www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Biofuels from food
I rarely write about politics here. And being of a centrist political persuasion, it is even rarer that I have to write that I agree with Fidel Castro, of all people. I mean, communism is dead, and the man is an artifact of a bygone era. But just when you think the next news about him will be his obituary, he makes a statement on biofuels I couldn't agree with more.
Turning food crops into fuel is a bad idea. In spite of globalisation there are still huge income disparities in the world. That means that an average American can easily pay more just to fill up his gaz-guzzling SUV than a Mexican peasant can pay for his tortillas. If the fuel and the tortilla are made from the same material, maize in this case, the Mexican goes hungry, and the American keeps driving. The current American drive to use ethanol from maize as fuel has more to do with the American farmer lobby than with any aspects of sustainable development and greenery.
That isn't to say that I am against biofuels. But the way to go is cellulosic ethanol, which is made out of the non-edible parts of plants. If you have ever seen a maize plant (what the Americans call "corn"), you know that the edible part is just a fraction of the total plant. So lets grow corn, make food for the world out of the edible part, and transform the inedible bits into fuel. While transforming cellulose into ethanol is harder than doing it with the edible parts, the technology is under development. Growing enough corn to fill America's cars, while only using the inedible part for fuel production, would probably even drive global food prices down. Which doesn't hurt the farmer, who makes up for it by selling the rest of the plant to a biorefinery, and makes life for the Mexican peasant cheaper. Everybody wins!
- posted by Tobold @ 3:09 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Anyone want to drive our hummers down to "Meh-he-co" and run over a bunch of farmers? It might be the only to stop this threat of veggie's as fuel. I don't like to eat veggies and I certainly ain't puttin em in my ol'Sue(thats what I call my ride). I can only imagine the drop in horse power. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW.
I like this:
http://www.theaircar.com/thecar.html
Except the second back-up is fossil fuel - but imagine if it was cellulosic ethanol ?
And the thing about the air car is that it's not only under development, it is *in production* - in India.
http://www.theaircar.com/thecar.html
Except the second back-up is fossil fuel - but imagine if it was cellulosic ethanol ?
And the thing about the air car is that it's not only under development, it is *in production* - in India.
# posted by 
: 29/3/07 16:14
: 29/3/07 16:14
Condemned to premature death by hunger and thirst more than 3bn people of the world.
Ha. The only people condemned to death by hunger are those still living under communism thanks to land reform policies in places like Zimbabwe and North Korea.
The problem in feeding people has NEVER EVER been lack of food, it has always been governments like Castro's and Chavez and others who try to interfere in the market and take control to make sure their version of morality is imposed. This always results in starvation and death.
It is a spurious argument that ignores historical facts. Using the surplus of corn that is produced will in no way impact world hunger.
Ha. The only people condemned to death by hunger are those still living under communism thanks to land reform policies in places like Zimbabwe and North Korea.
The problem in feeding people has NEVER EVER been lack of food, it has always been governments like Castro's and Chavez and others who try to interfere in the market and take control to make sure their version of morality is imposed. This always results in starvation and death.
It is a spurious argument that ignores historical facts. Using the surplus of corn that is produced will in no way impact world hunger.
# posted by : 29/3/07 16:37
: 29/3/07 16:37
By "never ever" i suppose really i meant the past hundred years or maybe few hundred. War, communism, socialism, these all resulted in plenty of starvation. But with modern transportation technology, droughts and other naturally occurring famine are taken care of even if through the charity of neighbors. But giving food for free can't make warlords stop fighting or stealing it.
# posted by : 29/3/07 16:43
: 29/3/07 16:43
Of course Castro being Castro he overhypes his case. But the riots in Mexico over the tortilla price increases I linked to have been proven to be connected to maize going into ethanol production. While even a poor person in Mexico isn't likely to actually starve, the percentage of his income going into buying basic foodstuff is signficantly larger than yours, and a maize price increase due to biofuel hurts him a lot more economically.
@ yunk...
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
Go over to Europe, to my understanding, they have multiple socialistic programs. Most Europeans are not starving.
Check out American history, where FDR began Socialistic programs like work programs, Social Security, and the much debated welfare.
These programs actually saved people, fellow Americans, from starving.
Now Communism, on the other hand, is a great idea, only in a perfect world, where everyone would share equally. But as it was proven in Russia, it is much too susceptible to manipulation. This results in an unfair distribution of resources, which does result in satrvation.
But, as I see proven in the world, Socialist programs do not result in starvation.
---Rotz
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
Go over to Europe, to my understanding, they have multiple socialistic programs. Most Europeans are not starving.
Check out American history, where FDR began Socialistic programs like work programs, Social Security, and the much debated welfare.
These programs actually saved people, fellow Americans, from starving.
Now Communism, on the other hand, is a great idea, only in a perfect world, where everyone would share equally. But as it was proven in Russia, it is much too susceptible to manipulation. This results in an unfair distribution of resources, which does result in satrvation.
But, as I see proven in the world, Socialist programs do not result in starvation.
---Rotz
# posted by : 29/3/07 17:20
: 29/3/07 17:20
As for using corn over unedible plants, or sugarcane which is proven to be many times more effective than corn, it will likely not happen.
This is due to the much applauded "Free market system", which is not as great as it sounds. Because it leads to corporate greed in direct correlation to political manipulation.
This is shown in our Lobbiests (like the recent Abrams scandal), or corrupt politicians (like insane special interest spending, called "pork", aka the recent Democrat resolution to withdrawel from Iraq, which includes billions in spending that have nothing to do with Iraq), and result in millions of uninsured, homeless, and starving in a country that claims to be the greatest super power in the world.
"Free markets" do not guarentee freedom, IMO.
---Rotz
This is due to the much applauded "Free market system", which is not as great as it sounds. Because it leads to corporate greed in direct correlation to political manipulation.
This is shown in our Lobbiests (like the recent Abrams scandal), or corrupt politicians (like insane special interest spending, called "pork", aka the recent Democrat resolution to withdrawel from Iraq, which includes billions in spending that have nothing to do with Iraq), and result in millions of uninsured, homeless, and starving in a country that claims to be the greatest super power in the world.
"Free markets" do not guarentee freedom, IMO.
---Rotz
# posted by : 29/3/07 17:31
: 29/3/07 17:31
I have to declare an interest here as I am related to the founders of Iogen Corporation the developers of the first commercial cellulosic Ethanol process. I have to admit though I never mae the link between conventional bio-fuel and food shortages. Thank you for pointing this out.
When did I say socialists and communists were the same?
Europe is not socialist, they lean more towards it than we do of course, but they are not currently. They have socialist political parties but that doesn't make any European government socialist any more than the US having both communist and socialist parties makes the US either.
Those who we currently call "fascists" were all merely socialists, and, IMO, the resultant death and destruction is a natural extension of socialism just like it is from communism and even from theocracy: for the central problem I feel is the imposition of morality on the populace. It's just without God, the other two systems call morality "redistribution to help the poor" or "everyone gets a job" etc. When you feel "I am on the side of RIGHT and HELPING PEOPLE" you can start to justify anything.
Europe is not socialist, they lean more towards it than we do of course, but they are not currently. They have socialist political parties but that doesn't make any European government socialist any more than the US having both communist and socialist parties makes the US either.
Those who we currently call "fascists" were all merely socialists, and, IMO, the resultant death and destruction is a natural extension of socialism just like it is from communism and even from theocracy: for the central problem I feel is the imposition of morality on the populace. It's just without God, the other two systems call morality "redistribution to help the poor" or "everyone gets a job" etc. When you feel "I am on the side of RIGHT and HELPING PEOPLE" you can start to justify anything.
# posted by : 29/3/07 18:22
: 29/3/07 18:22
Though I suppose using the non edible parts of corn may take off all on it's own, the "free market" would fix it, since I assume you will be able to get a lot more ethanol out of it and the volume may make up for the increased cost.
Anyway I'll look into the prices of corn in Mexico.
My point was, all the starvation the past hundred years or so was the result of people meddling and trying to "fix" things. Like thinking we should force companies to use this alternate method now, when it might not even be necessary.
Anyway I'll look into the prices of corn in Mexico.
My point was, all the starvation the past hundred years or so was the result of people meddling and trying to "fix" things. Like thinking we should force companies to use this alternate method now, when it might not even be necessary.
# posted by : 29/3/07 18:25
: 29/3/07 18:25
rotzghot,
Political corruption has nothing to do with the free market, in fact it acts against the market, and is bad for capitalism just as much as it is for other systems.
Political corruption has nothing to do with the free market, in fact it acts against the market, and is bad for capitalism just as much as it is for other systems.
# posted by : 29/3/07 18:28
: 29/3/07 18:28
Ethanol from corn is a disguised subsidy for farmers...most of whom these days are big coporate farms here in the US.
Cellulosic ethanol has a future, sure, but I have two things for folks to consider:
1.) Biodeisel and bioethanol made from bioreactors (basically algae farms being fed CO2 from smokestack emissions).
2.) Plug-in Hybrid Electrics (PHEV)then full electric cars.
The idea that we're going to replace the majority of our regular passenger fleet gas consumption using ethanol is just silly, at least not until we get some real PHEV's that give a net gass mileage for a week's worth of commuting, hopping to the grocery store, etc., of 120 mpg+.
Cellulosic ethanol has a future, sure, but I have two things for folks to consider:
1.) Biodeisel and bioethanol made from bioreactors (basically algae farms being fed CO2 from smokestack emissions).
2.) Plug-in Hybrid Electrics (PHEV)then full electric cars.
The idea that we're going to replace the majority of our regular passenger fleet gas consumption using ethanol is just silly, at least not until we get some real PHEV's that give a net gass mileage for a week's worth of commuting, hopping to the grocery store, etc., of 120 mpg+.
# posted by : 29/3/07 18:37
: 29/3/07 18:37
BTW though I agree if people think this new law requiring vehicles to be able to run on either in 20 years is silly and detrimental to the economy and the environment. For the same reason as the above poster mentioned, there are other technologies, other solutions that might come about, and the government enforcing one so early in our search for a good replacement basically means that the best one won't be able to win out for sure, and it would have a negative effect on markets, which is just what Tobold was saying about corn markets. OMG i agree! doh! :)
Just the mass starvation i would not agree with. :)
Just the mass starvation i would not agree with. :)
# posted by : 29/3/07 18:43
: 29/3/07 18:43
Tobold stick to MMORPGs! Castro being Cuban and all doesn't know squat about about markets. If there was a massive market for bioethanol, then the value of land that could grow it would go up and thus the poor world would become richer rather than it funnelling into oil rich countries coffers.
Aside: American ethanol is subsidised but a good chunk of Brazil's cars run on bioethanol unsubsidised. I think with current tech it works out cheaper to run when oil is >$40. Less when you consider thecost of cancelling your carbon footprint cost. Currently oil effectively gets massive subsidise in the form of the money spent on wars and thus ensuring cheap oil.
Also bioethanol burns with more torque therefor more powerful cars!
Aside: American ethanol is subsidised but a good chunk of Brazil's cars run on bioethanol unsubsidised. I think with current tech it works out cheaper to run when oil is >$40. Less when you consider thecost of cancelling your carbon footprint cost. Currently oil effectively gets massive subsidise in the form of the money spent on wars and thus ensuring cheap oil.
Also bioethanol burns with more torque therefor more powerful cars!
# posted by : 29/3/07 20:34
: 29/3/07 20:34
Hehe, way to pull the flamebait there, Tobold :)
Thought you might find this interesting. See if you can find any studies on the energy efficiency of producing bio-ethanol (leastways, as it's currently done... I saw this in the Dec. issue of Scientific American, I believe). It actually takes more fossil fuels to produce the ethanol than are saved by using the javascript:void(0)
Publish Your Commentethanol produced. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I also agree with a couple posts above here - the problem is not that there isn't enough food, it's that it's not distributed well. e.g.: India has a fairly large starving/malnourished population, and yet in a lot of rural areas a good bit of grain goes to feeding cows, instead of people. Governments have a nasty way of interfering with proper distribution of basic foodstuffs, as well.
That said, I think Castro's right, but more for economical reasons than humanitarian ones.
Oh, btw, @Anonymous (above) - yeah, bioethanol burns with more energy. Don't know about where you live, but here in the southeast US the cost difference is substantially higher than the difference in power.
Thought you might find this interesting. See if you can find any studies on the energy efficiency of producing bio-ethanol (leastways, as it's currently done... I saw this in the Dec. issue of Scientific American, I believe). It actually takes more fossil fuels to produce the ethanol than are saved by using the javascript:void(0)
Publish Your Commentethanol produced. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I also agree with a couple posts above here - the problem is not that there isn't enough food, it's that it's not distributed well. e.g.: India has a fairly large starving/malnourished population, and yet in a lot of rural areas a good bit of grain goes to feeding cows, instead of people. Governments have a nasty way of interfering with proper distribution of basic foodstuffs, as well.
That said, I think Castro's right, but more for economical reasons than humanitarian ones.
Oh, btw, @Anonymous (above) - yeah, bioethanol burns with more energy. Don't know about where you live, but here in the southeast US the cost difference is substantially higher than the difference in power.
Most modern cars will run on ethanol already without any changes. With a few changes (ignition timing, increased control jet diameter, replacing the fuel filter frequently after the switch, etc), they can run pretty well. They won't get very good mileage on ethanol unless they have a very high compression ratio, but they will run.
Producing ethanol from corn isn't very efficient. By some estimates, making ethanol from corn actually loses energy in the process. I doubt ethanol will make a large impact for at least a decade.
Unfortunately, making ethanol from cellulose isn't quite as simple as adding the genes for cellulytic enzymes to yeast. Cellulose isn't very soluble, and natural cellulose is stuck to other stuff (mostly lignin). Separating the cellulose and getting it in a form that yeast can digest seems like a tricky problem, based on my limited knowledge of the subject.
Producing ethanol from corn isn't very efficient. By some estimates, making ethanol from corn actually loses energy in the process. I doubt ethanol will make a large impact for at least a decade.
Unfortunately, making ethanol from cellulose isn't quite as simple as adding the genes for cellulytic enzymes to yeast. Cellulose isn't very soluble, and natural cellulose is stuck to other stuff (mostly lignin). Separating the cellulose and getting it in a form that yeast can digest seems like a tricky problem, based on my limited knowledge of the subject.
The calculation about how much energy it costs to make bioethanol from corn vary from source to source. But even the less pessimistic ones say that you only get about 30% more energy from a gallon of ethanol than the energy used to produce it in the USA. Bioethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is more energy efficient, but the USA keeps that one out with a huge tariff. Cellulosic ethanol has 16 times more energy content than the energy cost to produce it.
But I totally agree that the government shouldn't meddle with it. If the US government wouldn't subsidize ethanol from corn, the world market corn prices would be lower. And do you know which country has the most solar panels installed? Germany, due to government subsidies, although it is blindingly obvious that Europe has other countries with a lot more sun, where the same panels would be a lot more efficient.
But I totally agree that the government shouldn't meddle with it. If the US government wouldn't subsidize ethanol from corn, the world market corn prices would be lower. And do you know which country has the most solar panels installed? Germany, due to government subsidies, although it is blindingly obvious that Europe has other countries with a lot more sun, where the same panels would be a lot more efficient.
People bitching about Castro should read about Cuba's agriculture industry post the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's *very* interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home
