nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Biofuel vs food clashing already

lostexpectation

Did you see the news last week of large protest in Mexico last week over the price of tortilla's in mexico, a combination of econmoic reform, nafta and a huge price rise for corn for biofuel in the states has made the price of this staple go sky high, and they were out the streets protesting this.

I thought this might be problem in a few years time but not already, now you could say well food should take priority but cash is cash.

Traditionally, Mexico has bought U.S. yellow corn for feed for its cattle business and for the start up of its own ethanol programs while it grows mostly white corn for its human consumption. Now, however, since the price for yellow corn is rising fast, more Mexican lands are being put into yellow production and less into white and that has spiked, at least for now, the price of white corn.

although there rumours that the mexico corn industry were hoarding the corn to raise prices.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19346
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNlNjI3MTk0MmQ4ZTNkMzBkODNjODJjYTAxN2UwNjU=

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
They started the program in 1975

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassination
...
Some commentators, like George Monbiot, fear that the marketplace will convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starve

silverharp

one stat I heard is that if all agricultural land in the US was switched over to ethanol, it would replace 17% of oil needs.

Capt'n Midnight

some studies have shown that bio-ethanol can barely break even on energy inputs if you don't manage all parts of the plants. Separation of ethanol from water is a big step. Being able to use dilute ethanol in a fuel cell would be far more efficient than distillation. With biodiesel it's much easier to remove the water.

Lennoxschips

If you have access to the New Scientist site there is a very good article here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125701.200.html

If Europe wanted 10% of petrol to be from biofuels, 72% of Europe's agricultural land would be required. Yet the EU wants a 5% target... This means we are looking to the third world for our biofuels crops. More slashing and burning of rainforests and more displacement of food crops. And for what? According to a study in Science, also mentioned in the New Scientist article, the biofuel cycle only produces 13% less CO2 than petrol.

It's a sick joke.

SeanW

This means we are looking to the third world for our biofuels crops.

Which would be a serious shift from the present situation where we (the 1st world) dumps production subsidised produce on the 3rd world, thus killing their agricultural sectors. I watched a programme (I think it was) on RTE about the effect of EU subsidies on 3rd world agricultural markets, the farms, mills and manufacturing places that either had to close or lay off a lot of people because they couldn't compete with ultra-subsidised imports from the EU, they'd walk into a local shop in Ghana and find that all they stocked was EU goods, Danish biscuits, Dutch dairy products and so on.

Clearly this situation is not sustainable by anyone with half a conscience, and anything that reverses the situation can only be a good thing.

So I say "Bring it on," give the 3rd world a chance to develop from the ground up.

It's BS to say that biofuels will cause starvation because the people presently starving are hungry because they can't afford to pay for food, a producer has to get some money for their produce if they're to stay in operation so they'll have to sell to ... people with money. Biofuels don't cause starvation. Economics does.

Clearly there are issues to be addressed, such as what types of plant should be used to maximise biofuel output and minimise environmental cost, it won't be easy but these issues can be addressed to make biofuel a viable part of our energy mix.

Of course we also have to look at other things too like the level of consumption, development plans, electricity etc.

probe

The Netherlands has been largely responsible for turning Indonesia into the third largest CO2 polluter in the world by burning Indonesian palm oil to produce electricity back in NL.

Can anyone think of a dumber renewable energy policy?

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/01/31/biofuel-nightmares-indonesian-palm-plantations/

.probe

Lennoxschips

It's BS to say that biofuels will cause starvation because the people presently starving are hungry because they can't afford to pay for food, a producer has to get some money for their produce if they're to stay in operation so they'll have to sell to ... people with money. Biofuels don't cause starvation. Economics does.

Yes, economics. As was mentioned in the first post... corn use for ethanol in the US is driving up corn prices in Mexico.

Which would be a serious shift from the present situation where we (the 1st world) dumps production subsidised produce on the 3rd world, thus killing their agricultural sectors. I watched a programme (I think it was) on RTE about the effect of EU subsidies on 3rd world agricultural markets, the farms, mills and manufacturing places that either had to close or lay off a lot of people because they couldn't compete with ultra-subsidised imports from the EU, they'd walk into a local shop in Ghana and find that all they stocked was EU goods, Danish biscuits, Dutch dairy products and so on.

You won't hear anyone here defending the CAP. Luckily though it is being reformed. But that's another story.

SeanW

You won't hear anyone here defending the CAP. Luckily though it is being reformed. But that's another story.

Oh sure, they can mess around with CAP until the cows come home

But the fundamental problem remains: too much agricultural capacity, too little demand for produce, and too much clout held by 1st world farming organisations. These are the fundamental problems that cause symptoms like CAP, import restrictions etc. If the EU meets its biofuel usage projections by subsidising domestic farmers, the percieved need for schemes like CAP won't be there. What's more, 3rd world producers would have their own markets back and maybe even the 1st world 'market access' they keep having to beg for.

Yes, economics. As was mentioned in the first post... corn use for ethanol in the US is driving up corn prices in Mexico.

Likewise I'm not going to defend corn because I don't think it's the most efficient way to produce biofuel anyway - I'd rather see focus on Rapeseed biodiesel, sugar ethanol etc.

But remember that while corn may be a staple in Mexico, I assume they also have bread and meat etc. So while the Mexicans might rightly get pissed off, they're not going to starve.

SeanW

The Netherlands has been largely responsible for turning Indonesia into the third largest CO2 polluter in the world by burning Indonesian palm oil to produce electricity back in NL.

And I'm not going to defend that either because I believe using biofuels to generate electricity is just plain stupid - nuclear electricity is the (most sensible) way to go IMO, and using biofuels for electricity has the opportunity cost of not using said biofuel for transport (which cannot as easily be replaced by nuclear and renewables).

lostexpectation

Lennoxschips wrote:

If you have access to the New Scientist site there is a very good article here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125701.200.html

If Europe wanted 10% of petrol to be from biofuels, 72% of Europe's agricultural land would be required. Yet the EU wants a 5% target... This means we are looking to the third world for our biofuels crops. More slashing and burning of rainforests and more displacement of food crops. And for what? According to a study in Science, also mentioned in the New Scientist article, the biofuel cycle only produces 13% less CO2 than petrol.

It's a sick joke.

its strange what was all that talk of european farmers been paid not to grow anything and leave there fields fallow, I thought they coudl do something useful with them and the sugar beet farmers here too.

Lennoxschips

But remember that while corn may be a staple in Mexico, I assume they also have bread and meat etc. So while the Mexicans might rightly get pissed off, they're not going to starve.

Hmm... I'm sure there's plenty of brioche in Mexico too.

probe

SeanW wrote:

And I'm not going to defend that either because I believe using biofuels to generate electricity is just plain stupid - nuclear electricity is the (most sensible) way to go IMO, and using biofuels for electricity has the opportunity cost of not using said biofuel for transport (which cannot as easily be replaced by nuclear and renewables).

If by "nuclear" you mean fission (as opposed to fusion) I don't think it is a long term solution. It is not renewable, limited supplies of raw material, escalating price, waste storage cost and public NIMBY pressure. Even France is looking at moving away from fission.

.probe

djmc

I am a farmer concerned about green issues and I can honestly say I would prefer not to get any subsity but just get a fair price for what I produce
eg. I get about 25 cent a litre for milk which is less than what it would have made 20 years ago.
Creamery pasturises it takes the cream,butter,cheese,wheay and everything of value puts it in a carten and sells it for 4 times the price plus what all the by products make its big bussiness thats why kerry co op ,glanbia etc make hundreds of millions in profit every year and farmers need grant aid to keep from bankrupt

SeanW

probe wrote:

If by "nuclear" you mean fission (as opposed to fusion) I don't think it is a long term solution. It is not renewable, limited supplies of raw material, escalating price, waste storage cost and public NIMBY pressure. Even France is looking at moving away from fission.

Yes, Fission now, Fusion if/when it works. BTW the French are building a new nuclear reactor, Flamanville 3.

DJMC, you raise some interesting points, but in the context of our market economy I'm not sure how you could go about getting more for your produce, unless there were a fall-off in supply, which could put farmers like yourself in a stronger bargaining position. There is also the issue that - operating in Ireland - your costs and living expenses are a fair deal higher than they would be elsewhere. Virtually all Western world farming is subsidised to some extent.

That's one of the reasons I like biofuels so much - they can provide a good deal of the home country's energy needs in a clean and sustainable way, and be a better subsidy device than the failed policies of the past, like CAP.

Could I ask what type of farming you're in? If arable, what would you think of a biofuel mandate? (all petrodiesel and petroleum gasoline to contain X% Irish made biofuel)

probe

SeanW wrote:

Yes, Fission now, Fusion if/when it works. BTW the French are building a new nuclear reactor, Flamanville 3.

Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be "Flamville" (the town that goes up in flames).

It will be one of the last fission nuclear power stations in France if Royale becomes la Président!

Angela Merkel is also continuing Germany’s push for a complete shut-down of fusion reactors.

While EdF lot ( www.edf.fr ) may think that they are a law unto themselves, (along with SNCF ( www.voyages-sncf.com ) [watch how malleable the Brussels morons have been to Europe’s largely state owned rail and electricity industry’s union pressure to curb the rising market power of the low cost airline business (a threat to annually increasing rail fares to fund their gross over staffing), despite the fact that airlines only produce about 2% of global CO2 output], it wouldn’t take much political effort to demonstrate how un-green nuclear fission produced electricity is! Huge quantities of unsafe waste which has to be guarded for thousands of years into the future.

At least with nuclear fusion, the only radioactive waste left is the reactor core itself, which is only dangerous for about 50 years after decommissioning. Aside from the tritium produced, which has a half-life of 12 years.

In any event, wind, wave, tidal and hydro are the way to go. Ireland has these in abundance. Short-term electrical energy storage in cars and the export of surplus production over multiple grid connections to the rest of Europe is the way to go.

Bio fuels have a limited contribution to make too. Probably more in the area of wood-chip boilers (especially in the context of the fast tree growing Irish climate), rather than the palm and sunflower end of the market – and any other crop which requires lots of energy consuming fertilizers etc.

.probe