Royal Dutch Shell - Biofuels "Morally Inappropriate" In Light Of Hunger

[hatrack]

SINGAPORE - Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving, an executive said on Thursday.

Eric G Holthusen, Fuels Technology Manager Asia/Pacific, said the company's research unit, Shell Global Solutions, has developed alternative fuels from renewable resources that use wood chips and plant waste rather than food crops that are typically used to make the fuels.

Holthusen said his company's participation in marketing biofuels extracted from food was driven by economics or legislation. "If we have the choice today, then we will not use this route," Malaysia-based Holthusen said at a seminar in Singapore.

"We think morally it is inappropriate because what we are doing here is using food and turning it into fuel. If you look at Africa, there are still countries that have a lack of food, people are starving, and because we are more wealthy we use food and turn it into fuel. This is not what we would like to see. But sometimes economics force you to do it."

EDIT

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37152/story.htm

[MountainLaurel]

1. Well

That's an interesting perspective. Those oil companies are all about their fellow man, aren't they?

:crazy:

[glitch]

2. indeed, because everyone knows hunger is not mainly distribution problem.

They put out this stuff assuming everyone is as limited as they are.

[Burried News]

3. After ethanol is obtained from corn, the resultant mash is fed to

pigs. Sounds pretty efficient to me and undercuts the Shell argument quite a bit.

[Strelnikov_]

9. And With Wet Milling, Most Of The Components Are Separated Out

before processing and are available for human consumption.

Wet milling takes more energy, which is why dry milling (mash) has typically been used to date (since corn ethanol up to now has been viewed as a way to use a surplus crop).

[skids]

11. Well...

That opens the can of worms as to just how "efficient" animals are as a "farmed" food source.

But we don't have to go into that now.

The Shell guy's point is valid in a way: the drive to use corn is mostly due to a desire to use an existing crop, and existing support infrastructure for it, and on the flip side the drive towards things like switchgrass are rather myopic: were we to aim for a higher level of sustainability we would look at crops that produce a useful food/construction product but also produce a signifigant quantity of biomass sideproduct for fuel use. That's of course a lot easier if you can do cellulosic processing economically which is why there's such interest in it.

[4dsc]

18. You forgot the first step

and that's taking CORN(aka food) to make ethanol!!

Let's just forget about making ethanol from corn and feed the people first..

But then again, we couldn't continue our collective wasteful and inefficient lives..

[hunter]

4. I have no doubt biofuels will make life worse for many people.

The price of food will certainly increase as agricultural lands are converted to biofuel production.

[TheWraith]

8. Not neccessarily.

Here in the US, for instance, we actually have a huge overproduction of things like corn. This is what's caused corn syrup to become so popular as a sweetener, because it's cheaper than real sugar. Directing more corn toward biofuel, and the leftovers going to livestock, would reduce that surplus, and by doing so, reduce government subsidies to corn farmers.

[4dsc]

21. Corn prices are UP!!

Sorry to say but ethanol is causing the price of corn to rise to an average of $2.40 for July corn and is expected to rise to an average of $2.70 by fall.. This is resinate throughout the economy over time.. Add a little drought and see how corn futures take off..

[hunter]

22. Corn syrup is not cheaper than real sugar.

Not in a free market, anyways.

We eat this crap because the market is not free. A large portion of our government is owned by people who manufacture highly synthetic foods, and much of this food is not good for people.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. And a lot of people agree with them...

like me. And a fair number of environmentalists. Maybe most.

It's not just a question of hungry people, but monoculture for fuel oils and alcohol is unsustainable.

Already, large swaths of Indonesian forests are being killed off for palm plantations for biufuel. Braail and other places are killing the land for agriculture. Do we want to kill off more land for gas?

Corn and soybeans here in the US are among the worst crops for water use, topsoil erosion, and other nasties. Growing them and turning them into fuel takes fuel, and we're still burning stuff so there's still the CO2 problem.

Since turning over every agricultural acre in the US to biofuel production still wouldn't put a serious dent in our oil use, why put faith in biofuels?

Biofuels are a niche product, as we will find out if we try to make them much bigger than they are.

[NNadir]

6. Well, they are the top marketer of biofuels.

This line of inquiry is about to go down the rat hole of "greedy corporations," I bet.

I'm sure that Shell is not worried about being driven out of business by biodiesel, and I'm sure if they want, they could buy huge stretches of the soy fields of Arkansas.

I like some biofuels under some circumstances, particularly where not much shipping is required. But they are not going to drive Shell out of business. If they could, that would be great, but they won't because they can't.

I think biofuels have a niche. They certainly have a place in my pet DME diesel scheme in effecting lubricity, but the real moral danger of biofuels as I see it isn't really hunger so much as complacency. People expect far more from biofuels than is justified, and therefore think that making and investing in biofuels is all it will take.

[Strelnikov_]

7. 80% Of The Food value Of Soy Remains After Biodiesel Production

Most of the feed value of corn (dry milling) or human food value (wet milling) remains after ethanol production.

Corn and soybeans are well adapted to the major growing region of the US.

The issue is the source of process energy and the industrial agriculture mono culture approach.

The issue is not the source of the biomass feedstock. The issue is not 'food or fuel' (depending on the crop, of course).

Corn ethanol, with a renewable (or co-generation) energy input, yields an energy dense 'green' liquid fuel 'byproduct' using one of the components of the corn (starch). The balance of the corn is available for food.

Soy biodiesel, with a renewable energy input, yields an energy dense 'green' liquid fuel 'byproduct' using one of the components of the bean (oil). The balance of the bean is available for food.

Is corn ethanol/soy biodiesel the answer. Absolutely not. Conversion to more sustainable farming practices (like my grandfather used, mainly because in those days they could not afford the external inputs) will decrease production.

Is corn ethanol/soy biodiesel an important component of a 'green' energy future. Absolutely. At a minimum, we will need energy dense liquid fuels to power those operations that cannot be easily electrified (farming, construction, remote transportation. etc.).

Condemning corn ethanol/soy biodiesel because of its current incarnation (industrial monoculture, fossil fuel process energy) is like condemning nuclear power because of Chernobyl.

There are other approaches that could prove to be safe and sustainable.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. But would *you* eat it? nt

[Strelnikov_]

13. Do Quite Often. So Did Our Grandparents

Soy meal. Corn meal.

Ever eat a Boca burger?

[Odin2005]

10. Quit putting HFCS in out food, that will free up a lot of corn.

[JohnWxy]

14. Only the starch content is used to make the ethanol. The protein content

is recovered and sold as feed to cattle and dairy farmers. No loss to food supply.

Cellulosic ethanol is expected to become commercially viable in 5 to 6 years. We won't wipe out the world's food supply in that time.

Regarding U.S. - an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study concluded we can produce one third of gasoline demand from renewable sources without significant impact on agriculture sector (no reduction in food supply). This is based upon ethanol being used in ICEs. In 10 to 20 years fuel cells for cars will be being introduced. Acta and other companies are developing fuel cells that use ethanol (and ethylene glycol) to supply the hydrogen (using reformers) to the fuel cells. They are working with much cheaper alloys than platinum alloys which will make them much cheaper and praactical. Fuel Cells are 2 to 3 times as efficient at ICEs. Thus, the 30% figure from the ORNL study (based upon ethanol use in ICEs) turns into 60%-90% of gasoline demand. Along with other renewables such as biodiesel for heavier applications and plug-in hybrids (powered up with electricity generated from Wind Power) you can pretty well meet all or very nearly all the demand for gasoline for transportration uses - without using up all the worlds food.

We won't starve. If we keep using gasoline and other fossil fuels the way we are many agricultural areas will become less productive due to global warming and the supply of food from oceans will likely be dramatically reduced (perhaps to zero). NOt going to renewables to replace fossil fuels is the road to starvation. Waiting for cellulosic ethanol to become viable is not an option, given the progress of Global Warming. Nobody's going to turn food into fuel. Get real, Mr. Holthusen.

[4dsc]

19. Waiting for a pipe dream

instead of waiting on your pipedream why don't you recommend some other steps in case and I do mean just in case, you're pipedream doesn't come true.. \


Your cellulosic ethanol will not be able to replace the amount of oil we are losing from worldwide depletion rates..

Then where will we be?? A wishing and a praying??

[Kolesar]

15. Hence, feeding livestock is "Morally Inappropriate" In Light Of Hunger.eom

[NNadir]

16. It may someday come down to meat or cars.

I'm really not that fond of either.

[Sven77]

17. i find monarchies are morally inapporpriate

in light of hunger. i think we should sell the palaces and the crowns to feed the poor.

[iconoclastNYC]

20. I agree provided

That you are talking about taking a food crop and essentially burning it for fuel.

I really think we ought to hold off on biofuel until we can use switchgrass which is like 10-20x more efficient than using corn. You don't even have to replant the shit year after year. You just cut it off and it grows back.

For that matter why don't we use grass clippings from your lawn mower?

[Chemical Bill]

23. >the world's top marketer of biofuels

They must make more money from petroleum than biofuels. :eyes:

Bill

[Dickster]

24. a rant - I find most of this post laughable,

I'm a farmer in the midwest, and I find so much of this discussion silly. First of all, for a Royal Dutch Shell official to be preaching about things "morally appropriate" is a joke.
Secondly, most of you have no clue what goes on in agriculture and the biofuels industry. The argument that someone might starve to death because we convert grain to fuel just doesn't hold water. We produce way more food in this world than it takes to feed everyone. The problem is and always has been one of distribution. I can't even begin to think that the corn I raise in Minnesota is going to help keep someone from starving in Somalia. Most third world countries that have issues with hunger produce enough food to feed themselves. But the grain, fruit, vegetables, etc, are mostly controlled by huge conglomerate corporations that wind up exporting the food, to the good old US old US of A and the average joe that does all the work for the conglomerate for a pittance goes hungry. And you wind up with cheap bananas and pineapples and coffee. It called a "cheap food policy", and it has been the cornerstone of US agriculture and corporate policy in this country for close to a hundred years. There's a reason that there are only about 200,000 farmers that produce almost 85% of the food and fiber in this country. It's because of that that same "cheap food policy". The rest of the several million farmers that used to to dot the landscape have gone broke and left the farms to compete with the rest of you for a job.
As far as producing biofuels from food, it is one of the brightest spots on the horizon for people in the midwest. We cannot replace all of the gasoline and diesel fuel that we consume with ethanol and biodiesel. But we can make a significant difference here in the midwest. Ethanol production provides much needed, good paying jobs. it is a clean burning fuel. The production of ethanol doesn't require any troops to protect it. The by-product, the protein is fed to animals. I know some of you don't like animal agriculture, but we would be in a world of hurt in this country and the world without it. Animals are on of the best converters of energy to food that we have. I don't think many of you would like to exist on a diet of corn mash and soybean curds.
As for me. I sell my corn to a local ethanol plant at a premium price. It has made a significant difference in my bottom line. If it helps me survive this country's "cheap food policy", then so be it.

[hunter]

25. It's a problem of scale. Biofuels are not a "drop-in" replacement for oil.

An economy built to run on cheap oil cannot be powered by biofuels. There will be a massive restructuring of our economy as petroleum becomes more expensive, and even the most rapid development of biofuels possible could never support our current economy.

The possibility of economic dislocations within the United States leading to widespread malnutrition is very real. It's not difficult to imagine "food or fuel" conflicts occuring within a fractured U.S. economy.

If biofuels are "one of the brightest spots on the horizon" we are in serious trouble. It's like finding a dollar when you need a thousand.