Biofuels..... and the number of people dying because of bio-fuels is? 5

Follow the link here to the article "Meals per gallon".

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/102268/biofuels_and_hunger.html

This is an article about how many people will die because of biofuels production and the new EU targets.

I have no idea how good their figures are but there is a tendency in the AGW camp to report half the situation and this may be the opther half or it may be tainted with the same tendency to inflate.

For example, the AGW they want to tell about how many extra deaths will be caused by hotter summers but not how many lives will be saved by warmer winters because warmer is bad for us they say (otherwise, who cares if we are warming up?).

So OK, we know about the higher cost of food but while we can afford it we neglect that many of those in poorer countries cannot. Worse, many are being displaced from their own land where they used to grow food crops by the big companies.
It says.
Where is the truth?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

It's part of the Bilderburg (sp?) Groups program to reduce the worlds population to sustainable levels.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[jmw]

I didn't find that on the web site. Do you have a reference for that and why is the Bilderberg Group so bad? Because Jesse Ventura says so?
Just asking.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

The Bilderberg group is responsible for all kinds of things, just ask David Icke.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ewh]

Population control is also addressed in the 1967 Report From Iron Mountain and countless other "conspiracy" theories.
As for the BG, it is theorized that they control the WHO which aims to curb the world population to 500M using pandemics and vaccines. No, I don't have any links that would legitmize this theory.
While that falls into the "conspiracy" definition, there is little doubt that last year the WHO definition of "pandemic" was changed to omit the reference of a "high morbidity and a high mortality rate", so that now the common cold fits the new definition. They can now effectively encourage mass vacination for relatively innocuous "pandemics" using vaccines of questionable effect.
Also, in addition to the serious side effects that may be experienced by using normal vaccines, in response to the avian flu scare last year vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus were distributed to 18 countries by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter. It is sheer luck that samples from this batch were tested by the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. This for another relatively benign virus. Yes, some people did die from this virus, but not many when compared to the number who die every year from the common cold.
So... while much of the scuttle regarding "population control" is "conspiracy" based, there have been actual incidences to support some of these theories.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[ewh]

... and lest we forget, there are the Georgia Guidestones.

Apologies for taking this so far from the OP.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[rb1957]

i guess that's why biofuels from alga makes more sense ... i don't want to eat alga ...

 

[KENAT]

How many people die because of land used to grow tobacco, tea, coffee, chocolate, flowers or other arguably non essential crops instead of basic food stuffs.

What about the food density of vegetable protein such as soy compared to raising animals for food?

What about the land 'wasted' on military bases, housing, theme parks, deserts, swamps ... instead of used for arable farm land.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[jmw]

In the Great war 8.5million people were killed. 21million wounded.

Pretty serious casualty rates but the Spanish Flu epidemic that lasted from 1918 to 1920 is said to have killed 50million with 500million infected.

So we should take even seemingly common complaints seriously but the suspicion has grown that every new "outbreak" is an excuse for some politician's pal with a vaccine production facility to get rich on the precautionary principal.

PS I think coffee and chocolate are essential crops. And Tex, of course.
Certainly more essential than biofuels.
Many might argue that we need the diversity of the environment and it is clear that things like biofuel production could threaten to destroy that.
The most likley outcome is a dependence on biofuels that will be worse than dependence on mineral oils.
We all accept that there is an economic limit to the extent to which exploit fossil fuel reserves and that is a spur to pursuing other energy sources. Fission is our start and I'd like to see fusion reach some sort of successful conclusion but without the financial drives and without an apparent virtual limit on biofuels, we could go down a dead end street. At the end of this street is a planet where there is just so much food and just so much fuel available and then you will see population controls.

Incidentally, I see India is now on course to exceed China fairly soon for population......

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ewh]

Time for soylent green?

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[KENAT]

When the idea of Bio fuels come up as a serious contributor to our energy needs, I always have to remind myself that it was getting away from relying on Bio fuels (perhaps amongst other things) that enabled the Industrial revolution.

I'm not vehemently opposed to all Bio fuels, and sure we may be able to grow & use them more 'efficiently' than a couple of hundred years ago, but other than as a 'niche' market I don't see them being a big replacement for Fossil Fuels.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[cranky108]

Isen't there a large difference in crop values between industrilized nations and the third world? So why aren't we buying cheep crops from the third world for bio fuels.

No we want to increase the cost of food in the industrilized nations, while being sure the thirld world stays that way.

Bio-fuels maybe the way, but not the way we are presently doing it.

 

[moltenmetal]

http://www.withouthotair.com/

This is an essential read for anyone interested in energy issues, whether you're an AGW skeptic or not. Don't hold your breath for biofuels being a replacement for fossil fuels- there aren't enough of them, and CAN'T be enough of them, to make the replacement feasible.

Any process generating liquid biofuels from non-food biomass is wasting part of a solid fuel in the process- usually a very substantial fraction of it.

Biofuels for transportation make zero sense until all our stationary energy needs are satisfied with non-fossil sources. We're a LONG way from that right now, and we'll never get there without a huge energy market reform.

Biofuels from food are just government agricultural subsidy masquerading as energy policy.

As to whether biofuels are more or less hazardous or environmentally harmful or worse for the poor than fossil fuels- that depends entirely on which biofuel and which fossil fuel you're talking about, and how they're produced and used, and what weight you put on CO2 emissions. I'd like to make that kind of complex and fraud-susceptible evaluation utterly unnecessary. You'd do that by means of a steep carbon and emissions tax on the fuels themselves, paired with an elimination of government subsidy on ALL forms of energy production. Under that taxation regime you'd be able to tell the comparative virtue of an energy source entirely by its market price. Coal would no longer seem far cheaper than wind, for instance- that's the clearest indication that the current energy market is completely FUBAR.

 

[cranky108]

I don't think bio fuels were ever intended to replace anything. The intent is to suplement existing fuel sources, and to feel good. Everyone who thinks well will know the volume of fuel we currently use won't be solved with a single replacment source.

However, the bio fuel issue can be used to solve some of the world problems, or used to cause more.

At issue here is why are we using it to cause more harm, than good. If we rase the cost of food in the thirld world, many of the growers will make more money. It should also increase the number of growers, which will reduce the number of unemployed. Also the increased value of some crops will decrease the amount of other crops grown, like poppies, and such.

I believe Bio fuels have a place. But we just aren't that interested, or we seem to be doing it wrong.

 

[YoungTurk]

There is WAY too much FUD on biofuel harms that AGW skeptics are willing to swallow whole. Consider the facts with the same skepticism you apply to other technical assertions.

Corn ethanol is typically the first target of these anti biofuel campaigns. Corn ethanol is made from field corn, which is not generally used directly as a food product.

The ethanol fuel share of the US field corn crop from the most recent statistics was 35%, an all time high. Animal feed remains the number one use of field corn at nearly half of all production. Industrial meats are too costly to be a viable food source for the most at risk populations and are consumed by wealthier populations.

From the OP report:

However, about 10% of field corn is still used in the US food chain and some exports of field corn are consumed by people, particularly in exports to the developing world.

From the second link below, the corn sweetener (typically HFCS) share of the field corn market is approximately 7% +/- 2%. Corn starch is typically another 2%. This is the portion still in the food chain they refer to. I don't think HFCS sweetened food products are valuable food source to those at risk of starving. The statitics for US field corn in the OP link do not match the official USDA corn statistics. Looks like the ActionAid group created the document by cherry picking statistics to support their agenda.

http://www.kycorn.org/foodandfuel/F4T - production.htm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data.htm

 

[moltenmetal]

The only thing that makes corn ethanol remotely tolerable as a fuel IS the use of the distiller's grains plus solubles as a "food product", albeit one for the animals we later use as food. The only calcs that show corn ethanol as a net consumer of fossil fuels do so by discounting this co-product of the fermentation process. Calcs which do not neglect this beneficial use show even the much-reviled corn ethanol as modestly GHG negative relative to the petroleum gasoline it displaces. The problem is, it's nowhere nearly negative ENOUGH to make any significant difference.

The same goes for biodiesel- even the waste oil-derived version. The waste oils have value in the food supply chain- for animals- and since we continue to feed these animals both as pets and as human food, fresh food-oils must move into these uses as the former "wastes" become fuel. It is true that some of these oils are truly wasted (i.e. landfilled), but usually in small markets where the problem is collection.

As to algae farming and the use of cellulosic non-food biomass, my other comments remain: when practiced at a sustainable production rate, they produce far too little fuel, especially when you desire that fuel to be a liquid, to be of much help in displacing our existing consumption of fossil fuels.

As the author of "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" communicates very eloquently, this notion that "every little bit helps" is a dangerous distraction from what we really need- a total re-think about our use of energy, and how we pay for it.

 

[owg]

MoltenMetal - Thanks for that lucid explanation. I think it is the "every little helps" philosophy that worries me the most. However I am also concerned about the number of alleged energy producing initiatives, which are usually supported by misguided governments, that are just plain energy consumers.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cranky108]

Are you trying to say the "every little helps" is a problem? Presently I don't know of any ONE oil well, or ONE coal mine, ONE solar panel that can solve our energy needs. It takes many oil wells, or coal mines, or solar panels, so why not mix energy sources where they are compatable?

And has anyone look at the amount of non-eatable food source that is wasted each year? How much lard and beef fat is tossed out, and not made into biodiesel? How much maneure that is not turned into biogas, and how much disfigured or discolored foods are not made into either ethonol or biogas?

And what of the tons of woody products that are land filled each year.

And yes why corn, when the international price of sugar is so low?

 

[btrueblood]

"when the international price of sugar is so low? "

Because Big Sugar keeps million$ of dollar$ flowing to Congress, in order to maintain tarrifs on sugar imports, artificially raising US sugar prices.

Or written in happy speak,

Lobbyists, concerned for the competitiveness of American agri-business and jobs for hundreds, if not dozens of American farm workers, maintains an ongoing discussion with members of our lawmaking bodies to ensure that their cocerns are heard.

 

[moltenmetal]

We need to be more efficient in EVERYTHING we do. Generating less waste of every kind is part of that, as is using the wastes we can't avoid generating to their highest possible secondary benefit. But that alone won't get us where we need to go, considering the finite nature of fossil fuels, even if you forget about AGW as a concern.

Wastes generated in large quantities in single locations are attractive for recycling or alternative uses. Using them as fuel is a lower value use than avoiding the use of the raw materials that they displace when recycled. Unfortunately, every time you find a sufficiently attractive alternative use for a waste, the generator of the waste no longer views it as their waste but as your feedstock- and they want money for it. That's the market at work I'm afraid, and if you fight the market, you WILL lose.

Wastes generated in small quantities at multiple locations require collection, which eats into the efficiency of their recycling or use for other purposes. At a certain point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and eats your gains.

Using your woody wastes and beef tallow examples, using these to make paper and dog food make more energetic and environmental sense than using either to feed a power-generating incinerator, and even THAT makes way more sense than using these to generate cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, pyrolysis oil and char or biogas. Neither of these will make even the tiniest dent into our current transport fuels use, much less where we'll be in 10 years unless something dramatic is done.

Until the energy market is changed fundamentally by something more dependable than government subsidy for fuels, I'm not holding my breath for any big changes.