Biofuel... still a 'good' idea?

[calculoso]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...tories&s_name=

(bold emphasis mine)

A secret World Bank report reveals what many analysts had already assumed -- that the increased use of biofuels has had a direct, powerful impact on the cost of living.
...
The study -- the most detailed of its kind so far -- shows a much more dramatic rise in food prices than had been previously estimated. The report finds that food prices have risen 75 per cent, according to the paper.
...
It argues that the U.S. position that rising food prices stem from economic growth in countries like China and India, simply isn't true.

And successive droughts in Australia haven't had a major impact either.
...
The report finds these changes between 2002 and February 2008:

* Food basket prices rose 140 per cent.
* Rises in costs of energy and fertilizer caused a 15 per cent rise in food costs.
* Bio fuels caused a 75 per cent jump in food prices.

According to World Bank estimates, 100 million people worldwide have slipped below the poverty line as the result of skyrocketing food prices.

Sounds like Biofuel isn't really a good option. Isn't this directly caused by the "act first, evaluate the consequences later" thought process?

[LChoy]

I think it was one of those "It was a good idea at the time" thoughts. The US before produced way more corn than they new what to do with. Corn was put in everything just so it could be used. ex. The typical McD chicken nugget is made with chicken and corn meal as a filler. Fried in corn oil, with batter made from corn starch. There is more corn in there than chicken
However, other countries don't have as much excess growing capacity, so while it was good money to produce corn for biofuels (and they got perks to do that), it was taking away resources for real food production, and hence food prices increased.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...tories&s_name=

(bold emphasis mine)



Sounds like Biofuel isn't really a good option. Isn't this directly caused by the "act first, evaluate the consequences later" thought process?

Yeah, biofeul is turning out to have a lot of unforeseen consequences--but of course one problem is that it was never researched as a viable alternative in the first place, and from the beginning lacked a viable and sustainable economic model. For instance, the ethanol industry in the U.S. depends heavily on farm subsidies (making it a bit of a third rail in Midwest politics, but not because midwestern farmers are concerned about sustainable fuel if you know what I mean) and from what I've heard the cost to produce the fuel is actually so high that it still isn't economical without subsidization.

Clearly this doesn't mean "oh well, let's abandon the search for alternative fuel sources"--but this one's a bit of a mulligan, it has to be said.

[Azure]

I think it means we should abandon 'this' fuel source.

If it isn't working, don't force it to keep going even longer.

[Traditional_Ale]

Not to mention that because corn crops produced for bio-fuels are obviously never going to be eaten, the farmer will use much more dangerous chemicals in much larger quantities to turn a bigger profit. All this goes into the water table.

[octothorp]

I don't think it's right to categorically dismiss biofuels all together, but the current ethanol-based approach was a bad idea and needs to be abandoned now. There are much higher-yield biofuel sources out there already, with some interesting technologies (such as algae biofuel farms) on the horizon.

The focus of the biofuel movement should be to provide a viable alternative fuel supply in parts of the world where fuel prices prohibit modernized farming methods; as part of a modernization effort, biofuels could actually help increase the global food supply. The difficult balance is that the innovation needs to come from developed countries, but makes sense as a crop only in developing countries.

[Rathji]

This sounds like the whining that cows eat far more weight in grains etc than they produce in meat, so cows and our consumtion of meat are responsible for the world food shortage.

Unless they are running these biofuel plants in area where the people are short of food then this really doesn't make any difference. The problem is with uneven distribution of food on the planet, not with a global shortage.

As it stands now, the majority of what they use for biofuels is the lowest grades of corn ( ie ther stuff we won't even feed the livestock ).

[duncan]

an American inventor, John Kanzius has created a method of "burning" saltwater, and a Japanese company is attempting to use his discovery, and claim they can run a car 50 miles per hour, for 5 hours on a tank of water. The Japanese group is hoping to adapt it to plain water,to reduce the clorine gas bi-product, and have stated unfiltered tap water has worked.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/salt-water-fuel.htm

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Not to mention that because corn crops produced for bio-fuels are obviously never going to be eaten, the farmer will use much more dangerous chemicals in much larger quantities to turn a bigger profit. All this goes into the water table.

Actually, the problem isn't the chemical, its the fertilizer. Due to high input costs, most farmers will cut back their chemical usage in favor of more fertilizer as this is the main component to get yield. The bigger the yield, the more profit. Corn uses high amounts of nitrogen which leaches very easily in the soil. This is what would be contaminating water tables, not the actual chemical.

[Locke]

This is what we get for listening to the hippies.

If anyone tells you they are a 'reformed' hippy, they are full of 'biofuel.'

Degenerate swine....

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, biofeul is turning out to have a lot of unforeseen consequences--but of course one problem is that it was never researched as a viable alternative in the first place, and from the beginning lacked a viable and sustainable economic model. For instance, the ethanol industry in the U.S. depends heavily on farm subsidies (making it a bit of a third rail in Midwest politics, but not because midwestern farmers are concerned about sustainable fuel if you know what I mean) and from what I've heard the cost to produce the fuel is actually so high that it still isn't economical without subsidization.

Clearly this doesn't mean "oh well, let's abandon the search for alternative fuel sources"--but this one's a bit of a mulligan, it has to be said.

Are you kidding? Unforseen?

It never was a good idea, many people in their lust to screw it to the big oil company followed the pied piper all the way to the river on this one.

It will be one of those things a generation from now that people refer to show naive western society is and will follow word "groupthink" in Websters dictionary.

Many people warned governments exactly what we see now with food shortages and overall prices would happen, but governments would committ suicide if it walked out infront of the biofuel parade.

[mykalberta]

Still a good idea.

Taking money out of the hands of the enemies of North America and putting into the hands of hard working men and women on this continent.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Still a good idea.

Taking food out of the mouths of the people in the third world and putting cheap gas into the hands of hard working men and women on this continent.

Fixed.

Really the most selfish thing the developed world has ever done is take food from hungry people so we can save $0.05 / l in gasoline so we can all live in the burbs.

[Bagor]

I'm in the good idea in practice but requires a lot more thought and planning camp.

Why wouldn't sugarcane work in the southern US?

[Bobblehead]

Well, there are other issues involved that aren't addressed. The US charges a 54 cent /gallon tariff on ethanol, so places like Brazil, who have excess capacity, have a big disadvantage in the market. Corn has to be very expensive (and hence food) before it it economical for countries to sell ethanol to the US.
http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...TOKEN=82949025
Just because corn-based ethanol may be driving up the price of food does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. Many 3rd world countries historically produced cane-sugar, and could benefit from ethanol production. This is even before other sources of ethanol (algae, wheat straw, etc) are considered.

Perhaps things are being pushed too hard, and food shouldn't be taken out of people's mouths, but the short term results seen so far are not a justification for discounting ethanol entirely.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Fixed.

Really the most selfish thing the developed world has ever done is take food from hungry people so we can save $0.05 / l in gasoline so we can all live in the burbs.

I am confused, are you claiming that the developed world is going to countries that are short on food and setting up bio fuel facilities?

[Resolute 14]

And there was this:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...hlight=ethanol

Ethanol: Creating dirty air, and driving up food prices.

If I ever run out of gas, I'll push my car past a Husky/Mohawk station to get somewhere else.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Really the most selfish thing the developed world has ever done is take food from hungry people so we can save $0.05 / l in gasoline so we can all live in the burbs.

Right. Biofuel was never a good idea. Good riddance.

[badnarik]

Another example of the state forcing the market in the wrong direction; yet here we sit all giddy waiting for the next politician to step up and blindly redirect the market just so he can say he is "doing something" about the energy crisis, and so we can all feel good until the unintended consequences show up again.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am confused, are you claiming that the developed world is going to countries that are short on food and setting up bio fuel facilities?

No, what I'm saying is that as it relates to ethanol, food is being taken out of the overall supply and placed into gas tanks.

The world was short food before ethanol, now it's even shorter. So to some this means that you have to pay a little ... or alot more for a tortilla, but for some it means they have less food.

Those little support the local farmer commercials forgot to mention that.