Scientist: Biofuels Unsustainable

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,632
Top scientists warn against rush to biofuelBrown plans to resist EU plans for increased quotas as doubts multiply

James Randerson and Nicholas Watt The Guardian, Tuesday March 25
sugar11a.jpg


Trucks are loaded with sugar cane, which will be used to produce biofuels, in Brazil. Photograph: Paulo Whitaker/Reuters

Gordon Brown is preparing for a battle with the European Union over biofuels after one of the government's leading scientists warned they could exacerbate climate change rather than combat it.

In an outspoken attack on a policy which comes into force next week, Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it would be wrong to introduce compulsory quotas for the use of biofuels in petrol and diesel before their effects had been properly assessed.

"If one started to use biofuels ... and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane," Watson said. "It would certainly be a perverse outcome."

Under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, all petrol and diesel must contain 2.5% of biofuels from April 1. This is designed to ensure that Britain complies with a 2003 EU directive that 5.75% of petrol and diesel come from renewable sources by 2010.

But scientists have increasingly questioned the sustainability of biofuels, warning that by increasing deforestation the energy source may be contributing to global warming.

Watson's warning was echoed last night by Professor Sir David King, who recently retired as the government's chief scientific adviser. He said biofuel quotas should be put on hold until the results were known of a review which has been commissioned by ministers.

"What is absolutely desperately needed within government are people of integrity who will state what the science advice is under whatever political pressure or circumstances," he said.

The EU plans to raise the compulsory biofuel quota to 10% by 2020, but Brown is understood to be ready to challenge this plan. A senior government source said last night: "There is a growing feeling that we need to get all the facts. Some biofuels are OK but there are serious questions about others. More work needs to be done."

Sources say the government has no choice but to implement the guidelines next month because Britain is obliged under EU law to comply with the 2010 target.

But the report on biofuels, to come from the head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, Professor Ed Gallagher, may be used to challenge the more ambitious target for 2020, which is not set in law.

John Beddington, the government's current chief scientific adviser, has already expressed scepticism about biofuels. At a speech in Westminster this month he said demand for biofuels from the US had delivered a "major shock" to world agriculture, which was raising food prices globally. "There are real problems with the unsustainability of biofuels," he said, adding that cutting down rainforest to grow the crops was "profoundly stupid".

Britain will move cautiously in its battle with Brussels because Jos? Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, is championing the 10% target for 2020. Barroso this month dismissed as "exaggerated" claims that biofuels can lead to increases in food prices and greenhouse gas emissions due to deforestation. But other members of the commission and other countries, including Germany, sympathise with Britain.

Brown was due to release a report touching on issues including biofuels, when he met Barroso in Brussels last month. But the prime minister decided that the time was "not right or ripe".

The prime minister made clear that Britain is wary of the target when he said last November: "I take extremely seriously concerns about the impact of biofuels on deforestation, precious habitats and on food security, and the UK is working to ensure a European sustainability standard is introduced as soon as possible, and we will not support an increase in biofuels over current target levels until an effective standard is in place."
 
Be quiet, grain prices rebound limit up today. biofuel is only part of the reason but it's all good.

I'm in no hurry to make a call on any of this.
 
We are waiting with bated breath for your F'up position.


Take a kid hunting. You will enjoy it more than they do!
 
Dude,

I have not wish to see grain prices go down but I also have no wish to watch more of my tax dollars thrown down the drain of ethanol. Especially since there is some fairly good evidence that grain ethanol not only doesn't reduce green house gas emissions but rather makes the problem worse through deforestation and fossil fuel use.

It is intersting that food prices have spiked 23% world wide since last year and we are choosing to turn our crops into ethanol rather then feed hunger people. Seems like the world will hate us much worse when then are hungry rather then when they just don't like our mid east policy.

Nemont
 
What makes you think the world needs us to feed them anymore? we're an important player but our past customers are now our competetors. there is no shortage of food and if there was we could produce more, what there's a shortage of is money.

Todays price of SWW works out to 16 cents a pound, corn is less. given the cost of fertilizer,fuel,equipment and everythging else that goes into getting wheat to market that's not that bad. as I said before if you want food and don't want to pay anything for it you have to subsidize, that isn't popular either. grains prices have doubled, inputs have almost doubled, don't blame it all on biofuel blame most of it on energy cost . nitrogen is the most needed fertilizer in the world and for those who don't know it's made out of natural gas, China is buying as much fertilizer from the US as they can get so add gas prices and high demand and guess what you get, oh my god high fertilizer prices.

How much tax money is biofuel really costing anyway? if you take the economic benifits it provides into account probably very little. if biofuel proves not cost effective after a try it will fade away, we're just in the experimental stage now give it some time.

264, if you're too dumb to to have an opinion don't put down someone elses.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-08 AT 09:10AM (MST)[p]Biofuels cost to taxpayers is more then just the $1 a gallon subsidy. Coupled with increase food prices and increasing fuel prices it is a pretty tight squeeze.

If the price of food get too high there will be blood in the streets. There have already been food riots in Italy over the cost of Semolina. There is a shortage of wheat and other grains in the sense that the ending stocks are very, very low and other countries have stopped exporting. Russia froze the export of winter wheat, for example.

Who are our competitors in the production of wheat and other grains?

Australia, Canada, Argentina, Russia, the Ukraine, who else? none of them have been our customers in the recent past. If there is plenty of food then why has the price of food gone up 23% globally? Rising cost of production is only on component shortages of food stocks is the primary reason.

I want farms to make as much money as then can, I have a vested interested in seeing as many dollars flow into farmers and ranchrs hands as possible. I just like playing devil's advocate for those who only can think of one side of an arguement.

Nemont
 
Conclusion

Since the 1970s, ethanol has been billed as an all-encompassing solution capable of addressing America's energy, rural development, and environmental challenges. Ethanol's supporters have dutifully nurtured their industry and stalked the halls of government, securing billions in taxpayer subsidies. The industry claims that consumers choose ethanol because it's good for farmers or because it's good for the environment. Yet, after nearly 30 years of government help and protection, the industry is still not able to meet the test of the marketplace. As politicians look to add farm crops from their states to the list of subsidized sources of ethanol, taxpayers can expect to "invest" more and more in this disappointing technology. Washington needs to learn the lessons from its experience with synthetic fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, and wind energy. Politicians are not adept at picking successful technological innovations. Instead of pouring more of the public's money into ethanol, politicians should pull the program out by its roots ? ending payments to both farmers and ethanol producers. By doing so, new technologies will emerge into the sunlight ? allowing consumers to determine for themselves how to spend their own money to address their own energy needs. This would be a far happier harvest than America has ever reaped from ethanol.

About the Author

Jeff Dircksen is a Policy Analyst with the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org), a non-profit, non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, smaller government, and economic freedom at all levels. Visit NTU's web site at www.ntu.org.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU
 
We as a country import more food than we export. I don't think we feed the world anymore. Food was waay under priced as it was. I think a garden is in my future instead of bitching about it I'm choosing another course.
Driftersifter
 
Most nations with an ag program of any size exports grain anymore, there is plenty of production capibility nobody is going to go hungry who hasn't been already. if they have been it's because they don't have any money and a 23% increase in cost isn't going to make a huge difference. Take myself for example, I use about 800 irrigated acres for mint oil and garlic seed production, if food was in short supply I could produce about 2800 tons of wheat off those acres, lets face it we aren't going to die without things like that. so if needed just changing crop priority would make a huge difference on a world scale.

What makes you think cheap food is an entitlement? fuel prices have gone up 300% in the last few years so is a rise of 23% on food is unreasonable? much of that rise comes right back to energy prices so the farmer can't absorb that for you anyway.

The cost of everything is going up and food food is no exception, Americans still pay the lowest percentage of their income for food of any nation and we eat the best.

Nemont I know you're reasonable and I see what you're saying, but I'll say if within 5 years we don't see a drastic improvement in biofuel crops and refinement technology it will fade away. most good thing don't start off at full speed and there is much room for improvement, I think it will be found.
 
I bet in the next 5 years the price of oil will go down and almost every ethanol plant will either be shut down or asking for another hand out.

I have never ever said cheap food is a right. I am as close to where my food comes from as anybody on this board. I haven't bought beef from a store in about 20 years, I get it from the ranch and know where it is processed.

I am not even against the biofuel programs. I just think that the market can sort out those things way better then the government can. Subsidizing ethanol based on corn is not the best use of land, water, fuel or food. If the government didn't have the ethanol subsidy in place those acres would still be producing food rather then fuel.

With increasing demand for food across the globe, especially in China and India the price of commodities will most likely remain above average in the near term.

Whenever anyone says this cycle of high commodity prices, including oil, is different then any other cycle of boom and bust you can rest assured it is not different. The prices you are getting today will come down, often just as fast as they went up.

Nemont
 
There isn't a lot of difference between the subsidies the government paid to the farmer than what is paid to the ethanol producer now its just spread around to more people. Like the workers that are employed by the E plant and the infrastructure that supports it. I don't think average or slightly above average prices paid to the farmer is remotely close to fair. A true free enterprise system would have put the price of commodities where they belong. I raise cattle along with row crops to spread out the risk. The price of OIL is the main reason for the rise in the cost of everything that is transported these days.
Driftersifter
 
Sure the commodity prices will come down someday and when they do the subsidy will go up. as a rule farmers don't get rich, as a rule you want to eat, it takes a certain amount of money to produce a crop and we've been at or below that price for years. now that we're in the black everyone is whining, oil companies are posting record profits and that's just fine but let a farmer pay off his operating loan with anything left over and we have a problem.

When a dollar is spent on ethanol in the US it makes how many trips through peoples hands being taxed and providing jobs as it does, when a dollar goes to Abbu Sheik for oil it goes into his economy in the form of golden toilets or missles for terrorist. what is so bad about biofuel? if all the sudden we're concerned about where our tax dollars are being spent there are a thousand better places to look.

Can't never did anything, if biofuel fails so be it, if it succeeds it won't be because we knew it wouldn't work and gave up.
 
Dude is right about the "golden toilets" for Arab sheiks. We have a operating gold mine within 30 miles of my home. It is famous for it's white quartz with veins of gold running though it. About 10 years ago a oil rich Arab sheik order 4"x4" by 1/4" thick tiles made for him. These tiles had about $750.00 worth of gold in each tile. He ordered enough tiles to complety tile his bathroom in his multi-million dollar mansion located in Arabia.

RELH
 
Dude,

I think the chip on your shoulder needs to be removed. I haven't heard anyone complain that farmers are making money. You won't hear it from me.

Also to take your line: I am an American and therefore entitled to question where the government spends my tax dollars.

If ethanol can't make it in 30 years it certainly won't make it in the next 5. Hydrogen fuel cells have more promise to convert our world from a petroleum based energy system to a renewable one. Dumping more tax dollars into ethanol production actually slows down research into other forms of energy.

The farmers could continue to make okay money and pay off their land and operating loans without ethanol production.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-08 AT 04:04PM (MST)[p]"264, if you're too dumb to to have an opinion don't put down someone elses."

That was the point Dude. I couldn't put down yourr opinion because for the first time in history you didn't have one. 'bout fell out my chair when I learned you aren't an expert (since you are on everything else). You were going to wait to pass judgement. Well you didn't wait long. Imagine that!

Get over yourself. We don't care what you think now or later!


Take a kid hunting. You will enjoy it more than they do!
 
Well.....fossil fuel, biofuel, coal, steam or natural gas.....all make no difference.

The government could release the stockpiles of Dilithium Crystals they have hoarded since the 60's, and we would all have cheap, unpoluting fuel.

Makes no sense to me!
 
Nemont the point is you want instant gratification, I agree hydrogen will probably be the long term solution but in the mean time we have biofuel. give it more than a year to develop before you write it off.

If your problem lies with government money being spent more than the fact commodity prices are up I can understand that better. biofuel is a small part of higher commodity price increases but everyone loves to blame it. tell us what the tax payer is paying, or should I say borrowing on this and then state your case.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-08 AT 09:36AM (MST)[p]When did I say I wanted instant gratification? Please quote me saying that anywhere. I said that by subsidizing corn ethanol we are limiting other more promising technologies. That is just a fact. Ethanol will not be a transitional fuel source because you cannot make enough to replace gasoline, cannot transport it in pipelines and cannot afford the true cost of the product. It is a pipe dream. Throw all the money at it you want, I choose to be a realist.

Trust me my ideas are not popular here either. The executive director of EPAC (Ethanol Producers and Consumers) Lives just outside my little north eastern Montana town. She lets me hunt pheasants on her place and take as many whitetail does as my kids have tags for. We disagree on everything about ethanol.

Whenever I bring up the true cost she used the same arguement about sending money to Saudi Arabia. With ethanol use approaching a record amount has Hajji made any less money? He is making more because it takes as much fossil fuels to grow corn as it produces in ethanol.

Here is a reading assignment. Tell me one true advantage of ethanol.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html

Nemont
 
USDA expects an 8% decrease in corn acres this year, due to higher prices for soybeans and other more profitable crops. if ethanol was the main factor driving prices up why are corn acres falling? higher corn prices and or lack of it will hurt the ethanlol program as much as any other end user. this alone may end the biofuel programs for you, but as we can see by reduced corn acres it isn't going to save you any money because that means other commodities are in even shorter supply.

Energy prices will drive food cost up with or without biofuel production. count on it.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom