The Dangers of Biofuel
by Matthew Sparkes, London, UK on 03.27.07
The Guardian have published a column by George Monbiot, on the dangers of bio-fuel. Although this won't be a popular view-point, Monbiot believes that the majority of biofuel production is more harmful to the environment than petroleum production. His argument; there's nothing wrong with the theory, but the practice has gone very wrong indeed. His answer is to halt production until more efficient production is available on a large scale.
Biofuels are desirable because the plants from which it is create store carbon as they grow. Therefore the carbon released during its use is offset, it will be reabsorbed by the new plants being grown for fuel. However, there are other factors that need to be taken into account, which can cause biofuel to seem like a less desirable option. There is no simple solution; developing countries are gaining increasing political power from their crops, but at the same time they are losing out ecologically.
One problem is that the demand for fuel crops is raising prices, making them less affordable as a food source. According to Monbiot, in some cases grain now costs double what it did just one year ago, and stock piles are low. Fuel manufacturers can afford these higher prices, and if this continues then there is a very real possibility that it could create a very real food shortage.
Another issue is that virgin land is being stripped for planting as demand for these crops grows. Sugarcane producers are moving into the Brazillian cerrado, soya farmers into the Amazon rainforest and palm oil plantations into the Malaysian rainforest. Often, these areas are burned clear before planting, which releases more carbon than will be saved in many years of producing biofuels.
There is nothing inherently wrong with biofuel, if produced properly. However, current manufacturing is often the cause of food shortages, loss of wildlife habitat, huge carbon emissions and population displacement. There are exceptions, but they seem to be in the minority. If the process cannot be improved, then would we be better to rely on petroleum?
Monbiot suggests a five year freeze on the sale of bio-fuels in order to allow research. However, with last weeks UK budget imposing fines for manufacturers who don't embrace biofuel, and a growing demand in the developed world, this seems unlikely.
George Monbiot is an idiot. The crops that make the best bio fuels are lousy foods. Eat the olive oil and put the soybean and rapeseed oil in the fuel tank.
There already are technologies that do not require food sources as the base of the ethanol. This type of ethanol is often referred to as cellulose ethanol in order to differentiate it from grain{food stock} based ethanol.
Governments need to regulate food stock as ethanol and subsidize the infrastructure needs for cellulose ethanol. And yes the corn farmers can still make some extra money - because corn stalks can be used for cellulose ethanol.
PS - multi-year no-till fields of native long grasses are one of the better ways of producing the plant material needed for cellulose ethanol. Oh these fields can also have the added benefit of long term soil based carbon sequestration.
Monbiot is right: Biofuels are not the answer. Even soybean and rapeseed oil have lousy net energy profiles. I can point you to the scientific studies to back it up. But even if biofuels did work, they wouldn't be the answer. The problem is we consume too much energy.
Look, in 2005, the world consumed 83.8 million barrels of oil per day, of which the US consumed 25%. In order to replace the energy consumed daily within the US in the form of oil would require the photosynthesis of 46% of the Earth's entire surface area, with all the products of photosynthesis substituting directly for oil energy. At this rate, the US would use up the entire ideal photosynthetic capability of the Earth in a little over two days. As this would require harvesting of all of the products of photosynthesis, there would be no plant matter left by the end of that time.
To replace world daily oil consumption strictly from photosynthesis, would require more than the entire surface area of this planet, 1.064 times as much to be exact. To replace world oil consumption with photosynthesis would use up the entire photosynthetic product of the planet in one day, and would be done at a deficit.
Given this analysis, any idea that we can replace oil with biofuels is half baked at best. Biofuels literally transform photosynthesis into fuel, and they do so at a loss. When the entire photosynthetic capability of the planet cannot equal our current oil consumption, it would be worse than foolish to think that biofuels could do so.
For a complete analysis, I refer you to my paper "How much Energy Do We Consume?" Published in The Mountain Sentinel, Vol 1, No. 4
@Anon: Actually, vegetable oil is mostly comprised of soybean oil, and most of my weekday recipes call for veggie oil in a small amount, so it is food for me, at least. I'm too frugal to cook with extra-virgin olive oil every night, plus it tastes funny in some things.
I'm not a big fan of biofuels, honnestly. I think our power should come from nuclear (Yes, fission, dirty, awful nuclear. It's easier to contain than coal pollution, and it's a good short term solution), wind, and solar sources, and our transportation should be 100% electric in most cases (Or plug in hybrid, or lightweight petroleum/natural gas for constant highway driving). When fusion comes along (It should, but it never does), it will blow all of those out of the water, of course.
I just don't think fuels has much of a future, because they're entropic and more expensive by nature, because processing has to be done after the food is harvested, so it isn't quite carbon neutral. However, they do offer a good stepping stone for those who will be driving on gas or diesel for a while, so I think completely shutting down biofuel production is silly. Plus, improvements will probably come about through the day to day processing.
I love George Monbiot.
Dale has a good point. If everyone travels effectively once around the Earth every year, in a vehicle 20 times your body weight, with no physical effort......you're gonna need phenomenal amounts of energy!
why are we even spending money on bio fuel, i doubt its better for the atmosphere than oil, we need to focus on hyrdrogen or some other cheap, environment friendly energy source. but before we get into any of that, how about making cars more aero dynamic, and have engines with turbochargers and other improments to make them more efficent. that should be the first step.
Biofuels are better for the atmosphere because they are (almost) carbon neutral; the carbon they emit when burned is carbon that comes from the atmosphere. Fossil fuels emit carbon that was under the Earth's crust.
As for hydrogen, it's neat, but it's not a fuel source since we can't find pure hydrogen on Earth. It's only a way to transport energy.. If that energy is electricity, it's probably better to store it in batteries than as hydrogen..
The carbon comes from the atmosphere? LOL what?
"The carbon comes from the atmosphere? LOL what? "
Yes, to grow plants take carbon from the air. I suggest that you go read a biology book.
I may be incorrect in this statement, as I'm recalling it from an Agriculture Econ lecture I took early in college, but I remember a professor/farmer telling us that a large problem with global hunger isn't our lacking production of crops, but the lack of ability to distribute/store crops abroad. There is no easy way to distribute crops to many starving nations due to lack of storage facilities or warfare and turmoil. The minute a region would build such a facility, it becomes a target for warlords or rebels, assuming that there was a non-volatile trade route to get there in the first place.
As for wearing out the soil, I'd like to point out that I attend Purdue University, which has a strong Agricultural Engineering program in the middle of corn-fed Indiana. I don't know if people have an image of ma' and pa' kettle when they think of farmers, but there really is a science to farming that has been capitalized in the region.
Farmers know when to plant and what to grow to regenerate the soil. Driving through Indiana(*YAWN*) you can see vast fields of Corn, followed by uncultivated rotational fields which alternate annually to restore nutrients. It is not in any one's interest to salt the Earth, it's bad business.
What about biodiesel from waste grease? That to be included in the profile of greener biofuel sources, besides the mushrooms and algae examples. Take for instance: http://northeastbiodiesel.com/
While this person is correct he is also wrong.
He is correct that if not managed properly the use of biofuels is bad for the environment.
If we just take one example that of Goerge Bush the *** he has started america on the track of making ethanol from corn. The ratio of energy for corn based ethanol is 1:7 for every one unit of avaliable energy produced you need seven units of energy in put.
If we take sugar cane in a well developed sugar industry area with trains and such infrasturcture the ratio is the other way around. At the present time we are able to produce 10 times more sugar than is used and if we limited the sugar intake to something that is healthy for people then it would be more like 20 times. the sugar price has been falling for some time.
We can not relie on market forces to do what is best for the environement we need to direct how and where the biofuels are going to be produced. We need to cut unnessicary consumption. Somethng that america and britain are not tackleing.
The fact that we are now chewing through our lungs(the rainforests) to produce fuels is ilogical and unnessicary. It is because of pure greed and doing things the eaiest way.
Oil crops are have better solutions that ethanol. there are many non food plants that we can use and most of these can be grown on marginal land giving us a double benefit of energy absorbtion and carbon sequestration. not to mention the development of the soils. these plants will also provide us with Oxygen. There is no need to clear more land from the worlds lungs to make this happen it will take will power and changing the farming techniques that are use in america and not trying to transpose those to a marginal enviroment. It will also take a shift in the puritanical mind set of the worlds leaders. Hemp is not the evil plant that they think it is.