UN Warns Of Biofuels' Environmental Risk

[Jai Dee]

UN Warns of Biofuels' Environmental Risk

The world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.

Speaking at a regional forum on bioenergy, Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries.

However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls _ many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

"Biofuels have become a flash point through which a wide range of social and environmental issues are currently being played out in the media," Suzuki told delegates at the forum, sponsored by the U.N. and the Thai government.

Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

She also said China and India could face worsening water shortages because biofuels require large amounts of water, while forests in Indonesia and Malaysia could face threats from the expansion of palm oil plantations.

"Particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, land availability is a critical issue," Suzuki said. "There are clear comparative advantages for tropical and subtropical countries in growing biofuel feed stocks but it is often these same countries in which resource and land rights of vulnerable groups and protected forests are weakest."

Initially, biofuels were held up as a panacea for countries struggling to cope with the rising cost of oil or those looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, for example, plans to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuels made from energy crops such as sugar cane and rapeseed oil by 2020.

But in recent months, scientists, private agencies and even the British government have said biofuels could do more harm than good. Rather than protecting the environment, they say energy crops destroy natural forests that actually store carbon and thus are a key tool in the fight to reduce global warming.

Some of those doubts were on display Wednesday at the U.N. forum, with experts saying many countries in Asia have rolled out plans to mandate biofuels for transport without weighing the potential risks.

Thailand, for example, is considering delaying the introduction of diesel blended with 2 percent biofuel for two months until April because of palm oil shortages, while the Philippines is considering shelving a biofuels law over concerns about the negative environmental effects.

India is facing criticism that its plans to plant 30 million acres of jatropha trees by 2012 for biofuel could force communities from their land and worsen deforestation. There are also concerns that it will be unable to find the 100 million acres of vacant land it needs to grow the shrub-like plants.

Varghese Paul, a forest and biodiversity expert with the Energy and Resources Institute in India, said dependence on a single species is dangerous.

"An outbreak of pests and diseases could wipe out entire plantations in one stroke," Paul said.

Source: Fox News - 24 January 2008

[TAWP]

The (pushed) switch to ethanol in cars is going to be considered to biggest failure of forward thinking in 20 years of time.

[Martin]

I agree, 'TAWP'.

Bio-fuels have been a red herring, diverting attention away from facing the fact that individuals, communities, and nations will have to kick their addiction to petroleum-based fuels.

The great stumbling block is that Governments are giving no lead (and not even a warning) to their citizens, because they don't want to upset their electorates ahead of the next time that they will be asking for votes. So they turn a blind eye, hoping 'it won't happen till after my watch'.

For many oil-importing countries, crunch time is near.

The major exporters are having a hard time trying to keep up the production from the big fields which are now depleting, and are also using more of their production for themselves. So the amount available for export is being doubly-squeezed. Hence it requires offers of $90 or more per barrel to get them to sell for export.

Oil is being rationed by price, with many Third World would-be users left out.

Next we will start seeing groups in the 'developed' nations suffering 'fuel poverty'.

The market price of oil may drop a bit with recession causing less demand, but the recession itself means that some won't have the money to buy, even at the lower price (especially if they are having to pay more for their food because of this economically-stupid push for ethanol).

Ethanol production also threatens to cause bad environmental effects, as the article says, but it looks as if the economic ones will bite first.

[Seneque]

Besides environment risks which is probably right, biofuel production will lead to an extensive food shortage ... therefore to a dramatic increases in food prices and the Thai Governement will still ask stall's food vendor to refrain from incresing their prices above 30 baht a dish ....!

[brahmburgers]

My messaget to the UN; can you spell c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n ?

The UN, in its usual plodding way, has begun to see the reality - that bio fuels are, at best, a so-so solution to gluttonous worldwide energy consumption.

As for Thailand, it's years behind the curve. Plastic bags are ubiquitous, air-con blasts within every indoor space in every city - regardless of need or whether it's cool outside. It's not good enough to cool hot air, Thais have to have it frigid. Full blast, just like when they amplify music. or shout in microphones - roving advert vehicles, whatever. (ok, I'm ranting off topic)

There are a bunch of low-cost sensible ways to conserve energy. To name just one: I've set up a re-cycled metal water tank outside the ext. wall of my bathroom. Painted it black and run the water source through it on to my shower. Even on cloudy days, it pre-heats a bit. If just 10% of dwellings in Thailand had pre-heat solar for shower water - that would be considerable energy savings.

If anyone reading this has low-tech ideas for lowering their electric bills, please drop me a message. Am putting together a booklet of such things. I don't mind assisting if someone else writes the bulk of it.

[Scott]

I recently inherited a sizeable amount of farmland, which is now rented out. Sure is nice to get those hefty grain checks. But of course it won't last because farmers--especially in places like Asia, are at the bottom of the 'food chain' so to speak. We can't have them getting rich!

[ace]

Yeh, well done UN. Even a bunch of geezers on a message board in Thailand know better than you (serious, not being sarcastic). I wonder how many millions in comitees, meetings, consultancies, etc that dumb-ass decision cost. Got to agree with the Americans, UN is a waste of space. Having worked for government organizations I can say IMO they're all as bad, bogged down by bueacratic non-performers who can't get a job in the real world and are s*it scared of ever making anything like a decision in case they lose the game of musical chairs and their job because of dumb decisions like this one. It's why I have no 2nd thoughts about avoiding as much tax as possible.

This issue needs forward thinkers. Basically, they've gone ethanol because it keeps 2 lobbies happy:

1. Oil - they can mix in ethanol with their current business model and infrastructure thus almost no cost and extend the big oil model another 100 years.

2. Farming - new crop, more $.

It's the path of least resistance.

[stumonster]

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

will the political moneygrabbers in Thailand continue their push for Biofuels - of course

[Galong]

Besides environment risks which is probably right, biofuel production will lead to an extensive food shortage ... therefore to a dramatic increases in food prices and the Thai Governement will still ask stall's food vendor to refrain from incresing their prices above 30 baht a dish ....!

Not true!

The proof:

1. There is a surplus of food! US farmers, for example, are paid NOT to grow food. The problem isn't a shortage of food, it's one of uneven distribution. And, there is no food shortage in Thailand whatsoever.

A. See here

B. And here

C. And here

D. Or just type in "farmers paid not to grow food" in Google

2. Have you ever driven around southern Thailand? Most of the jungle has been clear-cut to plant rubber trees. People don't eat rubber. If there was really a food shortage, the rubber plantations could be converted to food crops.

3. Tobacco is not a food crop and it takes up a lot of land. Coffee, as much as I like it, is not really a food crop and it too takes up a lot of land that could be used for biofuel.

4. Land is being wasted to feed cattle. It takes ten times the amount of corn, for example, to grow one pound of beef as it does to simply supply the ten pounds of corn as food. In other words, if we're talking about facts, beef farming is a huge waste of land... land that could be used to grow plant food crops. There are other 'meat' animals that produce a much higher yield per acre than beef, so if you're in the "I can't live without meat" camp, you don't have to do without it.

Biofuel, if done correctly, could be the saving grace. The problem is when moronic government programs use food crops (corn) instead of much better biofuel crops, such as Jathropa (higher yield per volume) or algae, for the oil source. Furthermore, Jathropa can grow on marginal land, such as all of the land in Thailand and elsewhere, that has been strip-mined. Corn farmers are a strong lobbying group and of course they want to make as much profit as possible. There's probably more money for them if they sell their corn for fuel instead of food... especially since some are paid not to grow their crops by the various governments.

I fear that the oil companies are behind bad/false information to try and get the citizens of the world to rally against biofuel. There is no real serious argument against converting that I've ever heard.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Galong

[Galong]

My messaget to the UN; can you spell c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n ?

The UN, in its usual plodding way, has begun to see the reality - that bio fuels are, at best, a so-so solution to gluttonous worldwide energy consumption.

As for Thailand, it's years behind the curve. Plastic bags are ubiquitous, air-con blasts within every indoor space in every city - regardless of need or whether it's cool outside. It's not good enough to cool hot air, Thais have to have it frigid. Full blast, just like when they amplify music. or shout in microphones - roving advert vehicles, whatever. (ok, I'm ranting off topic)

There are a bunch of low-cost sensible ways to conserve energy. To name just one: I've set up a re-cycled metal water tank outside the ext. wall of my bathroom. Painted it black and run the water source through it on to my shower. Even on cloudy days, it pre-heats a bit. If just 10% of dwellings in Thailand had pre-heat solar for shower water - that would be considerable energy savings.

If anyone reading this has low-tech ideas for lowering their electric bills, please drop me a message. Am putting together a booklet of such things. I don't mind assisting if someone else writes the bulk of it.

Spot on, Brahmburger! I'd add that there could be more efficient vehicles as well. The fuel economy of most vehicles on the road could be greatly increased. The size of vehicles could definitely be modified.

How many times do you see folks driving around in vehicles that are way bigger than necessary? In other words, folks driving around by themselves in a big Fortuner instead of taking a Honda Dream are wasting a precious resource.

Every time I visit my home country I'm shocked by the number of huge vehicles - Hummers, Ford F350s, big SUVs, vans, etc. No one seems really concerned about conservation because it means doing a bit of sacrifice... and God forbid that someone has to actually do something for the greater good.

[BSJ]

Hi Galong, Jatropha provides the biggest yield per hectare by a long margin. Corn or rapeseed to ethanol is so bloody stupid it defies belief! A lot of large vehicles like Hummer should be running on LPG....or you can't have one! Hydrogen kits (reduce petrol use 25%) are available for cars and light trucks. They help reduce the need for petrol but need to be set up right. And there are a good number of carpetbaggers out there who are taking advantage of people by selling supposed kits that are totally useless.

Here in Oz the weather is kind enough to us Aussies so we can utilise the benefits of the sun to heat our hot water. The take-up rate is now increasing on solar assisted instals. I would imagine it would be a great benefit in LOS. Not everbody will use brahmburgers novel solution but I applaud him for his experiment!

Can you get an evacuated tube solar heating set-up in LOS? There are lots of manufacturers around the world, does LOS have any importers?

Is there a compehensive business directory anyone can recommend? I would like to look that up!

Edited July 6, 2008 by BSJ

[h90]

In Austria are also (now stopping) paid to NOT grow food. To activate that land won't bring much but maybe 1 % ethanol in the gasoline.

[Galong]

Hi Galong, Jatropha provides the biggest yield per hectare by a long margin. Corn or rapeseed to ethanol is so bloody stupid it defies belief! A lot of large vehicles like Hummer should be running on LPG....or you can't have one! Hydrogen kits (reduce petrol use 25%) are available for cars and light trucks. They help reduce the need for petrol but need to be set up right. And there are a good number of carpetbaggers out there who are taking advantage of people by selling supposed kits that are totally useless.

Here in Oz the weather is kind enough to us Aussies so we can utilise the benefits of the sun to heat our hot water. The take-up rate is now increasing on solar assisted instals. I would imagine it would be a great benefit in LOS. Not everbody will use brahmburgers novel solution but I applaud him for his experiment!

Can you get an evacuated tube solar heating set-up in LOS? There are lots of manufacturers around the world, does LOS have any importers?

Is there a compehensive business directory anyone can recommend? I would like to look that up!

I'm not familiar with 'evacuated tube solar', but I'm of course interested. I'll research that... thanks for the idea. The 360 degree design certainly does makes sense.

My brother just sent me a link to two interesting sites on compressed air cars. Check out this car from India and this air car site. Pretty interesting stuff. Of course, unless big business can make outrageous profit from building these, I doubt it'll ever become reality.

Hey h90, thanks for letting us know that Austria is being rather silly too. Paid not to grow food... wow, what will they think of next.

[TAWP]

Hey h90, thanks for letting us know that Austria is being rather silly too. Paid not to grow food... wow, what will they think of next.

Actually, that is the same throughout all of EU.

[h90]

Hey h90, thanks for letting us know that Austria is being rather silly too. Paid not to grow food... wow, what will they think of next.

Actually, that is the same throughout all of EU.

Well it had some ideas behind. Reducing the production while keeping the relative small farmer structures. It is good for the land if it gets a brake.

But there are some very strange things going on. big farmers (actually one of my friends) rents land from other farmer with the purpose of NOT growing food on it

But the last years I was in Thailand, i don't know how much it changed.

I see a direct change from whining that we have too many farmer, too much farming land, too low food prices, too much production but no customer to whining that the prices are too high, not enough food, etc etc.

I think both is not true.

At: "Hey h90, thanks for letting us know that Austria is being rather silly too. ". well the party which most farmer vote for is since ages in government now.

The Austrian way of vote buying. And the best is, it is complete legal. So don't call it silly.

Silly Thaksin gives the farmer 200 Baht from his own money to get elected.

Austria made the smart "if you sit at home and DON'T work, we pay you, if you vote for us" scheme...thats brilliant isn't it?

(some greedy taxpayer who finance that may not agree)

[TAWP]

Well, a lot of the money is directly from the EU.

The money to farmers from the EU is the biggest single subside payout in the EUs budget.

[rken]

Besides environment risks which is probably right, biofuel production will lead to an extensive food shortage ... therefore to a dramatic increases in food prices and the Thai Governement will still ask stall's food vendor to refrain from incresing their prices above 30 baht a dish ....!

Not nessarilly if you make the fuel from algae. algae can be farmed on land and water that is not useful for anything else. It produces from 8 to 15 times as much oil per acrea as all the current crops being used for biofuels. 150 sq mile of desert land could produse all of the US fuel needs. A small portion of the non arible land available. It also uses CO2 in it growth process and can use the power plant emissions as a food source thereby cutting green house gases. I agee however that corn and other crops to produce biofuel is a bad Idea. It can be converted to Diesel or Alcohol and some varieties into gasoline. The good new is that very little infrastructure changes would have to be made to our distribution facilites. So many you should rethink your statements and be more specific about which or what biofuels your condeming. Have fun Rick Aloha.

PS Biodiesel is currently selling for $2.41usd per gallon. So for those who were about to say it can't be done economicaly. Its being done as we speek

[harleyclarkey]

We can not consider seriously the prospect of using precious land and water to grow massive ammounts of crops as fuel for motor vehicles. This means the poor get poorer (higher food prices)....and the better off (we... in the developed world) get their fuel to waste. And waste we do in vast quantities.

The car is with us now for over a 100 years and we still use the very same technology...ok, it has been updated... but still is the internal combustion engines burning gasoline/oil. The dogs in the street saw the oil shortage coming, plenty of concerned folks told us this will happen and what have we done?? All of us, and me included, nothing, zilch, zero.

Here in Ireland we have introduced, on July 1st, a new method of calculating import duty on vehicles. It is related solely to emmissions. It can go as high as 36%...NOT on the cost but on the open market selling price in Ireland for that vehicle. EG. Car sells for 100,000 euro in the showroom = 36,000 euro duty if emmissions are high. This means the demise of high powered cars. Sign of things to come all over Europe/World???

Also the annual road tax/duty is 2,200 euro! Yes, over 2,000 per annum.

[harleyclarkey]

Besides environment risks which is probably right, biofuel production will lead to an extensive food shortage ... therefore to a dramatic increases in food prices and the Thai Governement will still ask stall's food vendor to refrain from incresing their prices above 30 baht a dish ....!

Not nessarilly if you make the fuel from algae. algae can be farmed on land and water that is not useful for anything else. It produces from 8 to 15 times as much oil per acrea as all the current crops being used for biofuels. 150 sq mile of desert land could produse all of the US fuel needs. A small portion of the non arible land available. It also uses CO2 in it growth process and can use the power plant emissions as a food source thereby cutting green house gases. I agee however that corn and other crops to produce biofuel is a bad Idea. It can be converted to Diesel or Alcohol and some varieties into gasoline. The good new is that very little infrastructure changes would have to be made to our distribution facilites. So many you should rethink your statements and be more specific about which or what biofuels your condeming. Have fun Rick Aloha.

PS Biodiesel is currently selling for $2.41usd per gallon. So for those who were about to say it can't be done economicaly. Its being done as we speek

Didn't know this rken.

The view so far as I can see, is that you need good land to start with. I am all on for taking back as much of the desert as we can for crops...but this itself needs too much energy for desalinisation. If such a small area can produce the needs for the Sttes then this would be money very well spent indeed. Are you sure 150 miles sq. is enough? It seems a small area. I see the mess soya production has made in the forests and shudder as to what we will do for fuel crops.

[rken]

Actualy it has been said to be about 15,000 sq. miles by some sources (150x150=22500). I gave it a little extra to be on the same side. And many kinds of algae grow in salt water. In fact the best oil producers do.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html is a good intro to Algae as a source for fuel. Covers a lot of ground and is well thought out acticle. You will find neigh sayers who say it can't be done, but I recently found a supplier for Algae oil for $2.41usd per us gal (Alibaba.com search algae oil) two sources listed one is for medical uses and is quite expensive the others in for biofuel). Minimun order was 10 tons. It costs about 5bt per liter to turn it into biodiesel. The left over can be converted into Alcohol and animal feed or fertilizer (Chemicals not labour) 200 mil of alcohol and 5 grams of lye per liter( 1 liter alcohol 30 baht 1lb. lye 60 baht) . I have done it in my kitchen in Thailand. I am currently in the process of building plant for growing and processing Algae oil. Have fun Rick aloha

[rken]

For some addition reading on algae for biofuel read http://www.moraassociates.com/content/publ...algae%20oil.pdf have fun rick aloha

[kat]

The (pushed) switch to ethanol in cars is going to be considered to biggest failure of forward thinking in 20 years of time.

I don't often agree with you, but I couldn't agree more on this one. I am stumped as to why the development "experts" didn't see this one coming. It is a no brainer: bio-fuel is derived from crops, and crops are derived from land and water. It is a policy that is an express ticket back to the stone age, and anyone who thinks this through could figure it out years ago, so why couldn't they before it became a disaster.

The only way forward is to consume less energy, and convert to renewable sources.

[Galong]

We can not consider seriously the prospect of using precious land and water to grow massive ammounts of crops as fuel for motor vehicles. This means the poor get poorer (higher food prices)....and the better off (we... in the developed world) get their fuel to waste. And waste we do in vast quantities.

It's not a black and white / all or nothing scenario. millions of acres of land are wasted growing tobacco, coffee and other non-essential 'crops'. Southern Thailand is covered in rubber trees. Farmers in many countries are paid NOT to grow crops! Please read what others have said in this thread about this. It's a valid point.

I think there's a bit of elbow room for supplementing petro chemical fuel with biofuel. I do doubt that there's enough land to satisfy our lust for over-sized vehicles and sporting vehicles. Fuel efficiency can CERTAINLY be boosted and other alternatives such as algae, solar and air-powered cars are proven to work.

What stands in the way of progress? Well, what's the opposite of "pro"? The opposite is "con"... therefore, the opposite of progress is congress.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

The view so far as I can see, is that you need good land to start with. I am all on for taking back as much of the desert as we can for crops...but this itself needs too much energy for desalinisation.

Some of the most productive algae is grown in brine which eliminates the need for desalinization. Algae can also be grown in sewage treatment plant effluent.

Algae biodiesel is already a reality in the US. PetroSun, Inc., an oil company, opened the first commercial algae farm last April in Hondo, Texas. Prior to that they bought a large scale biodiesel refinery where they send the algae oil for processing. PetroSun is preparing to open additional algae facilities in the US, Mexico, Brazil and Australia.

The theory behind algae oil has been well tested by the US Department of Energy. In the late 1980s through the mid 1990s the DOE tested algae as a method of scrubbing CO2 from power plants. The algae produced between 5,000 to 20,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. Palm oil by comparision produces about 600 gallons per acre. At the time of the DOE tests oil was relatively inexpensive and the cost of production exceeded return. Things have changed.

In the US several companies are racing to get into the market. One company's business plan involves contracting with powerplants to scrub emissions while producing biodiesel. I recently read about a scientist who had identified with an oil content of about 50% as opposed to 30% for most species. He has contracted with a company to open a facility in the Nevada Desert.

While I haven't read anything about algae and thermal depolymerization, it would be interesting to see the yield using Changing World Technologies patented process. Changing World Technologies holds patents on the process of turning almost anything into oil. They have a commercial plant in Carthage, Missouri that converts turkey guts, feathers etc. into crude oil. The entire process takes about 8 hours. With the 50% oil algae feedstock the yields might be profitable. They can even turn sewage into crude oil.

Thailand would do well to approach some of these companies. The climate in Thailand is ideal for growing algae. Ethanol from food crops is a dead end. However with the government pandering to the farmers I suspect the algae biodiesel is a long way from becoming a reality here.

Edited July 20, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[geriatrickid]

I can't believe that people are falling for this con move. How can bio fuels that make up about 1% of world fuel sources account for a 40% rise in food prices? It just doesn't make sense. Forgive me, but I see certain vested interests moving in to get rid of a threat to profits by manipulating public opinion. Take a close look at the participants at the UN conference. Look at the most outspoken critics and then follow the petro dollars. Just as Japan and Norway wooed non whaling nations with promises of money if they voted to allow whaling, so too are oil producing countries financing this effort to kill of alternative fuels. Russia was saved by the oil craze and its a quasi superpower again because of oil. Do you think it intends to let anything stop that? Do you think Middle Eastern nations that would have been forgotten long ago if it wasn't for oil are going to allow their hold over Europeans to go without a fight?

The problems associated with biofuels are far easier to resolve than with oil and there is no reason to abandon the initiative. The amount of food wasted during harvest and shipping in any given month could feed the world. Grain literally rots away as it sits in some countries distribution bottlenecks exposed to molds, weather and vermin. Add in profiteering and pilferage of food aid by rulers in some countries and it is no surprise that millions go without food. Of course, no one at the UN would dare touch that hot topic now would they? Can't offend people's cultural sensitivities.

As others have pointed out, the issue isn't food production. It's the distribution of food and water shortages in agricultural zones. Take a look at the countries pleading food shortages. Now look at their respective military goods purchases. Maybe if some of these countries weren't buying all that military hardware there would be something leftover for the people. Look closer at some of the countries pleading dire straits. Now look at their governments. Corrupt and endemic mismanagement. Mugabe turned Zimbabwe from a food exporter to a food begger. Far easier to blame biofuels than to admit to corrupt and idiotic practices.

Yes there are alternative biofuel sources but the plant material has to be compatible with the soil. More importantly, there is a reason why the key grain producing regions of Thailand, Canada, India, Argentina, the Ukraine and Australia etc. grow particular grain crops. It is because of yields along with the prices the farmers can get. All of the countries and especially the EU heavily subsidize their agricultural industries. You need only look at the violent protests that arise when various Ministers of Agriculture try to change subsidies or influence the growing of certain crops.

As for algae, it is indeed wonderful. Unfortunately, no one has yet to come up with a way to engage in large scale cultivation and harvest. Yes, there all sorts of start ups, but forgive me if I say remember the dotcom hype. Multiple academic projects have yielded promising results but the hurdle remains being able to grow and process on a large scale basis. I'm not denying the potential, but we're several years away from it being a viable alternative. Something is needed in the interim and so far the only option left is the current biofuel option. If some countries are having food shortages, then they need to deal with their internal structures first and that includes dramatic shifts on issues that many consider to be politically incorrect to raise.

[Crushdepth]

The problems associated with biofuels are far easier to resolve than with oil and there is no reason to abandon the initiative.

I agree. Frankly I think its just amazing that news stories on the unfolding climate change disaster are followed by news stories about how we need to 'drill for more oil'. And why are governments not making massive investments in alternative energy R&D that is required to make the switch? They have known this was coming for a long, long time.

Case in point: The Australian government announced that it thinks it will make around $4 billion revenue from introducing a carbon trading system. It plans to spend this money 'compensating' the most affected industries and providing low/middle income families with 'relief'. How is that going to reduce energy consumption??? Worse still, they allocated $30 million (<1%) to CSIRO's new clean energy R&D 'flagship'. I'm suprised they could even be bothered getting out of bed to collect it.

Peter Garett should go back to writing songs about the environment. He was good at that but he makes a fuc_king hopeless minister for the environment.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

.

As for algae, it is indeed wonderful. Unfortunately, no one has yet to come up with a way to engage in large scale cultivation and harvest. Yes, there all sorts of start ups, but forgive me if I say remember the dotcom hype. Multiple academic projects have yielded promising results but the hurdle remains being able to grow and process on a large scale basis. I'm not denying the potential, but we're several years away from it being a viable alternative. Something is needed in the interim and so far the only option left is the current biofuel option. If some countries are having food shortages, then they need to deal with their internal structures first and that includes dramatic shifts on issues that many consider to be politically incorrect to raise.

PetroSun isn't exactly like a dot com startup. It is a successful oil exploration company. They currently have 1100 acres of open algae ponds in production in Hondo, Texas. The estimated annual output is 4.4 million gallons of algae oil feedstock. The facility opened in April of this year. Prior to that they purchased a 50% interest in a large scale biodiesel refinery. They have recently entered into a joint venture to build another refinery in Arizona. Among the other players in the algae oil business are Chevron, Honeywell and Boeing. Based on the entensive multi-year studies by the US DOE I previously mentioned there should be little doubt this can be developed as an alternative fuel. When the US DOE conducted their studies the price of crude was $20 per barrel. So long as crude prices remain high, algae biodiesel should be competitive in fact much more so than biodiesel from traditional crop plants.

http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-bio...e-april-1-2008/

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2008+MW20080225

http://www.americanfuels.info/2008/01/petr...lant-using.html

Edited July 20, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[rken]

I should have said in my post algae oil $2.41 a gallon 10 ton minimum order. Sorry. It is being done as we speak. Souce: Alibaba.com search Algae oil. Two result one exspensive for health purposes and the other for biofuel.

[harleyclarkey]

We can not consider seriously the prospect of using precious land and water to grow massive ammounts of crops as fuel for motor vehicles. This means the poor get poorer (higher food prices)....and the better off (we... in the developed world) get their fuel to waste. And waste we do in vast quantities.

It's not a black and white / all or nothing scenario. millions of acres of land are wasted growing tobacco, coffee and other non-essential 'crops'. Southern Thailand is covered in rubber trees. Farmers in many countries are paid NOT to grow crops! Please read what others have said in this thread about this. It's a valid point.

I think there's a bit of elbow room for supplementing petro chemical fuel with biofuel. I do doubt that there's enough land to satisfy our lust for over-sized vehicles and sporting vehicles. Fuel efficiency can CERTAINLY be boosted and other alternatives such as algae, solar and air-powered cars are proven to work.

What stands in the way of progress? Well, what's the opposite of "pro"? The opposite is "con"... therefore, the opposite of progress is congress.

Seems the Algae option is the only one. All of the plus boxes are ticked and seems none of the negative ones. I must brush up on this.

Algae yes, from what I have learnt......but I still am not in favour of laying aside good arable land for biofuels. All of the laid aside land here in Europe would not satisfy the requirment for biofuel production. Funny enough I don't think there is all that much spare land available and a lot of what is being used is over

fertilised. The outcry over soya production is bad enough.....what would it be like for biofuel crops? The Chinese are turning to African States to contract food crops for them. This will be done under Chinese management/supervision. Seems the Chinese have no spare land??

I am not a smoker nor coffee drinker....so would not miss those 2 crops!

ps... Agreed...CONgress hasn't taken this at all seriuosly. Problem....what problem??

[Galong]

You need only look at the violent protests that arise when various Ministers of Agriculture try to change subsidies or influence the growing of certain crops.

Are you suggesting in any way that might is right? Just because farmers partake in violent protests (due to business interests) and governments are too stupid, apathetic or corrupt to accept the need for change doesn't mean there aren't viable option. "Viable" might mean that a handful of people don't get filthy rich, but that doesn't change the reality that there are options and that the time is now. There are plenty of alternatives that actually work. Many have been listed on this thread.

Just because the oil companies run some First World governments, that in no way justifies their stranglehold on world economies. It's obviously time for change. Oil company profits are at an all-time high. Maybe, in keeping with your line of logic, everyone who can't afford to fill up their gas tank should start with the 'violent protest' option. I'm certainly ready to punch an Exxon CEO in the nose... who's with me? Peace

Edited July 20, 2008 by Galong