Times on Friday. It cites data published in the Journal Science.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html)





Just an example that comes from something I recently read. If the price of something like corn goes up, two things would seem to happen. First, the people issue where food could become no longer affordable. But, second the market now moves to increase corn production. That could mean in countries trying to keep up with the world economy you could see an increase in conversion to farm lands of places that are currently rainforests. So the move to a biofuel could paradoxically cause increased environmental damage, which has a secondary affect of further reducing the earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen as the rainforests are crucial for this and actually accelerating the presumed build up of greenhouse gases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm

[Metcalf]

Something like 75% of the corn that is grown is used to feed animals NOT people. Animals are better off eating the mash that comes off the ethanol production than the whole corn anyways. The ethanol process actually breaks down the starches in the corn to make the corn protein more digestible for the animals.

The assumption on ethanol yield vs fuel usage are GROSSLY wrong. The tractor life hours and fuel consumption per acre where way off.

Also, we haven't even begun to talk about cellulose ethanol with the corn stover. A corn plant produces the majority of its mass in the plant, not the corn.
This stover can also be used as biomass for energy generation at the ethanol plants. Hell, Brazil does it and they end up selling power back into the grid.

They are charging more for corn because they can...plain and simple.

There are LOTS of alternative fuel options out there. How much oil do you think those large companies sell farmers every year. Do you think they want to loose that money?

[stick]

Biofuel has been a hot topic around here. We've had many discussion about this in our office recently. Everyone pretty much agrees that biofuels are a good idea, but not the answer to all of our problems and corn is certainly not the best use of crop to make biofuel. Plants with a higher sugar content are much better fuels. Even rice is better than corn.

[tamangel]

other than Solar, Wind and/or Hydro, this is a fuel source worth research:

Algae

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Mike

[RHINO]

biofuels are comming along pretty good,, of course there is much improvement to be made in the future. of the options available to me i run strictly soy in my pig for its by product nature,, i am starting to run waste oil as it becomes more readily available in my area. i dont want to support any bio fuel that comes from a food source but our household has gasoline cars too. corn may not be impacted much on the food chain in ethanol production directly, but as more farmers drop other food crops in favor of corn that IS hurting the food chain. i am on the fence with corn ethanol,, on one hand i dont want to support it, but on the other we need to tell those companies out there that we want alt. fuels and the best way is with your wallet.... ohh what to do.