Slashdot Mirror
Biofuel Production to Cause Water Shortages?
WED Fan writes "Scientists meeting in Stockholm are reporting that increased food and biofuel production will place higher demand upon irrigation and water resources." From the article: "Demand for irrigation -- which absorbs about 74 percent of all water used by people against 18 percent for hydro-power and other industrial uses and just 8 percent for households -- was likely to surge by 2050. Many nations are also shifting to produce biofuels -- from sugarcane, corn or wood -- as a less polluting alternative to fossil fuels. Oil prices at $75 a barrel and worries about global warming are driving the shift."
Well then, it's a good thing water is a renewable resource, isn't it?
The only thing in danger is CHEAP water, really. Desalination can ramp-up to whatever volume you want, and most countries are located near an effectively unlimited source from which to draw saline...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
What these environmentalists need to do is build a priority management system. This shotgun approach has got to end. They are going to have to decide if global warming is worse than water shortages, if nuclear power is worse than coal, etc.
Good grief! The only solution that the shotgun approach gives is for all humans to go live in caves--with the caveat that 5 billion or so of us dissappear (remember that farming and ranching contribute to global warming as well).
Between another series of civil wars all over the Middle East practically inevitable and daily production capacity already at a limit, oil prices are very likely to double in the next two years. Biofuel will be a good choice for countries able to produce it (Europe, US, China, Russia, Brazil, Australia), but a massive problem for regions already in agriculture hell (Africa, India, even the Middle East). In the latter regions, the need for fuel will press food production to drop further. Much of the fuel - especially from Africa - will be exported, too.
If there was no biofuel, the fuel consumers would be forced to change their lifestyles. The way things are, we won't, and the starvation toll is going to rise accordingly. Currently, it stands at 27000 - or 8 times 9/11 as I like to call it - per day. (Source: WHO)
blow your mind already
To reduce the demand for irrigation requires a whole lot of technologies, some cheap and some not, but the situation is far from hopeless. This is not about environmentalists, it's about politicians finding the political will to do something concerted and practical. In the US, bioethanol is largely a porkbarrel project. In Europe and Brazil, it's about energy cost and so more practical. Growing the wrong crops in the wrong places and spending a fortune on irrigation is stupid. Moving the US economy to dry States and then irrigating golf courses is stupid. And your post is stupid.
On the other hand, working out a plan to find the best places to grow biofuels and then, say, providing tax breaks to make it happen might be a sensible option. What is clear is that politicians need to be talking to scientists and economists on the whole energy and water issue, not to lobbyists.
Pining for the fjords
You're right that it's all about the tradeoffs -- and effective solutions will be multi-part as well. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't anticipate and try to mitigate issues with new energy sources as well. We want to avoid adding to the sum total of woes we already face, after all.
Biofuels have at least two really significant challenges that I know of:
1) It takes a lot of cropland to produce fuel. While some of that may be established cropland, lots of it is created by destruction of existing habitats.
2) It encourages industrial-scale farming, with all the concomitant problems, including the need for large volumes of water, large quantities of toxic biocides and fertilisers that cost a lot of energy to produce and bugger up the local environment, the tendency to monoculture with all its attendant risks (remember the Irish potato famine, anyone?), etc etc.
I know that technology is a useful tool to help us solve the problems we face, but we continually seem to forget that humanity has seen dozens of societal collapses through environmental strain which technology has as often exacerbated as it has prevented.
Its a town in the middle of a big farming state, its residents should be used to the smell of animal processing. All of a sudden theres sometihng new, and almost too good to be true, and they start smelling 'new' smells and begin pointing fingers.
I do, however, feel that building the plant in the city centre was possibly not a sensible move.
I think humanity should have little bio-hazard symbols tattooed on our collective foreheads!
All kidding aside, though our problems have several parts:
We are moving slowly into developing technologies that sip, rather then guzzle energy. Rising energy prices help drive an economic decision in this direction. The addition of microcontrollers and wily engineering can help achieve this goal.
However I think that more distributed production of local needs is an important part of a less energy strategy. Economies of scale help a lot in some areas, but may be harmful in other ways. The large electrical power plant is a one off deal as an example.
Suppose we decided to use a distributed approach. Here, some oil crop like canola is used as the primary solar capture. Treating the seeds gives an oil that can be used for a foodstuff, and a biodiesel feedstock. The protein cake left over can be used as food either for humans or livestock or both.
The biodiesel is used to run a small engine that generates power fed into an electrical grid and process heat for cottage industry and home heating.
Plant and animal wastes are composted and aged to eliminate pathogens, then used to support the oilseed crop. I think you get the systems idea...and some kind soul's left entries in the wikipedia.
Consider, also, that we still used mass production techniques to make the tools we need. We just spread the results out more!
We have to figure out how to make a no-waste society work. That means thinking up cheap friendly ways to repurpose or reclaim the stuff we want after its' end of life. We have started to do this already, but it will take ingenuity to make it work. RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) is a good start. Is their any way we can use biological systems to help do the work for us?
Understanding how to arrange biological systems to be effective partners would help. No sense trying to make a lawn in a desert, except as a demonstration of bad taste and poor judgement. Understanding the soil foodweb is a start. Developing understanding and engineering of micro climates and micro ecologies might make a lot of tough problems less so.
False pride in humanities accomplishments is a major problem. Just because we can build something doesn't mean it is the "right thing". On the other hand, denegrating our abilities doesn't help either. There is a balance point, it is just hard to find. ... nervous.
Further, having society run by warring experts makes me
Finally, the way we account for things, systems and resources is suspect. If you wish to make a difference, then change the tax law for corporations. Choosing to reward stewardship rather then rapine and pillage means that the financial systems will put their money for the best value proposition. Think Warren Buffet....
This is progress?
From the article:
Demand for irrigation -- which absorbs about 74 percent of all water used by people against 18 percent for hydro-power and other industrial uses and just 8 percent for households -- was likely to surge by 2050.
Surely hydro-power doesn't "absorb" any water at all? Surely water can be used both for hydro-power and then irrigation?
The article (ok, at least the summary) ignores the fact that we have oil-producing algae that grow in salt walter.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I fear Biofuels could ultimatly cause the Amazon rainforest's demise. The Brazillian government already seems eager to trash the rainforest whenever the opportunity to make a bit of cash presents itself.
There will probably be some good answers to nuclear power in the next few years (eg. accelerated thorium gets around a lot of problems, including the difficulty of getting enough good fuel), but actual effort needs to be expended instead of just throwing money at guys who will build you a 1950's style reactor proven to be an expensive way to make steam.
As for coal - yes people die from accidents in mining it and breathing in dust in a lot of places - but we've known that for centuries. It doesn't make the nuclear waste problems any less real, they are seperate problems and both should be dealt with. Ignoring bad stuff and pointing at how other stuff is worse is the act of a child or an advertising agency.
This is not something 'the environmentalists' need to do - their job, inasmuch as they have any official role, is to do exactly what they do: point out the dangers, because that is what they are qualified to do, as opposed to eg. you. They don't have any power over what the politicians, businesses, farmers and consumers do.
And you are right, we will all end up in caves, the few that survive, if we don't all take this serious and START DOING OUR BIT. No of course I don't believe the bit about caves, but one way or the other, we are all going to have to face up to this problem. Not just the government or 'these environmentalists'; it is some thing we all must take part in, both by saving resources in our own households, but also by putting pressure on our governments, businesses and farmers.
And that, I think is the message from 'these environmentalists'.
Let it go, man. Do you realize you just used a Geek forum discussion about bio-fuel to go on about your ex-wife?
It's not worth it to carry that baggage.
Besides, I could tell you a few things about my ex-wife that would...
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
We pay farmers to grow nothing as it is. Pay them to grow fuel crops instead.
+++ATH0
Have you ever known someone who, regardless of the issue or the solution, can always find something wrong with anything?
Sounds like an utlra-environmentalist to me. Switch to wind power, and they're worried about killing birds. Switch to biodiesel, and they worry about irrigation. Whatever you do to help the environment, an ultra-environmentalist can find a reason why it is bad for the environment.
Luckily, they haven't figured out yet that harnessing solar power on a large scale would prevent heat energy from being absorbed by the earth and probably cause all kinds of weather problems. But they'll put two and two together before long.
The only solution acceptable to an ultra-environmentalist is for all humans to lay down and die.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.