FT Too?: Why oh Why Can’t We Have a Better Press Corps
Anyone who has kept their eyes open on the biofuel issue knows that the biofuels as they are currently being produced are an enormous waste of energy and money. This FT article hardly mentions that. Not only that, but I have to assume that “agricultural scientists” are getting some kind of funding from agricultural agencies, who profit from increased grain prices from biofuels (and other sources of price increases). Does this FT reporter tell us this? No. Does she say that is not the case? No. Does it make their case weaker, per se? No. But full disclosure is important so that these things are in the open and not speculated about. They probably get more weight when you have to speculate on them. And of course, there is no mention of the massive amounts of energy, aka carbon output, that goes into producing the crops (fertilizer, irrigation, transport, refining, maintenance, etc.). For the love of god, discuss these issues so that we can know better. Leaving them under the table in the article just makes me believe they have no rebuttal to claims that biofuels are more energy intensive. Comparing carbon output while being burned is USELESS. It is simply one input into the measure. Also, how will the ability to use more varied sources of agricultural product/waste change these weights? Of course, those issues are not addressed either.
Biofuels combat climate change, say scientists
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Biofuels must be added to transport fuel to combat climate change, and fears over their environmental value and influence on food prices should not discourage the government from ordering an increase in their use, a group of leading agricultural scientists said on Friday.
The scientists mounted their defence of biofuels as environmental groups stepped up their campaign against them ahead of the introduction next week of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), under which petrol companies must ensure 2.5 per cent of the vehicle fuel sold in the UK is made up of biofuels.
“To blame biofuels for causing the increase in food prices is an over-simplification… We can’t afford not to use [plants as fuel],” said Gail Taylor, professor of biological science at Southampton University.
She said factors such as shortages of supply, because of poor harvests, and the changing diet of people in China as they become richer and eat more meat, which requires grain as animal feed, had much more influence on food prices.
Biofuels have been suggested as a greener alternative to fossil fuels because the plants from which they are made absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, cancelling out the carbon dioxide given off when they are burned. But they have come under fire as green groups have claimed they produce little savings in terms of carbon dioxide, contribute to the destruction of rainforest and raise food prices because they compete with food for scarce fertile land and water.
Graham Wynne, chief executive of the RSPB, called for a rethink of the government’s targets: “Some biofuel production will cause habitat loss, displace food production and emit more greenhouse gases than are being saved.”
Most people were unaware of the government’s plans for the RTFO, said Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Most people will be horrified to know the government is putting biofuels in our petrol when the damage they do to forests could make climate change worse.”
But there was “sufficient evidence” of the environmental benefits of biofuels to justify the government’s targets, said Nigel Mortimer, research manager at the University of Loughborough. Studies have found using biofuels produces about a third less carbon dioxide than using fossil fuels, though this varies depending on how the biofuel was produced.
Richard Murphy, of Imperial College London, rebuffed claims that there was a shortage of agricultural land available for growing biofuels. He said the world was only using half of its available agricultural land, and much of that was used inefficiently.
He said second generation biofuel technology, which would allow waste materials such as straw to be converted into ethanol, was “less than five years” away from being commercially viable.
April 15th, 2008 at 13:15 -0500
So though I completely agree, I think there are some things missing from this post. I mean yes there are a lot of factors that go into food prices, however we still have to make a choice between food and fuel. I agree we need to use plants more for fuel, but this is far different than using food for fuel. For example ethanol uses just the food part of corn for production. This brings me to the point about we are obsessed about the wrong biofuels. Ethanol is the worst possible biofuel:
1) Takes a lot of resources to produce, including food and oil (manufacture and transport), and the like is mentioned this post the carbon benefit may be zero if you take into account the effects generated from production.
2) Ethanol is difficult to transport, it is hydrophilic which means it must stay dry, it cannot be transported in the same pipelines as gas, so basically we need to transport it in a different infrastructure, so weight the cost of building a new infrastructure to support a fuel with marginal benefits
3) Effect on current engines, the way ethanol burns is different than gas (even when mixed) and it can cause damage to your engine if it cannot support ethanol, so we need to buy new cars, boats, etc. just to use “cleaner” fuels, again another cost, as opposed to finding a better plan of integration as people naturally purchase new products
4) Ethanol does not store much energy, a simple wikipedia search will show you that you need much more of it to get the same power output
So though it does make sense to use plants for fuel, it doesn’t make sense to use food, be forced to build a new infrastructure, etc. Look up biobutanol sometime and you will think ethanol is useless, holds more power per liter, can be transported in the same infrastructure, has less impact on current motors, and can be produced more cleanly from the leftovers of food production (dual use of plants add to efficiency in a greater sense). So we overall need to be smarter about biofuels.