Biofuels, wasteful and counterproductive?

[Aardvark]

A recent study by Cornell University and Berkeley has shown that turning crops such as maize into fuel takes up more fuel than it produces.

 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

 

The US government is spending more than $3 billion a year subsidising these fuels and policiticians on both sides are loudly calling for more money. Is this a case of bad science and bad economics in the cause of political expediency or do biofuels have a real future?

[Phi for All]

I wonder if the high costs are partially due to lack of mass production. Many systems are costly until they become widespread and ways are found to trim expenditures due to increased interests.

 

It also sounds as if they have been exclusively using fossil fuels to produce biofuels. Could a combination of non-fossil alternatives obviate the need for consuming more fossil fuels than the biofuels replace?

[Aardvark]

I wonder if the high costs are partially due to lack of mass production. Many systems are costly until they become widespread and ways are found to trim expenditures due to increased interests.

 

That might be a possibility in the future as technology develops but no one involved with the development of biofuels seems to be making that point which does leave me rather dubious.

 

 

It also sounds as if they have been exclusively using fossil fuels to produce biofuels. Could a combination of non-fossil alternatives obviate the need for consuming more fossil fuels than the biofuels replace?

 

It's not a question of using fossil fuels to produce biofuels as such, rather, that it costs more fuel to produce the new fuel. Even if a non-fossil fuel was used in all stages of the production of biofuel the simple equation would still be, more fuel in than out.

 

From a very brief prerusing of the subject it seems that the majority of interest in developing these biofuels is based on political expediency. Farmers get taxpayers money, politicians get their votes and can pretend to be doing something 'green'.

 

I'm pretty sure that $3 billion a year could go quite a long way in genuine research into alternative fuel sources. Or is science so well endowed that $3 billion here or there wouldn't make any real difference?

[Phi for All]

It's not a question of using fossil fuels to produce biofuels as such, rather, that it costs more fuel to produce the new fuel. Even if a non-fossil fuel was used in all stages of the production of biofuel the simple equation would still be, more fuel in than out.

But they are very careful to state that, for instance, "corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced". Is the use of fossil fuels simply driving tractors and farm machinery to plant and harvest the biomass or are they used in the extraction process as well? They advocate them but have they tried combining solar and wind energy along with using biofuels instead of simply oil and gas?

From a very brief prerusing of the subject it seems that the majority of interest in developing these biofuels is based on political expediency. Farmers get taxpayers money, politicians get their votes and can pretend to be doing something 'green'.

I just hate it when environmental concerns get used in this fashion. Real solutions are needed, not photo ops and private subsidy gains.

I'm pretty sure that $3 billion a year could go quite a long way in genuine research into alternative fuel sources. Or is science so well endowed that $3 billion here or there wouldn't make any real difference?

Especially considering that many groups, whose concern for ecology outweighs their concern for politics or commerce, can work very inexpensively to maximize that $3 billion. Who gets the subsidy money for ethanol production now? Is it the oil and gas industry paying the farmers for biomass or do the farmers get paid directly?

[Aardvark]

The subsidy ends up mainly with the farmers and some big agri-businesses. The oil and gas companies don't get that money which is one good thing about his i suppose.

 

The study looked at all the energy required to produce the biofuel, not just the fossil fuel inputs. It remains that biofuel uses more energy to be created than it contains. This might (just) be acceptable if it was a method of converting solar or wind power to a liquid fuel source, but the biofuel production is mainly produced in a strictly conventional manner with conventional fuels.

 

I'm still guessing that $3 billion a year could be seriously prodctively spent of real alternative fuel research. This system seems to be an example of 'porkbarrelling' that is particularly bad.

[Aardvark]

Part of the reason i started this thread was because i want to be convinced that biofuels really do have a future.

 

Can anyone give any valid reasons for why it isn't just a big exercise in political patronage? I want to be wrong on this one.

[Sayonara]

It's a bad idea to lump all biofuels together.

 

Bamboo is a brilliantly efficient fuel, and wood is still one of the leading renewables. Bring back the steam train!

[Aardvark]

It's a bad idea to lump all biofuels together.

 

Bamboo is a brilliantly efficient fuel' date=' and wood is still one of the leading renewables. Bring back the steam train![/quote']

 

Ah yes, fair point. Biofuels, as such, are highly varied and excellent. (as i can personally atest to with regards to bamboo)

 

To be more precise i was refering to government backed biodiesel and ethanol production. It's interesting that the excellent fuels are the ones that don't publicity or subsidy.

[Phi for All]

It's interesting that the excellent fuels are the ones that don't publicity or subsidy.

You may have jabbed your bodkin at the heart of the matter. Consider that lobbyists are more interested in barrels of pork and less interested in publicity for solutions that might actually work. Subsidies for bad biofuels line pockets, make you look like you're doing something, and detract from more noble efforts.

[Aardvark]

Subsidies for bad biofuels line pockets, make you look like you're doing something, and detract from more noble efforts.

 

I've a depressing feeling that you may have correctly diagnosed the problem.

 

Any suggestions as to the cure?

 

As long as politicians can buy votes and give prefential treatment to favoured special interest groups then the misapplication and misapproriation of funds, effort and research seems inevitable. Why is it so hard to hold these people accountable? Would strict campaign financing regulations help? Or must voters take the effort to become more aware, active and better informed? (don't hold your breath)

 

Or do we simply have to accept that we live in a rotten world and accept it?

[Phi for All]

Or do we simply have to accept that we live in a rotten world and accept it?

I don't believe this. I think people take advantage of systems that allow it. Perhaps we can start a Member Project that seeks to get free publicity for a group that is doing innovative things with bamboo. All you need is a hook that will catch a reporter's interest and people willing to keep forcing the stories down their throats. When the story is in print it gets sent to the politicians, and just keep stuffing it down their throats.

 

Find the scientific angle for sustainable biofuel research and it isn't too hard to sell the upbeat angle as well. The press love positive stories too, and if the pols can get a vote or two they'll add their publicity machines to the effort. Bamboo is a good choice since it doesn't have the stigma that hemp does. Now if I can just convince the US citizens that southeast Asia got bamboo from us....

[Aardvark]

Perhaps we can start a Member Project that seeks to get free publicity for a group that is doing innovative things with bamboo. All you need is a hook that will catch a reporter's interest and people willing to keep forcing the stories down their throats. When the story is in print it gets sent to the politicians, and just keep stuffing it down their[/i'] throats.

 

That's an interesting idea.

 

Esp the bit about stuffing the stories down the politicians throats, hope they don't choke

[Phi for All]

Esp the bit about stuffing the stories down the politicians throats, hope they don't choke

Bamboo can also be used for emergency tracheotomies.