Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Great Biofuel Hoax

By Eric Holt-Gimenez, Indypendent. Posted June 25, 2007.


Touted by politicians and industry as "green" energy, biofuels come with a high price tag.
Advertisement

For an alternative viewpoint on corn-based ethanol, read "David Morris's Give Ethanol a Chance: The Case for Corn-Based Fuel."

Biofuels invoke an image of renewable abundance that allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to present fuel from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as a replacement for oil that will bring about a smooth transition to a renewablefuel economy.

Myths of abundance divert attention from powerful economic interests that benefit from this biofuels transition, avoiding discussion of the growing price that citizens of the global South are beginning to pay to maintain the consumptive oil-based lifestyle of the North. Biofuel mania obscures the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems -- the agro-fuels transition.

The Agro-fuels Boom

Industrialized countries have unleashed an "agro-fuels boom" by mandating ambitious renewable fuel targets. Renewable fuels are to provide 5.75 percent of Europe's transport fuel by 2010, and 10 percent by 2020. The U.S. goal is 35 billion gallons a year. These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to use 70 percent of its farmland for fuel.

The United States' entire corn and soy harvest would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel. Northern countries expect the global South to meet their fuel needs, and southern governments appear eager to oblige. Indonesia and Malaysia are rapidly cutting down forests to expand oil-palm plantations targeted to supply up to 20 percent of the European Union biodiesel market. In Brazil -- where fuel crops already occupy an area the size of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Great Britain combined -- the government is planning a fivefold increase in sugar cane acreage with a goal of replacing 10 percent of the world's gasoline by 2025.

The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the agro-fuels industry is breathtaking. From 2004 to 2007, venture capital investment in agro-fuels increased eightfold. Private investment is swamping public research institutions, as evidenced by BP's recent award of half a billion dollars to the University of California. In open defiance of national anti-trust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming powerful partnerships: ADM with Monsanto, Chevron and Volkswagen, BP with DuPont and Toyota. These corporations are consolidating research, production, processing and distribution chains of our food and fuel system under one colossal, industrial roof.

Agro-fuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable, they are environmentally friendly and can reduce global warming, fostering rural development. But the tremendous market power of agro-fuel corporations, coupled with weak political will of governments to regulate their activities, is a recipe for environmental disaster and increasing hunger in the global South. It's time to examine the myths fueling this biofuel boom -- before it's too late.

Myth #1: Agro-fuels are clean and green

Because photosynthesis from fuel crops removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we are told fuel crops are green. But when the full "life cycle" of agro-fuels is considered -- from land clearing to automotive consumption -- the moderate emission savings are undone by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil carbon losses. Every ton of palm oil produced results in 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions -- 10 times more than petroleum. Clearing tropical forests for sugarcane ethanol emits 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of gasoline.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: biofuel

Eric Holt-Giménez is the executive director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Foodfirst.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Biofuels are a great example of a failure to tackle the real problem
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 25, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rush to ramp up biofuel production is the sort of panicked response that is becoming the hallmark of 'green' responses to climate change. Let's be clear about human nature: no good decisions come about from panic. And climate change is now a green-driven panic. This panic (and greed) is driving forward the wrong decisions that will have the consequences of making things worse.

We should be tackling waste and our energy-gobbling way of life, not just switching from burning petrol to burning biofuel. Our way of life is hugely wasteful and in fact is not making us healthier. We should be thinking in terms of a ten-year plan to move towards less waste and healthier lifestyles. And that can only happen if we change how we live and work. Communities must cut back on car travel and switch to convenient public transport. Shops should be only a few stops away from most housing. People should be riding bikes more often. Houses should be smaller and energy efficient. Planes should be upgraded to the Boeing Dreamliner and the next generation of fuel-efficient aircraft.

We shouldn't be taking tacos out of the mouths of the poor in Mexico so mama can gas up her SUV and get her fat butt to Wal Mart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are wise Posted by: Lloyd Drako
» RE: You are wise Posted by: richholland
I
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jun 25, 2007 2:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have heard a little about switchgrass... Can anyone give some details good or bad?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I Posted by: pedex
"Green" fuel just more marketing hype
Posted by: Zachria on Jun 25, 2007 3:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is terribly naiive to think that there will be any replacement of fossil fuel use by green or alternate fuels. North America's (and the world's) thirst for cheap energy will simply mean that we will continue to consume fossil fuels as fast as we can get them and alternate fuels will be an add-on. Promotion of them is an encouragement to continue and expand our use of combustion-based energy.

When fossil fuel production begins its inevitable decline, the social and economic effect will only be exacerbated by the fact that we have increased our dependency through the development and use of biofuels.

Only corporate greed could cause such crass and obscene promotion of a path that will only serve to make the crash more severe. The economic optimism used to promote ideas like biofuels is really a smoke screen thrown up to hide and detract from the profiteeing being done at the expense of the entire planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think you are right Posted by: Bobsays
What about hemp?
Posted by: Don Garb on Jun 25, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mention in the article about hemp seed oil, that's very strange don't you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: Spartan.Armor
» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: picket
» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Hemp: It makes a difference Posted by: leftoverbacon
» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» kaneh bosm, cannabis, hemp Posted by: garry minor
» RE: What about hemp? Posted by: Francis
People Don't Realize...
Posted by: Spartan.Armor on Jun 25, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Biofuels are technically possible, large scale use is not possible. one of the factors ignored in the article is the rising cost of products all across the board. Even something as simple as a pizza is gaining in cost as the rising cost of corn is passed down through the chain to consumers (Corn->Cow->Milk->Cheese->Pizza).

You can try to use any plant you like for biofuel production, but the bottom line is that too much oil is used.

There needs to be a massive shift in the way people move from A to B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: People Don't Realize... Posted by: Trazom
» RE: People Don't Realize... Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Green is clean
Posted by: jmndodge on Jun 25, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but only when use is determined by the supply, rather that attempting to supply our use. Firewood, warmed you on the several times before the ashes went out to the garden, but only the wealthy with lots of cash and servents had large homes, firewood was efficient because we limited use -- kept work areas cool, and sat close to the heat for evening rest. Bio fuel could help our energy needs, if it raised that awearness, and usage of energy was dramatically reduced. Green cannot support unlimited waste and greed in energy use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hypocrisy=GREEN
Posted by: richholland on Jun 25, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our Green euro politicians drive the same cars the neoconsdrive.

Food into your gastank is sick.
In Westerneurope we have the HIGH SPEED TRAINS to the major cities the compete with planes at 40% of the CO2

A capitalistic economical system is from the last century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hypocrisy=GREEN Posted by: Trazom
kb
Posted by: kjbkn on Jun 25, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the research to support your statements? I tend to agree with you, but without references to where your facts and figures come from... why should we believe that your article is not the hoax?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kb Posted by: Bozly
» RE: kb - Try logic. Posted by: heid
» RE: kb - Try logic. Posted by: Joeviocoe
better fuel than food
Posted by: snowhound on Jun 25, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Use the GM corn and soy as fuel and stop putting the garbage in our food. The sad thing is that they have the technology to build an electric car that many people would use but the oil industry still has trillions of dollars of oil still inside the earth to use up. All this alternative fuel nonsense is just a diversion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I don't mind hearing it.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Nuclear is no better. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Nuclear is no better. Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Nuclear is no better. Posted by: Gulliver
» RE: Nuclear is no better. Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Nuclear is no better. Posted by: Gulliver
» Haven't You Heard? Posted by: staicnoise
the great energy scam
Posted by: solrev on Jun 25, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual the interests groups are lobbying to get a piece of the pie. Agro-fuels cannot compete with oil for transportation energy. The oil boys know this the whole scenario is just a money scam. Only a third of our pollution comes from transportation, so why are we starting there? Why not go after the other two thirds and attack our smoke stacks. Let’s use the co2 there, grow some algae, make some bio diesel, as a short-term solution. This will also work in other countries where coal plants are the cheapest way to generate electricity. Doesn’t that qualify as solar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the great energy scam Posted by: Ben Furman
Food within biking distance...
Posted by: Farmertim on Jun 25, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anybody come across the value of food grown within a 10 mile radius of your home and the energy savings of that situation?
As a small biological/organic grower and provider of food I am very conscience of how much of a carbon footprint I am leaving growing my products.
I can't help but think if food was once again close by as it was 100 years ago it would offset a host of energy needs as well as fertilizer consumption given one could incorporate rotations as fertilizer instead of buying more oil to to the job.
Of course one would have to diversify and have animals in the mix but thats food too...
The core of the issue is that we need to stop for a while and rethink how we in this country live and rethink how to move things back to a localized food source, and not just see our cars as portals to anything, anytime we wish.
Communities need to begin to promote businesses that benifit a local supplier and not shift that tax deferment over to a mutinational for 6 years and then it pulls out to gain favor with another town with tax incentives.
It is up to us to rethink how we use the worlds resources, backs and health of poor nations peoples so we are truley sustainable not carried chicken back over the edge of ecological ruin..
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sixty seven hundred million apex techno-predators is just too damn many no matter what.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jun 25, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO enabling device for that many people!

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- even if we were all solar-powered bicycle-riding hemp-using vegan pacifists, we are STILL grotesquely unsustainably overpopulated.

Serious birth control will one day be the "DUH!!" humans finally stumble over.

In the meantime, keep grasping at straws! :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right you are. Posted by: Pat Kittle
Why do these discussions always tend to become black and white?
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on Jun 25, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is of course correct in stating that it would be impossible to cover our current fuel needs by biofuels. But that doesn't mean that the concept of biofuels is invalid, it merely means that our current fuel needs should be lowered (e.g. by using more energy-efficient cars).

Another point that the author makes is the use of fossil fuel based fertilizers in producing biofuels. This does not invalidate biofuels either. It merely shows that agriculture should become less dependant on artificial fertilizers. The organic residue from sewage plants could be used to fertilize the soil.
Agricultural equipment should of course run on biofuels as well.

Another idea would be to investigate the possibilities of double usage. Deep-frying fat can, after it has been discarded, be used to make bio-diesel.

But probably the most important point is that the acreage that is used to produce animal fodder is probably larger than the acreage that is used to grow consumer crops. If we would reduce our consumption of meat, we could use the freed acreage for growing biofuel.

After all, it's about the choices that we are willing to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Population Control Posted by: Veronique
» Thanks PK Posted by: Veronique
» Veronique, I apologize. Posted by: Pat Kittle
Our whole way of life is Unsubstainable
Posted by: DrSuess on Jun 25, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live 10 minutes from where I work, near the downtown. A few months ago, I had to pick up a friend who needed help, and so I drove towards the suburbs at morning rush hour on the interstate. The other side of the interstate was a mass of cars of every description heading towards the downtown. It was mind boggling to see how many cars were heading downtown at rush hour- probably going to work. I don’t know how many millions of gallons of gas was burned that one morning alone.
There are abandoned houses in the downtown, but people would rather move to the suburbs, kill some trees in building a new house, and then spend $50 a week on gasoline to get to work. This is currently the “American Way”.
Some months ago, there was an article on the death of the suburbs on AlterNet. High gas prices are eventually going to kill the suburbs and the morning and evening rush hours. The question is when, not whether. We are spending more and more on less sustainable projects. It is a question of time before the folly of this becomes blindingly apparent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs Corn Flakes???
Posted by: picket on Jun 25, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush Family have ethanol business interests with South America. Google Jeb Bush and ethanol.

Corn Wars Rage in Mexico...Biofuels push the source of cheap nutrition out of reach....corn flour has risen 400%. Tortillas became so unaffordable that people took to the streets.

http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/211050

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environement, Green and Oil
Posted by: EinMD on Jun 25, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, screw Ethanol. Look up Butanol. It's only slightly less powerful as gas, can be distilled from plants like Ethanol and it can be sent through pipes because it doesn't have a problem with water and most internal combustion engines can use it without any modifications.

Second of all as far as the 'green panic' you're describing, ultimately we need non-poluting vehicles. But that isn't going to happen any time soon. Electric cars aren't going to happen because the automotive industry keeps blocking them. THere's a compressed air powered Air Car in production in France, but you're not going to see it over here because there's no money in it's production. H2 tech is still a -long- way away and while solar and wind power are cropping up occasionally they're not ready to take a decent share of power generation. Nuclear's still around ( and I support it ) but people are too affraid of another CHernobyl or a Jack Bauer scenario to allow a nuke plant in their neighborhood.

We've got to do something because Oil isn't getting any cheaper or more common and every war we start to get more only succeeds in further limiting the supply. Producing fuel from renewable sources such as woodchips, grass clippings, recycled wood waste from buildings, and other sources of growing things - still - outweighs Oil in the fact that oil is going to be gone some time very soon and it's not going to come back unless someone invents a time travelling Jurasic park. But using plant material we can grow more each season and the technology will improve over time. So all your arguments about how much energy expenditure you need to get a gallon of Ethanol ( and we sthould still be using Butanol ) are so much hot air. As technology improves the cost will drop, unlike with oil. You don't need to replace food crops with fuel crops. All it takes is some plant waste and some bacterial fermentation. So you can have your food and power your car with it too.

In fact that only major problem with Butanol that I've been able to uncover is that being only 7% soluble in water you really don't want it in your water supply since it's considered toxic. But then, you don't want Gasoline in your water supply either do ya?

So should we stop farming food? No, but we can use advanced farming techniques and use the inedible materials from what we harvest to create fuel. Turn waste products into a usable solution is a good idea and a hell of a lot better than just continuing the way we are and sticking our head in the oil soaked sand. Which is what all these 'anti green' types that keep cropping up seem to want - the status quo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goin' Green - full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing
Posted by: Trazom on Jun 25, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to laugh when I see these goals, with timescales on the order of 10-15 years. Ten percent of all fuel consumed will be bio-based by 2020? Are you kidding me?

Do these Einsteins really think this is going to make all that much of a difference? All it is going to do is line the pockets of a few more multinationals and conglomerates (and policians).

Here's a hint. Look at how our society has changed in the past 7 years. Ok, now what do you think it will look like in another 13? Who are they kidding?

People having to drive to work long distances from the suburbs? By that point globalization and outsourcing will long have since extinguished those jobs, taking care of that nicely. And if it doesn't, the coming economic financial/credit calamity that awaits us all will surely put a crimp in filling up the gas tanks.

Don't count on anything changing, except the increasing prices at the pump that will still enslave us except for the lucky few who have figured out self-sufficiency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real world consequences destroy idealistic slogans
Posted by: saml on Jun 25, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, 5 years ago you people were screaming about alternative energy sources and how Big Oil is killing them not to have competition. All the while you were not realizing that things in real world don't always happened because of some conspiracy theory, and any action has a reaction and consequences. Now you got a real world lesson in do-good'ing. When you try to do something good without understanding the consequences (like switching to more economical and cheaper bio fuel) you get horrible results.

There is a great saying any lefty should keep in mind: Be careful what you witch for - you just might get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's always the future
Posted by: Art on Jun 25, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will burn the planet and when the last log has gone into the last fire we will walk into the endless desert and disappear...

Hey, there'll be new plants and animals in a few million years. God knows how often this has happened all over the universe.

Will the cockroaches and ants slug it out in a bid for world domination? Will they have archeologists? Develop cars and industry even? Oops, here we go again. But a few million years later...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only a step in the right direction
Posted by: marid on Jun 25, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The naysayers of ethanol mostly ignore the most important trait of ethanol. That would be that it is a step in the right direction, only a step, not the answer. Without the first step we get nowhere. Who knows where the journey will end but it is one we have to embark on, NOW not later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Only a step in the right direction Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, Posted by: Joeviocoe
Here we go again
Posted by: willymack on Jun 25, 2007 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time alternative evergy or renewable resources are mentioned, it comes down to BURNING THIS OR THAT. We're hung up on using thermal energy for propulsion and electricity. This is not only highly inefficient, but expensive to produce (with the exception of our rapidly dwindling petroleum resources) and polluting. I'd like to know what research, if any, is being conducted that doesn't involve setting something afire. Don't count on the oil & coal industries for any help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE SOLAR BUDGET
Posted by: eggnog2464 on Jun 25, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biofeuls are low-density energy; according to "Weather-makers" we are currently consuming about 450 years worth of solar energy per year by burning high-density enegry sources with the resulatant increase in CO2 levels. I don't know how much low-density energy we would need to replace our high-density energy but I imagine that there isn't enough land on the planet to supply our annual energy requirements.

The only way to preserve our civilization is to radically cut back on consumption and reduce our population. After the recent G8 session, I gave up. No future for us or our civilization. My only hope that GW lives long enough to see his beloved Crawford turn to sand and dust (and even that is of little solace)....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar +wind is the answer
Posted by: pre-emptive impeachment on Jun 25, 2007 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know how much low-density energy we would need to replace our high-density energy but I imagine that there isn't enough land on the planet to supply our annual energy requirements.

Actually there's way more than enough land.

First it is important to distinguish between PV and solar thermal. PV or photovoltaics are usually silicon based cells, usually what comes to mind when people hear solar power.

Solar thermal on the otherhand has no solar collecting silicon. Instead it is either parabolic or spherical mirrors that focus the sun on a pipe that is usually carrying oil of some sort. A very simplified look shows that the heated oil then goes through a heat exchanger, which then heats steam, which is then fed into turbines which produce electricity. Very similar to every other power plant, just instead of using coal or natural gas to heat the steam it is using the sun for energy.
After the oil passes through the heat exchanger it is sent back out to be heated again, so none of the oil is burned as it is a closed loop.

Well in my solar engineering class we did some number crunching. The world consumes about 400 quads of energy. Interestingly the US alone consumes about 100 quads, or 1/4 of the worlds energy. Anyway, the amount of solar energy hitting New york State alone, assuming 7 hours of sunlight for 365 days a year is about 800 quads, or twice as much as the world consumes. Well that sounds mighty fantastic. But current large scale solar thermal and photovoltaics are in the ballpark of 20% efficient, which means we need an area 5 times the size of new york, or an area about the size of texas, or in the grand scheme of things 0.0000013% of the total land to meet the world's energy needs. Well, that still sounds mighty fantastic. It is important to mention, there are solar thermal systems set up with stirling engines that are 40% efficient, but I am unsure about efficiency upon massive upscaling (the ones I found were on the order of 1KW, which isn't very much).

When the sun isn't shining, say at night or during bad weather, wind power could be used as a back-up. There are also other energy storage devices such as batteries and hydrogen (through electrolysis) that could be used fuel cells, nanotechnology may (keyword is 'may' so please don't take that as a fact) play a big role increasing the energy density of batteries. Someone in New Jersey actually has a solar house with hydrogen fuel cell back up.

As for cars, tesla motors just released an all electric car with a range of 250 miles and 0-60 in about 3 seconds. GM had their electric car. So the technology is there, and the clean energy source, being solar and wind is also there. Also, just a side not. Even though our power plant system is pretty pollutive, it is less pollutive than gasoline and diesel, so it would be better, still not the best, to run our cars off electriciy instead of gas.

There is also passive solar and cooling that virtually eliminates the need for a mechanical HVAC system, saving oil and it's derivatives as well as electricity. If included in the design process or during a massive renovation, it adds minimal cost to the house.

So for solar thermal you are still going to need glass, metals, plastics, and oil (it may be possible to use a different energy transporter though). Theretically, it would seem that many of the building components could come from recycled good. Besides maintenance it's more or less a one time expenditure, unlike fossil fuels where you have to keep feeding fuel of some sort into the power plant. Which implies when looking at it in terms of it's life-cycle it will produce very little pollution when compared to fossil fuel power plants. Plus We are going to have a very difficult time finding something that uses zero resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» very nicely summarized! Posted by: counterpoint
The Real Hoax: industrial agriculture and the green revolution
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 25, 2007 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Replace 'agro-fuels' in the above article with 'agriculture' and you have a far bigger myth, that for some reason people are suddenly wild-eyed with concern over - the myth of the productivity of industrial agriculture.

Some of the comments above refer to population (an obvious limitation to growth in an enclosed space - like a planet's surface). Why has population grown so much? The most common explanation is that fossil fuels and industrial agriculture have provided food for people.

However, did people used to die of starvation in the past, in vast numbers? No. The main killer was infectious disease, which was poorly understood. When antibiotics and hygiene came along, many people who would otherwise have died in childhood ended up surviving and having children.

Industrial agriculture is a dead end, which has been shown by only half a century or so of the practive. Huge amounts of fossil fuels go into fertilzers, herbicides, pesticides, farm equipment, transportation and storage. The soil ends up stripped of all nutrients, but will recover given time.

If you want to have sustainable biofuels, you need sustainable agriculture, which means getting agriculture off fossil fuels. This is entirely possible using existing technologies (solar, wind, electric engines, etc.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vegetable Oil?
Posted by: electricwind on Jun 25, 2007 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised in all the heated debate here that no one has mentioned vegetable oil for diesel engines. It was the original purpose of Diesel to provide a non-petroleum-based engine for Germany after oil shortages following WWII. It seems like a good transitional technology until quantum physics can be applied to the problem and invent something completely new...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not nice to screw Mother Nature. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 25, 2007 10:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this article and others point to is that our problems go far beyond arguing about what form of biofuel is best or how we can consume and still be "green": it speaks to the fact that our western world-view – that the world is here for us to do with what we will (say: rape) – is seriously warped, and that there are simply too many of us.

These problems were being discussed in "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich, "The Limits to Growth," The Club of Rome, and others more than thirty years – THIRTY YEARS! – ago.

What both saddens me and fills me with dread for my children is that the very-same arguments, obfuscation and denial that greeted the work of those visionaries then are still operating today, even as we stare into the abyss.

In all of our cleverness and complication and what passes for civilization, we have not become wise, and that will be our undoing. We are on the same evolutionary path as the Dodo – and, like the Dodo, we're too dumb to know it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Modest Biofuel Proposal
Posted by: RedAaron on Jun 26, 2007 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about every day randomly selecting 10,000 people from the highest-consuming one percent of the world's population and rendering them into fat to be used as fuel?

One could argue that it wouldn't contribute much to the world's energy supply, but think of what it would do to reduce consumption!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Modest Biofuel Proposal Posted by: Pat Kittle
stop the USAarmy
Posted by: richholland on Jun 26, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much gas is spoiled by unnecessary army activities?????
If the 10.000 richest people in the states tomorrow die ..
nothing will change.
If tomorrow 10.000 nurses die the country is in trouble...

In Schweden 85% of the gas at the station is made of woodpulp..in Europe we think to burn food in your car is sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we need is to get Congress Moving
Posted by: Vascabruta on Jun 26, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this very Interesting Editorial from the Daytona News Journal.
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ethanol crap
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Jun 28, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need is a non combustion fuel that is earth friendly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 5 Myths
Posted by: Joeviocoe on Jun 28, 2007 8:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is an interesting read, so I will take a few hours reading and researching its points:

The first paragraph alone shows its bias. No one with half a brain calls Biofuels a "replacement". The IPCC may be just a political wing for environmentalist, but they are some very serious scientist nonetheless. They ARE politically motivated but it doesn't take a genius to know that there is NO Replacement for our "growing exponentially" energy needs. Thats why it is a problem.

The word HOAX is subjective to what is being advertised. The first part of the article focuses on destroying the idea of "abundance". This is agreeable to me because when I say renewable, people hear abundant. If I have a solar array on my house, the energy is renewable. I can count on it being there pretty much forever, everyday 100 kwh per day consistently. Abundances getting as much energy to feed my growing need as if I could turn up the sun's output on my array. They are NOT the same. They say the same thing about global warming affecting the "global south". That UN mandated restrictions on pollution harm people in Africa by making electricity more expensive and forcing people to cook with open flame indoors (see the Great Global Warming Swindle) http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U

Okay.. Myth 1
Firstly, I hate statistics with hard numbers that don't have sources. Even at the bottom of Wiki pages you can find references to lookup, may not be worth anything but still.

Both examples of palm oil and ethanol crops were stated with clearing tropical rainforests to plant. That is obviously the most energy intensive way to make biofuel. Also, to clear land and deforest requires energy. The author probably counted the energy consumption to clear the land and automotive using gasoline since most heavy equipment does not use the biofuels (farmers don't use what they plan on selling for profit: see microeconomics). So they are dirtier than they need to be.

Lifecycle is a very interesting concept. Did the author count only the Carbon costs of the first gallon of biofuel versus the first gallon of gasoline. The point here would be the main benefit of the word "Renewable". The first gallon or barrel of product will be very expensive then you make good on production by producing more and more. The problem with petroleum is the SHORT lifecycle. Those "convienient numbers" like "50 percent more greenhouse gases" seems thrown together.

Clearing topical forest is a one time venture and is included but building the oil drilling infrastructure was not. C'MON.

Oil discovered, land or sea prep, drilling derek, pump, and/or platform, then the cost of operation. That is not energy free. The author probably did NOT take into account the energy costs beginning from finding the oil. He most likely just counted the production cost. Like refining and transportation.

Deforestation: One time
Burning: One time
Peat: Anually and only in wetland crops
(Peat is a fossil fuel and is also considered to be a biomass fuel)

I agree on the use of Petroluem Based Fertilizers to slowdown the release of NOx. Since NOx is 296 (not 300) times worse of a greenhouse gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 5 Myths (continued)
Posted by: Joeviocoe on Jun 28, 2007 8:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottom line on myth #1 is that it is far worse to keep building oil drilling platforms for every oil field found when the oil will simply run out and require more platforms to be built. Since fossil fuels are not renewable, the oil that IS found will continue to be harder to get to, less quality (sour crude), and require more energy to get and process. The high costs of biofuel production today will continue to reap benefits as long as the land stays fertile with water and natural fertilizer. The author's point is based on the worse case senario of biofuel (deforest rainforest using the worse methods) versus the best case for gasoline (just production and distrobution costs) in a short term span giving gasoline the advantage.

Myth 2
Easy. Damn Brazilians. Money talks I'm afraid. The same thing goes for the Colombian cartels using thier leverage over farmers and land to gain profits. American forests are safe for now thanks to strict EPA, Dept. of Interior, and conservationalist. This is not so different from trying to drill for oil in ANWAR.

Myth 3
Yeah, BIG Oil again.... Gotta move fast. Those with power will only want to keep it. That, unfortunately is no different here. For now, you can buy from local producers. And you can make the stuff yourself with the proper stuff.

Myth 4
Who thought that! Everything you do causes hunger. The problem is much more indepth than most realize. Crops grown in the US are not shipped to Africa. When it is (Somalia 1993) the damn warlords gave it to soldiers instead of the starving people.

Myth 5
Well this one requires more thought. Some plants require more time and energy to yield a certain amount of gallons with a certain amount of energy density. The best plant is dependent on the soil and climate. There is no super biofuel plant. Some will be better than others in converting nutrients, water, and sunlight into biofuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 5 Myths (continued) Posted by: Joeviocoe
GREEN GREEN OK OK
Posted by: richholland on Jul 2, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In WesternEurope greenparties have power and they advocate the use of GREEN electricity.
Millions of people changed into GREEN.
So we save peak oil.
To day we learn 1/3 comes from France out of atomic factories, 1/3 from palmpits.
To grow these trees in Indonesia and Malesia they killed the apes (and some natives) and destroyed the rainforest

How stupid green leftis can be??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GREEN GREEN OK OK Posted by: Joeviocoe
It all started back in early 1900's
Posted by: tchii on Jul 2, 2007 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the big stomp stamp bing bang boom happened circa 1937 when Hemp was made illegal. Hemp could be used as an alternative fuel instead of a commodity such as corn, as well as a source for paper, high grade machine oil, wood pulp, plastic (the list is 25000 items long) as well as providing one of the best alternate crops to rotate because the roots go so deep and hemp replenishes the soil and has few if any natural enemies (bugs). It's absolutely insane that this plant is not used to it's fullest potential at this time.
But we have to make sure DuPont et. al. keep their profits up, even at the expense of our country/people/citizens/children.
Yes this is an extremely fuelish country. Of course hemp, perhaps because it would be so helpful to the individual farmers out there, is not even considered at this point because idiots, who didn't know any better, made it illegal (they were and still are call congressmen) and a fair number of them didn't even know what they were voting for (you see it was call marijhuana at the time and the idiots didn't know what that was), so you can see that our congress (we voted for these people?) has pretty much not changed since at least the later 1930's, as they vote to take away your rights, pork barrel their friends and screw the middle class...all without even completely reading the bills they are passing!

Namaste

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2&nb