Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels Coming With a High Environmental Price?
DurandalTree writes "With the spectre of global warming on the horizon, biofuels have been touted as the solution to motor vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. But with biodiesel use on the increase, it appears a distinctively environmentally unfriendly footprint is being left behind by some of its prime sources; affected food prices are surging out of reach of the poor and rainforests are being destroyed to create larger plantations."
Indeed - there's another resource we need to care about here. Viable soil is a renewable resource - but like fresh water, it has its limits, and is geographically quite limited in terms of cheap availability. By forcing the land to both feed everyone, and fuel all their vehicles, we place a much lower maximum on the population that can be supported by that land. More than that, by potentially stretching the demands on the land too far, we risk that farmers and companies may deplete or despoil the soil they use for short term gain before they decide to leave the market, making it difficult for anyone else to economically recover that same area.
That said, we could make better use of the oceans - but I trust our current free market much less there - the oceans have much more of a "tragedy of the commons" dynamic than elsewhere, with fragile ecosystems and high difficulty sectioning off properties. Algae on land-based ponds in otherwise nonviable landscapes would offer the most promise for producing biomass in a way that would not negatively affect prices for the poor. Algae can produce its own food, doesn't need to use much fresh water, can produce various kinds of oils, and could even be used as a part of foods if we are interested in exploring that. The only question is, will it be able to scale and pay for itself in terms of needing to control its environment to mass produce it? Given the history of livestock, I can't imagine algae can't be made efficient or be properly bred en mass.
That's just my idea though - and I'm fairly uninformed about the whole field of energy crops. Why are we currently pursuing the whole turn-food-to-fuel path anyway, given how wide open the algae field is?
Ryan Fenton
I drive by a sewage treatment plant, and a landfill a few times a week, and wonder just how much methane is just escaping into the atmosphere. Methane which could be captured fairly easily, and used anywhere natural gas or propane are currently used.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Which might not be as hard as it sounds. The University of New Hampshire did a study in 2004 where they concluded that biodiesel from algae could -- at least theoritically -- supply all the nation's fuel supply without require food oil (like soy or palm) to be used at all. On the ethanol front, cellulosic ethanol can be produced from high-cellulose plant products, like sawgrass or wood chips, without cutting into the corn crop. Some of cellulosic plants are beginning to approach commercial volumes of production.
It's not that biofuels are a bad idea, but not all implementations of those ideas are equally valid.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Diesel engines are pollutin' machines.
Diesel engines are much cleaner now, if the proper technology is used to clean the exhaust. Unfortunately all that technology got clogged up by the sulphur in US diesel through last year, so none of it was used.
US diesel switched to a low-sulphur blend at the start of the year, and all 2007 model year diesel cars require it. It exchange, they now have the particulate filters that make diesels run cleaner. This does little to clean up the millions of diesel cars and trucks built before 2007, unfortunately, but it shows that the problem hasn't been forgotton.
Please don't attack diesel based on a complete lack of information and one anecdote. For more information, see the National Clean Diesel Campaign.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Go find a copy of King Corn. It's a pretty fascinating look at the US corn industry, including many of its problems. It doesn't talk too much about corn used for ethanol, but it does show why many of the food uses of corn today are bad for us. It's not just the corn used in corn syrup that's a problem, it's also the corn used as animal feed.
And I completely agree that rising corn prices are not a problem while the US government subsidizes production. Get rid of the subsidies, and then we can talk about the affect on food prices. If the poor really can't afford to eat because of rising corn prices, the subsidies on corn production could be replaced with an increase in funding for foodstamp programs, if nothing else.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Excepting the fact that you conveniently didn't RTFA. Biofuels are encroaching on native habitats, which often includes slash and burn farming. These techniques mean that, depending on the oil used for fuel, the carbon output of biofuels can be about 10 times that of petroleum. Who cares if the end carbon burned in a car was pulled from the atmosphere, when many times the stored carbon are released in production? Not to mention the absolutely huge numbers of native habitat that will simply be destroyed to accommodate biofuel production. The risk to the ANWR from petroleum is nothing compared to the risk to the rainforests and other sensitive habitats that biofuels present.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Chernobyl would probably still be running and providing power if they had not shut off all kinds of safety mechanisms at the same time like a bunch of fucking idiots.
The saying more accurately says that we can build very safe nuclear plants that consume less fuel than coal plants spew into the atmosphere as a result of burning coal. Many people (correctly) point out that it is possible to scrub all of that from the air, but most coal-burning plants do not do this. Also it is not a matter of "now". We have known for decades how to build breeder reactors that will process the "spent" fuel back into usable fuel, and which are not capable of making weapons-grade material (the usual purpose for a breeder reactor.) This would reduce our fuel needs by something like three orders of magnitude and the fuel waste would be (IIRC) two orders of magnitude less long-lived. If you do the math you will see that if this does not actually solve the nuclear waste problem, it at least comes very close to it.
We do not do this because of a flawed interpretation of a nuclear treaty. Bush (ObDisclaimer: I hate the guy, his family, and all for which they stand, which has nothing to do with America except the part about greed) has spoken in favor of the use of breeder reactors for processing nuclear fuel.
Very true, but it is a horrible mistake to base anything you don't have to on topsoil. We are destroying soil at an alarming rate. Modern farming processes create monocultures in soil; all these people in the midwest who talk about how great their dirt is havefor the most part never seen real soil. Modern tilling techniques and the use of heavy equipment create hardpan under the soil, damaging drainage. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides kills off some of the biota in the soil (soil is sixty to eighty percent organic material, and up to 40% living material) but not others, creating monocultures which do little to protect plants and may even harm them. The result is a soil that does not drain properly, that requires the use of more and more chemicals, and which is additionally blown and washed away during winds and rains.
But wait, there's more! Any kind of hard soil will run off water too quickly, contributing to floods. Any kind of soft, uncovered soil will be blown away - some of the soil lands back on your ground, some of it on your neighbor's ground, and some of it goes into the water once again. Both this source of soil in the water and simply washing it away with irrigation clogs streams and rivers, creating anaerobic conditions which kill both flora and fauna. This process continues all the way to the ocean, where ocean life near the land is often killed off by changes in salinity, lack of light due to suspended soil fines, and other issues.
This last effect kills not only small, submerged plants and animals, but also plant life on the coast lines. The coast line in the Southern part of the US is especially damaged - a fact which has been blamed for much of the fury of the storm which tore New Orleans into small, floating pieces.
Topsoil-based fuels are simply completely wrongheaded, a fact which Brazil will discover sooner or later...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You miss the obvious point - large cities have become bastions of welfare recipients and bloated organizations. In the 90's the population of Philadelphia decreased by 10% while the size of the bureaucracy increased 10%. Hardly more efficient. And it taxes folks based on the level of 'services' you are getting. Anyone who has had to do anything with the City of Philadelphia knows this is a joke.
If cities were truly models of efficiency, then maybe more folks would be attracted, but more exurbanites (like myself) would rather have small, incompetent government rather than large, overweight government. I pay a third of the taxes and my trash ALWAYS gets picked up. Something that happened with varying results in Philadelphia.
But Philadelphians are smart - they got rid of the A's and the Republicans in the 50's and only won one World Series and have lot all of their manufacturing base since then. They've taxed the smart folks out of town.
The opposite of progress is congress
Excepting the fact that you conveniently didn't RTFA. Biofuels are encroaching on native habitats, which often includes slash and burn farming.
But is that actually true?
Slash and burn farming has been encroaching on native habitats long before we decided to make biofuels. The fact is that population pressures in these areas will cause farmers to slash and burn in order to grow any crop which is at that time economically viable. Now that we are concentrating on biofuels the demand for sugar cane grows and that is the particular crop that is chosen.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
If it's a well-managed facility, the methane is probably already being reclaimed. They do that at the Vancouver landfill. Surprisingly though, sewage treatment doesn't release that much methane, unless you have an anaerobic tank for biological phosphorus removal. Most of the carbon-based gas released is CO2 from the aerobic reactor.
And before you point out the smell, methane is actually odorless. The smell most people associate with methane is hydrogen sulfide, which is often produced at the same time by anaerobic biological processes.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I am starting a biodiesel co-op here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I've read Monbiot's arguments. Every few months, someone brings them up. While I greatly respect The Guardian, they insist on printing his stuff. A lot of what I so vehemently dislike about Monbiot is not necessarily what he's saying. It is possible to easily produce sound counterarguments. Soy-based biodiesel and corn-based ethanol are temporary bases for fuel. Another reader pointed out that there is great potential for making biodiesel from algae. One plant apparently made it from turkey carcases. You can make biodiesel from a huge variety of sources, including fry grease.
:::end of rant:::
If biodiesel production causes food prices to spike, capitalists will find something different that does not cause this to occur. It may take longer than we wish, but it will happen.
As for land-stripping, it is well known tht most stripping has occurred to plant inefficient farms. This was happening well before the recent enthusiasm for biofuels, and it will continue. I'd love to see it stop. But I'm not going to give up biodiesel to try and stop it or even help it. My fuel comes from America, not Saudi Arabia, Brazil, or even Canada, as does a great deal of our oil.
The last thing I have to say about Monbiot, the most insulting, doubtlessly the one thing that will make people say "you lose this argument because you got personal, hell, you might as well just get it over with and violate Godwin's Law," is about his style of presentation. George Monbiot makes himself out being omniscient, and if only the world would listen to him, all would be well and people would live in peace. I had enough of that sort of person when I lived in Madison, Wisconsin. They're everywhere there. It is, IMNSHO, this sort of person that enrages the reactionaries among us like no other, the ones who think that they know better than everyone else how to live, function, even breathe.
Okay, let's put ALL biofuels on hold for five years. With that sweeping generalization, all work on it comes to an crashing end for five years. In April 2012, we will resume. And know what? We'll be right where we left off, only to find that we're five years behind, as we finally had the wisdom to listen to the one guy who knows better than us how to run the world. At least, we thought he was. You'd think we'd have learned by now to listen to people who claim to know better than everyone else, but our race is notorious for its memory deficiency.
-- haaz.
People who waste their time on trendy non-issues like this make me sick.
Nonissue? People dying from an allergic reaction is a nonissue?
There are people dying RIGHT NOW from actual problems in the food industry with handling, inspection
These are handling and sanitation issues and don't have anything to do with genetic engineering. GE does nothing for preventing food from being contaminated. And for people without enough to eat, that's a problem with politics and logistics. Take Zimbabwe, it used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa. But when pres Mugabe forced the white farmers off of their farms then gave the farms to his cronies the country turned into a basket case. Then there's what's happening in Mexico. Because of massive subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses these companies can export food to Mexico and sale it there cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food. You can blame this on many of those "illegal immigrants" in the US. Because Mexican farmers can't make a living on their farms they migrate into the Mexican cities or north to come to the US. And those who go to the cities drive those already there north. Massive farm subsidies was the reason the WTO talks in Geneva fell apart. India and other coutries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subidizing their agribusinesses so these companies couldn't flood export markets with food that cost less than what local farmers could grow food for. In India thousands of farmers have been committing suicide in part because they can't compeat with subsidized imported food.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We should stop using corn to make biofuel and instead use Miscanthus.
9 128950913
Miscanthus is a genus of about 15 species of perennial grasses. Miscanthus giganteus has been trialed as a biofuel in Europe since the early 1980s. It can grow to heights of more than 3.5m in one growth season. Its dry weight annual yield can reach 25t/ha (10t/acre). The rapid growth, low mineral content and high biomass yield of Miscanthus make it a favorite choice as a biofuel. After harvest, it can be burned to produce heat and power turbines. The resulting CO2 emissions are equal to the amount of CO2 that the plant used up from the atmosphere during its growing phase, and thus the process is greenhouse gas-neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus
Educate yourself http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-57028888
I mostly agree with you, but you're dead wrong about LED lights. Buy yourself a powerful LED flashlight and come back and tell me about it not producing heat.
I don't have numbers in front of me, but my understanding is that LEDs are no more efficient than fluorescent lamps. They may or may not be more efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs (CF), because CF is less efficient than the traditional 4' or 8' long tubes, but it's not much of a difference. The main benefits to LED lighting are: 1) it's small and simple: just apply DC current and it works; fluorescent requires a ballast with complicated circuitry. 2) it's rugged, so it works well in a flashlight or car subjected to shock. 3) It turns on instantly, which is good in car brake lights for safety, or any other non-continuous use.
I really wish more automakers would make hybrid powertrains available in more vehicles. The technology seems mature enough, but there's not enough selection. Besides, I'd like a used one to transplant into my older car.
I'd love to have some solar cells on my house. The problem with them is that they're still very expensive, and unless you plan on living in the same house for the next 30 years, it just doesn't pay to invest in them.