Why Bio-fuels spell DISASTER

There is no real ubstitute for Petrol

from JoeUser Forums
Ever since George Bush talked about American "addiction to oil" there has been a flurry of policy statements about alternative fuels, particularly plant or cereal based organic extracts that can be blended with petrol to make alternate fuels. Like many of Bush's policy steaments and policies this quest for alternate fuel has been launched with cynical indifference to the dislocation this shift would cause to the world's food supply. The price of American corn has already begun to rise in the international grain market and this is because of the diversion of the corn produced to manufacture blended fuels kike ethanol. Brazil is another early pioneer in the research for blended fuels and there is signs of social unrest brought about by the large scale conversion of farmland for the production of corn for the fuel industry,

It is a fact of nature that the world's best farmlands are located in the northern hemisphere. The fast conversion of farmland to produce bio fuels is certain to create uncertainity in the sources of food supply. Having taken the oil from the Middle East there will
be nothing left in the OPEC countries and the middle east will have to import food from the countries of the temperate zone. In fact the Arab politicians have not woken up to the challenge posed by the innocuous quest for a substitute for petroleum.

The immediate danger lies in the shrinking of the worls food supply when large scale conversion of prime agricultural land into fuel plantation takes palce. And Asia and Africa will be the worst hit.
3,944 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no real substitute for Petrol


There has to be something out there to fuel vehicles other than what we currently use.

Maybe the starting point is the engines themselves, take focus off fuelling what vehicles we have and design entirely new forms of transport. There must be someone out there capable of thinking outside of the box?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The worst thing about biofuels is that they're a total waste of time. They're only competitive on cost (and even then only with subsidies). They pollute more, are less efficient and as Bahu points out use up valuable arable land.

Their popularity is an absolute enigma to me.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do we have plenty of? Salty sea water.

So why not look at designing some sort of vehicle that can run off salty water or salt or a some other bi-product of sea water. There really does have to be some sort of alternative out there.

They pollute more, are less efficient and as Bahu points out use up valuable arable land.


I don't disagree with this, using up land to grow fuel as opposed to growing food would be foolish.

I am of the opinion that the oil industry and the vehicle manufacturing industry have for so many years controlled any and refused to allow any hint or suggestion of other means of fuels or transportation to be investigated through greed. (though of course it is impossible to prove or back up - it is just an opinion and could be miles off course)
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would much rather give my money to an American farmer than some oil sheik that will help fund terror groups that want to kill Americans. As for food shortages, you keep saying Americans need to mind their own business, so we will.. let them feed themselves
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Take sewage waste do some magic and produce a new fuel to replace petrol. After all it is something we produce freely on a regular basis.

Imagine this, you connect the hose from the loo to the tank of your car, bingo! Off you go. Cheap fuel.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, some people really do believe that Bush has so much power that he can single handedly put the OPEC countries and the Middle East in an economical disaster. And I thought Cubans were stupid for letting a single man ruin their lives.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no real substitute for Petrol

Hydrocarbons can be substituted with bio fuels and this is the Holy Grail of research today

.hey can start spending all the money they've made off of us in oil sales to buy something infinitely more important than oil.Food

But do you not think that parts of the world are heading toward disaster when food sources are depleted in order to make bio fuels.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yea, what she said.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
On one hand, Bahu, you bristle at the US for their involvement in various foreign affairs, then turn around and assert we should be terribly concerned about world food supply.


US foreign policy is differnt from a global threat posedf by the conversion of arabale food producing land to the production of bio fuels.The assumption that this conversion will not hurt the US may well turn out to be wrong because USA is not an island unto itself.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fuel cells. Cars that run off hydrogen batteries, with only water as a byproduct. It's been done; it's just not quite practical yet. Let's get there, and fast.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
But that doesn't concern you one bit, does it, Bahu?


Damn, is it just me or did someone forget to take Bahu out of the oven?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's more worrisome is the current state of affairs, with so many despotic, half-crazed allah-fanatics who loathe our culture and everything we stand for being in control of such a large portion of the world's oil supply. We spend our money on their oil, and they spend their money developing weapons with which to annihilate us.


I think this absolute fear of annihilation is, well, misplaced.I think there is need to take a wider perspective and the debate should not always be us vs them, we vs they, and such like. Everyone is trying to get by in this crazy world aand my concern was over the impact of bio fuel production of food supply of the world.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would much rather give my money to an American farmer than some oil sheik that will help fund terror groups that want to kill Americans. As for food shortages, you keep saying Americans need to mind their own business, so we will.. let them feed themselves


I would like to address this important point. In the latest issue of Foreign Policy there is an aticle by Ford Runge and Senauer in which they argue that USA would be the nhardest hit because the vast quantities of subsidies going into bio fuels are actually increasing the price of corn from which ethanol is derived and this could hurt the economy badly. In fact if all the corn grown is converted into thanol it will still be only 2% of the fuel consumption and hence this hype on bio fuel is misplaced.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
From the moment cavemen learned how to pick up a stick and swing it, we've fought for the limited resources this world has to offer


If we merely started paying these subsidies for the opposite reason, to encourage the planting and harvesting of biofuel appropriate vegetation, we'd break even AND reduce that dependence on OPEC nations.


And who would be the first target of these nukes?


I think co operation has been the norm in human history rather than conflict. Remember the Prisoners' Dilema.

The ethanol industry is being dsubsidised by the US tax payer and if you do not mind me saying so, the people are yet to get hip to the sacm. Direct corn subsidies to the tune of 8.5 billion dollars are being given. In fact Brazil which produces ethanol from sugar cane gives far less subsidy and sugar based ethanol seems to be more energy efficient than corn based.

As far as Iranian nukes are concerned forget them. The Iranians are not fools to nuke anyone.



Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is there no talk about pulling our own oil out of the ground. There is lots of it in ANWAR, in the shale hills of Colorado, and off multiple coast lines.

To me the first step is to open up safe drilling to pull out this oil. In the meantime using some of that money into wind, solar energy, and research on alternative fuels (like fuel cells, nuclear, etc) making them safe for civilian use. Maybe we will have to sit back and watch BP (British Petrol) show us how to do it.

I still stand firm that it will be a detriment to go after 'growing' our fuel. Another aspect yet to be mentioned is the water all the new municipalities are in need. The Arkansas river valley of SE colorado is reverting back to prarie because the farmers are selling their water to Denver Munis. This is reducing the amount of farmers due to lack of irigation water.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Adventure-DudeJune 26, 2007 12:24:30Reply #22


It's obvious of course that's because of those enviromentalist people, but the irony is that while they don't want us to drill hear due to the possible destruction of the land and death of animals, it seems to be OK to do it in other parts of the world. Cause unless every one of these enviromental nutcases actually stays away from all types of technology and products that are derived of oil in some way which you can probably say just about everything, they are nothing but hypocrits as far as I'm concerned.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
they are nothing but hypocrits as far as I'm concerned.


And very near sited.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmmm. First thought about the apparent lack of concern by some posters regarding the future crisis in world food supply. We should be concerned about countries shifting thier food growing potential to fuel crops. They will still need food, but they will then have to import it.

Let's think this out.

We start planting bio-fuel crops instead of food.
The price of fuel goes down....the price of food (now at a greater demand) goes up.

The law of supply and demand will hold true. Less food produced, for whatever reason....the price will jump. People won't drive less...what makes you think they will eat less?

An alternative source for fuel....drill Alaska. Continue to grow our own food. Invest in more efficient nuc. power to provide electricity...and use electric/hybrid cars.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The price of fuel goes down....the price of food (now at a greater demand) goes up.


Economics say that these two will keep a balance.

You have the law of supply and demand right except that you have two commodities competing for each other. A farmer will play the game and plant what they think will yeild the most. Bottom line EVERYTHING goes up!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not to mention that we only can produce during harvest time. What are we going to do the rest of the year???? Bottle methane?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
*with great sarcasm* Hey why don't we build cars that run on Methane and grow pinto beans. We get food and our car gets fuel! Long trip? Car pool with in route meal. Oh yeah and also works as a cowboy bubble bath! Forget Hemp, BEANS! produces music, powers cars, creates luxurious baths!

VOTE BEANS!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wrote thisd in June 2007 and now what I predicted has come true, as usual.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wrote thisd in June 2007 and now what I predicted has come true, as usual.
End of quote


Not exactly, but close enough for government work. ;)

Those who did not have "greenies" in their eyes were predicting this as well. While we see the price of oil when we put gas in our car tanks, the price is rippling through the economy and causing world wide inflation. That is going to be painful to cure, but the alternative is a return to the 70s stagflation,and that must be avoided.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Engineered bacteria that convert Co2 to octane would solve all the problems associated with corn ethenol and it's only a year away.

Link