European Biofuels under attack by climate change experts.

[NNadir]

This a vague popular press report, but I thought I'd post it anyway, just for fun.

European plans to promote so-called biofuels, fuels made from sugar or vegetable oils, have come under attack.
Climate change experts claim that far from being environmentally friendly, the new fuels in fact pose a threat.

They argue demand for biofuel crops is leading to tropical forests being cut down for palm oil.

Meanwhile, the EU has conceded that it will miss its target of getting 5.75% of transport running on such fuels by 2010...

One sees these words more and more in these types of reports, "missed targets."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4607258.stm

[On the Road]

1. My German Cousin Has a Biodiesel Car

Fuel is available at many gas stations, and is cheaper than gasoline, but heavily subsidized. I thought it was all produced from indigenous rapeseed oil. This is bad news. I can't beleive vegetable matter is that expensive.

[NNadir]

2. The claim is that the nature of energy intensive agriculture make it

environmentally dubious.

I don't know whether that is the case. The data seems to be all over the place and it depends very much on who's asking and where they're asking it.

Personally I'm agnostic on the issue. I'm sure it's not always as good as advertised nor is it always as bad as advertised.

Probably it is successful in some places under some circumstances and not so successful in others.

My guess is that biodiesel is a far better deal than ethanol. If one reads scientific journals like Energy and Fuels one senses qualitatively that biodiesel garners more respect than ethanol.

[On the Road]

3. My Question Is:

Can't agricultural waste be used? There must be million of tons of corn stalks and other kinds of vegetable matter that are tossed or composted each year. Don't they have the basic hydrocarbons? Even if it's less efficient, the material is free.

That's what the thermal depolymerization method does. I still hope that one works out.

[NNadir]

4. I wish the issue were that simple.

Agricultural "waste" must still be grown using intensive industrial farming methods. It also involves the collection, transport of vast amounts of material. It requires water. It requires processing energy, and delivery of the fuel to customers.

Also many agricultural byproducts already are used, and in some cases the removal of nutrients associated with them can cause degradation of the soil.

These things need careful qualitative assessment. I'm not convinced by either side of the argument myself.

Some promising technologies present themselves. Thermal pyrolysis is one such technology. Another is the use of enzymes to break cellulose to make ethanol. These may prove attractive.

We will probably do better in the future with respect to biofuels but still we must be careful and open-minded both with respect to criticisms and praise.

[amandabeech]

5. Some sustainable agricultural experts think that using agricultural

waste for anything other than replenishing the soil is a mistake.

One of the key nutrients for plant growth is phosphorus. Modern agriculture uses enormous quantities of it in chemical fertilizer. The U.S. has a supply of high quality phosphorus sufficient for about 70 more years, if used at the same rate that we use it today. After that, we'll be forced to import, probably from Morocco, the Middle East or China.

I expect that 70 years from now fuel for trans-oceanic shipping will be limited and very expensive.

IMHO, we should recover and recycle as much phosphorus today as possible. Composting all agricultural waste would be a good idea, as would recapturing phosphorus and other vital nutrients from our own wastes and that of the animals which we eat.

[NNadir]

6. I suspect you're on to something. n/t

[philb]

8. using biofuels for growing population creates delima regarding

whether to use cropland for energy or food; and there is already pressure on providing enough food in many areas of
the world. Likewise creates incentive for increased price for food, while most of the world live in poverty.

No easy answers when it comes to world population growth, where the world has been adding approx. 1 billion every decade
for the last several decades. After being less than 1 billion for most of earth's history.

[Oerdin]

11. Not hydrocarbons

Sugar is what you want at least if you are making ethanol. I suppose you could use fatty liquids like vegetable oil but that would be even more energy intensive. I do know that a process has been invented which turns agricultual waste into ethanol though it hasn't been proven on an industrial scale yet. If you really want bio oils then slaughter houses are where to get it since much of the fatty waste is either thrown away or ground up into dog food. I recall someone has a process to turn just about any organic waste into a mixtureor oil, natural gas, water, and carbon black though it is fairly energy intensive.

[Oerdin]

7. World wide

Most "biofuel" is ethanol produced from corn or sugar cane.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Yes, you can. No, it's not *good*...But if used SPARINGLY it doesn't have

to wreck the planet. All things in moderation, remember? The problem is not that cars exist, it's that they consume fossi fuel faster than it can be replaced and dump fossil CO2 into the air faster than it can be reabsorbed as biomass. By shortcutting the process by which fossil fuel is made from biomass, we get around this problem of building up excess CO2. Of course, if we interpret that as free license to drive our cars everywhere, and build them bigger and bigger, and don't enforce fuel efficiency standards, then we will end up blowing it anyway. *SIGH* Of course I'm afraid that it will probably go that way in this country, but watch for other people around the world to hit on a happy medium that works. It probably won't even be very hard, or require any new science. The limiting resource is commitment.

[umass1993]

13. You are wrong again.

CO2 is not the only negative impact on the environment by cars.

Everything about a car is bad for the environment. Period. Stop kidding yourself. Driving cars is killing polar bears, destroying the Inuit way of life, destroying species left and right, killing over 42,000 people in the US alone.

Cars kill habitats. Why can't you accept this? I'll tell you why, it's because you can't accept that your behavior is WRONG.

Why can't you face reality? It's like saying slavery is OK if you treat the slaves nice.

You just can't take the word 'No' for an answer.

Frankly, if I wanted to hear excuses I would listen to George Bush, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and just about any other "leader" in our nation.

I'm 34 years old, and I am sick of excuses.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Everything about humans is bad for the environment.

EVERYTHING. Even eating natural foods, drinking water, and breathing air. (We expel CO2, remember? The more you exercise the more CO2. So even walking and bike riding pollute--just nowhere near as much.)

You have to maintain SOME sense of perspective.

If population keeps growing, Earth will not be able to support even our demands for food, no matter what kind, or how it is grown. Is the solution to stop eating? Hardly.

At the other extreme, if there were only 12 people on the planet, we could each own our own nuclear-powered starship, and the other species on the planet wouldn't even be affected. Does that mean we should start building our starships now? Hardly.

Reality lies between two extremes, and always will. It will get you exactly nowhere to attack people who are trying to find workable solutions somewhere in that middle ground. Right now, you are saying "I am right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who argues with me is the enemy." I'd say you not only have been listening to Bush, you have copied his style of argument exactly.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. "Nothing wrong with CO2, it is a natural part of our environment."

And is also the most important greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. It's not a question of "good" or "bad" but of "how much". Too little and all the plants die. (Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, just as we need O2 for respiration.) Too much and everything cooks. Nature seems to demand a compromise, even if you don't like that word.

If you read the link in the original post (or if you just know about photosynthesis is) you would have caught the fact that growing plants for fuel is literally a case of growing fuel out of thin air. The plants take up CO2 (that's CARBON dioxide) and convert it into carbohydrates (ie CARBON-containing compounds) or oils which are nearly pure hydroCARBONS. Fermenting the carbohydrates produces ethanol, C2H5OH, another CARBON copmpound. So, if you then burn those CARBON-containing compounds, they produce **exactly** as much CO2 as was 'fixed' by the plants that produced them in the first place--which is then used to grow plants over again, and again, and again--that's RECYCLING the CO2. That's the beauty of biofuels! And obviously not at all true for fossil fuels, which is why the fossil fuels have caused so much trouble. Before too long we will face the option of using biofuels or nothing--oil is not going to last. And biofuels will be sustainable only if we cut back sharply on our transportation demands. But that is NOT the same as zeroing them out.


"'ineffective' is what our track record is right now."

So we ALL share the same track record? I'd say there are a lot of people out there who are moving in the right direction, even if only one step at a time. It doesn't help to condemn them for failing to immediately adopt the most radical approach imaginable.

[umass1993]

16. Moreover.....

I don't see your point about "Sparingly." Does this point need to be made? I think the advantages of a car are sufficiently clear. I don't think car culture needs an advocate since it spends billions of dollars each year advocating itself.

Was your point, "Well, we don't need to go overboard with this anti-car thing. Used sparingly...."?

Do you really think there is a chance we could go overboard with anti-car sentiment, that you have to defend against it so?

What's your point?

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Sparingly refers to the use of cars.

[rfkrfk]

12. OK, so renewable energy is bad, do Greens think renewable food ...

is likewise bad?

not so many alternatives left.