Yesterday I detailed what seems to be a slow demise of nuclear power and today I will touch upon the possibility of biofuels as a future source of “greener” energy. As you know, biofuels (particularly grain ethanol) have come under fire recently. I have even soured a bit on the prospects of grain ethanol, even though I know many people in the industry and know that they have good intentions. Now a bigger hitter than myself is weighing in – the World Bank. The World Bank has called for an end to biofuel subsidies in order to increase food security and lower the price of grains. I know that ethanol proponents can produce studies that show very little effect on the price of food, but if grains were not being used for ethanol they would certainly be available to feed animals or people.
It has also been found that biofuels are not as “green” as thought at first glance. A recent study that looked at the airline industry found that depending on what biofuel was used and where it came from, it could be up to 10 times worse for the environment than traditional fossil fuels. The simple fact is that oil is still very easily drawn from the ground sometimes refined very nearby AND these locations are often near major airports. When you factor in growing a biofuel crop, making the fuel, and all the transportation to get the fuel to the airplanes, many biofuels just aren’t as “green” as originally hoped.
Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.
Posted under Alternative Energy
This post was written by jloew on June 16, 2011
Yes it is a bit of a pickle that biofuel does take away from food crops.
The point was made yesterday in regards to energy and how it needs to be decentralized, which it most definately does, and it is the same problem with the ag system that leads to biofuels being unattainable.
Petroleum based fertilizers in addition to toxic pesticides and aviancides, are really the only way to manage large scale “factory farms”. Large conglomerates such as Cargill and Monsanto own them, and drive out the little guy because they simply can not compete with these corporate powerhouses, who most definately do not play fair.
Large monocropped farms are more cost effective (although part of that is gov’t subsidies that could be better directed), but they certainly are not better. They are wholly unsustainable, even for food production, for the simple fact of how much oil is used in the fertilizers, as well as the farm equipment, and then the fuel to ship food long distances to a centralized distribution center.
Add biofuels into the equation and it becomes even more untenable. Smaller family farms are the answer because then the land can actually be managed by natural methods and by people, not gas guzzling machines, and large amounts of chemicals. Proper management of farmland is key if biofuels are ever going to be viable.
The other half of the conundrum is what all the corn we grow is used for. The majority goes for further refining into HFCS, which in combination with other refined sugars and sugar substitutes, is a pox on American health. The other portion of corn production goes to feed livestock, which again is inefficient because cattle especially can eat grass, why do we go to all the trouble of growing corn if they can eat the cover crops that pop up with out any effort at all? My point is that so much of the corn we grow is flat out wasted.
If that waste were to stop, than I think biofuels definately could work, especially if we really put our minds to upping fuel efficiency in cars. I mean really I know how to get 100 miles to the gallon out of a lawnmower engine and a few alternators. Surely the engineers at the car companies can do better.
The ag system has to be overhauled. It should be anyway. The car companies need to get out of bed with the oil companies. There may be more of a chance of pigs flying, but that’s due to greed, not it being impossible.
And by the way, I like the topics lately:)