Biofuels: Salvation or Stall?

A while back I did a report on Bio-fuels for my college English class. I went in thinking it was a great idea (this was in the early days of An Inconvenient Truth). By the time I was finished, I had changed my opinion completely, which says a lot because I can be pretty thick skulled at times. The whole bio-fuel thing seems to me to be a way for the government to appease this whole global warming fad, while preserving corporate interests, especially big oil without changing anything.

I am not going to bring up the statistics or other facts I got from my research because:

a) Its a lot of work and it wont help my point that much anyways

b) Knowing ATS the way I do, it will give those who are pro-bio-fuel something to nit-pick about without really saying something one way or the other.

I will start by saying I'm not trying to change minds as much as bring this to the table, because the majority of the population seems to be fine with the idea, and I would like to see what other people have to say, one way or the other.

First of all, does it not make logical sense that if we start using out stable foods (wheat, corn etc) to produce fuel, this will lower our supply of food. This will of course raise prices, which has already effected Mexico, but also effect our worlds food supply, which is already too low to keep everyone in the world properly fed. (Now I admit there has been research into using different plants, even algae. But this means using arable land that could be used for growing food crops to grow these other plants, or to use unbearable land, which would use massive amounts of energy, often less then we will gain from burning the fuel later. Either way we lose food land for fuel land).

This stuff takes a lot to make a little. If the entire corn crop of the US was used to make bio-fuel, it would only account for something like 10-25% of the fuel, the exact numbers don't matter, because using the entire corn crop wouldn't be the best idea in the world if it was 100%.

Bio-fuels still pollute. Although those in favor say they are carbon neutral (because in theory, the CO2 released from burning the fuel, is reabsorbed by the next crop of bio-fuels) this is not the case. It may work in theory, but missed a lot. The energy used in growing, transporting and processing the plants and turning them into fuel. Fertilizer needs energy to be produced. The plants have to be farmed, using energy in a variety of ways. The raw crop then has to be transported to a refinery. It then takes energy to refine the raw plants into suitable fuels, whether bio-ethanol or bio-diesel. This product then has to be transported to gas stations for consumption by the average consumer. By the time this is all said and done, we have already used up more energy then will be generated by that fuel once combusted.

Not only that but that point it still has to be mixed with fuel from 5% - 25% (the highest ration I've heard) of bio-fuel that will work in a conventional engine with no side effects to the vehicle. The rest is still petroleum based.

Deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia has increased to clear room not for food crops, but for sugar cane, to be used to make biofuel.

Bio-fuels IMO seem to be us doing something about climate change and the energy crisis without having to change anything. It doesn't really help, and actually increases environmental harm (those same forests being cleared to grow Bio-fuels also, in their natural sate absorb WAY WAY WAY more CO2 from the atmosphere then sugar cane ever will). But by the same token we don't have to change a damn thing in our lives

This is not all of the arguments against Bio-fuels, and to be honest I probably haven't pointed all the arguments for it. I'm not doing this OP to prove my point, but more to initiate a discussion, and maybe learn something myself. We do need some kind of change one way or another.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by Tenebrous]

Hate to respond to my own thread, but considering the massive amount of investment for biol-fuels to get off the ground, wouldn't it be easier to simply use electric cars, off a grid uses only wind, solar, hydro-electric, thermal or even nuclear power. That would be carbon free, and would stimulate the economy. Think of the huge tracks of desert in the world, even densely packed countries like the US and China, couldn't we cover those otherwise useless with solar panels?

The idea that biofuel must come from corn is an utter disaster in addition to being dead wrong.

All of the grasses cut alongside roadways in the USA, Canada, UK etc can be turned into biofuel.

If you have a grass lawn, your grass cuttings could be used for biofuel.

There is also technology to turn human waste into biofuel (and Lord knows we have enough of that in Ottawa, Washington and Westminster for the whole world).

Grass can be used, but it has a very low conversion rate for mass to energy conversion rate. Why do you think grazers such as cows spend the majority of their waking life eating? Not only that but it lacks mass in general. You need a lot of grass clippings to equal the mass of a single ear of corn.

The human waste idea I like. Perhaps the methane produced by dumps as well?