I've been reading snippets about these problems and it's good to see all of them laid out in one article; Published on Saturday, October 20, 2007 by Inter Press Service www.commondreams.org Biofuels - Great Green Hope or Swindle by Stephen Leahy BROOKLIN, Canada - A raft of new studies reveal European and American multibillion dollar support for biofuels is unsustainable, environmentally destructive and much more about subsidising agri-business corporations than combating global warming. Not only do most forms of biofuel production do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, growing biofuel crops uses up precious water resources, increasing the size and extent of dead zones in the oceans, boosting use of toxic pesticides and deforestation in tropical countries, such studies say. And biofuel, powered by billions of dollars in government subsidies, will drive food prices 20-40 percent higher between now and 2020, predicts the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute. “Fuel made from food is a dumb idea to put it succinctly,” says Ronald Steenblik, research director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) in Geneva, Switzerland. Biofuel production in the U.S. and Europe is just another way of subsidising big agri-business corporations, Steenblik told IPS. “It’s (biofuel) also a distraction from dealing with the real problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” he asserts. Making fuel out of corn, soy, oilseeds and sugar crops is also incredibly expensive, Steenblik and his co-authors document in two new reports on the U.S. and the European Union that are part of a series titled ‘Biofuels at What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel’. Their analysis shows that by 2006 government support for biofuels had reached 11 billion dollars a year for Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) countries. More than 90 percent of those subsidies came from the European Union and the U.S. These subsidies will likely climb to 13-15 billion dollars this year the report estimates. “More subsidies are coming as the biofuel industry expands,” says Steenblik. In fact, countries will have to spend more than 100 billion dollars a year to get biofuel production levels high enough to supply 25 or 30 percent of transport fuel demands. And those levels of annual subsidies will have to continue because the industry is dependent on them, he says. It might be worth it if biofuels resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) but Steenblik calculates the amount of subsidies that goes into making enough ethanol to reduce emissions equivalent of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) is between 2,100 to 4,400 euros (2,980 to 6,240 dollars) depending on the support programmes. However, the European carbon trading markets sells a similar saved or sequestered tonne of CO2 for less than 25 euros (35 dollars) through various projects like planting trees or installing solar panels. Various analysis that take the full environmental costs of growing, shipping and processing maize into ethanol show there is only a small reduction in GHG emissions over burning fossil fuels. Newer research shows some biofuels could even be far worse. Rapeseed biodiesel and maize ethanol may produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more GHG emissions respectively than fossil fuels, according to work published in September by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and University of Edinburgh colleague Keith Smith. They found that growing biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought. The N2O results from using nitrogen fertilisers. About 80 percent of Europe’s biodiesel comes from rapeseed and in America the vast majority is maize ethanol. “What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse,” Smith has said in media reports. Last January, U.S. President George W. Bush set a biofuel target of 35 billion gallons per year by 2017, more than five times the current production of less than 7 billion gallons. However that target would leave some U.S. waterways polluted and some regions with severe water shortages the National Research Council (NRC) said in a report released this month. The NRC is the research arm of the US National Academy of Sciences. The additional fertilisers used to grow all that maize will contribute to the overgrowth of aquatic plant life that produces “dead zones” like those in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere, the report said. Similar water warnings were issued by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka regarding India and China’s growing interest in biofuels. IWMI, part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, recommends in its October report that the two countries invest in cellulosic biofuel the so-called second generation biofuel technology that is still a number of years from commercialisation. “Subsidies for ethanol are more about securing votes from the powerful agricultural lobby than bringing environmental benefits,” says Walter Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, an environmental NGO based in New York City. Simple and cheap programmes like a congestion charge - an extra fee for driving in city centres - and the widely successful Paris, France free bike programme reduce air pollution and GNG emissions immediately at very low cost, Hook said in an interview. Launched in July, Paris put thousands of low-cost rental bikes - the first 30 minutes of use are free - at hundreds of high-tech bicycle stations. A million trips were taken in just 17 days. “Absolutely amazing, every city should be thinking of doing this,” he said. In Paris, an advertising company provides the bikes for free, runs the system, gives all the revenue to the city and pays 4.3 million dollars a year in exchange for exclusive control of the city’s advertising billboards. Mobility - getting from A to B - with the minimum of GHG emissions is the core problem we should be addressing not finding greener fuels, says Steenblik. Indeed, Canadian transportation analyst Todd Alexander Litman has demonstrated greener fuels and improvements in fuel efficiency result in people driving more because they can afford to. And that just makes “traffic congestion, accidents, road and parking facility costs, and the lack of options for non-drivers worse,” said Litman, director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, in British Columbia, Canada. In his ‘Win-Win Transportation Solutions’ report released in September, Litman documents a variety of cost-effective transportation strategies that could reduce motor vehicle travel by 30-50 percent, produce substantial reductions in GHGs and bring a range of economic developments. His simple solutions include making urban areas more walkable, creating bike lanes, improving the quality of mass transit and a dozen more ideas. None involved producing more biofuels. “Subsidising biofuels is just about the dumbest way to go,” Litman told IPS. Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, uses stronger language: increasing biofuel production is a “total disaster” for starving people, he told a Swiss media outlet last week. “There are serious risks of creating a battle between food and fuel that will leave the poor and hungry in developing countries at the mercy of rapidly rising prices for food, land and water,” Ziegler warned the UN General Assembly last August. On Oct. 25, he will ask the UN General Assembly, to adopt a five-year global ban on the conversion of land for the production of biofuels. Despite the growing evidence that biofuels are a huge mistake, governments will continue to pour billions more tax dollars into boosting production levels. “Governments rarely phase out subsidies,” laments Steenblik. “We’re hoping that countries will come to their senses in the next few years.” © 2007 Inter Press Service
Since we're on the subject, Here's an ambiguous article about BD clogging Nice how the headline doesn't fully describe what the article actually says - bottom line is, despite the hype, biofuel users are still lab rats. Also, note how they state that glycerin causes wax gelling - the glycerins are what gives the fuel its lubricating qualities. buyer beware. http://www.auri.org/news/ainapr07/biodiesel_unplugged.htm Biodiesel uplugged Researchers find it wasn't just soy diesel clogging fuel filters in later 2005 By Cindy Green Don’t blame it all on biodiesel . In the fall 2005, soon after a Minnesota mandate kicked in requiring a 2-percent biodiesel blend, truckers and bus drivers started complaining that the soy-based diesel was clogging fuel filters. Just before Christmas, the state lifted the mandate for 21 days, then extended the waiver another 30 days until the fuel-plugging problems could be solved. “Quality issues were taken seriously and addressed by Minnesota biodiesel producers,” says Rose Patzer, AURI associate scientist. Clogged-filter complaints subsided after producers made sure all biodiesel going on the market met quality standards, and the 2- percent mandate went back into effect. But was biodiesel the problem? “In some cases, yes, but many other things contributed,” Patzer says. “We haven’t seen many issues with Minnesota’s biodiesel this season. And most of those were relating to higher blends or biodiesel that was produced from other states.” AURI just released findings of its two-year study of blended-fuel filter plugging. While results are not conclusive, it’s likely that storage issues, water contamination, microbes and other secondary causes are as much to blame as fuel quality. Perfect storm Filter clogging in late 2005 was caused by several converging circumstances. “It was a perfect storm — a coming together of bad events” Patzer says. The temperatures dropped to around zero degrees, which can cause gelling in high-percentage biodiesel blends. “Last year people were regularly using blends above the recommended levels. They are taking destiny into their own hands when they go higher than B20.” Hurricane Katrina exacerbated the problems. “Terminals ran out of fuel. When a tank is emptied, sediment settles at the bottom,” for microbes to feed on. But most of the contamination was water in fuel storage tanks. “Diesel will always be on top of the water, but if there are bugs, the interface between the fuel and water is where they’ll survive,” Patzer says. She explains that in both biodiesel and petrodiesel, if a thin grey line is present in the fuel tank, that indicates live microbes are present. “If the line is black, generally they’re dead.” “We want to isolate and identify the microbes, then take those cultures and put them in biodiesel and see what damage they do.” Too clean “From my perspective, I don’t think we’ll ever resolve (the plugging issue) because we don’t have all the pieces – but through characterizing, we can come to some conclusions.” Acting like a cleaning agent, biodiesel may remove sludge and varnish-like deposits in tanks and components, which can plug fuel filters. Chemicals will kill the bacteria but water needs to be pumped out first, and emptying and cleaning tanks can be expensive. A 2004 U.S. Department of Energy biodiesel handling report says that using blends with 20-percent biodiesel or less minimizes problems with tank sediments, although filter plugging may be an issue in the initial weeks of B20 use. The DOE recommends always storing blends above 20 percent in clean, dry tanks as is recommended for conventional diesel. High glycerin concentrations in biodiesel can also cause a wax coating on fuel filters. But if fuel is stored below ground where it’s better insulated and warmer than above-ground storage, there may be fewer problems with glycerin. Soy sterol glucosides are another contaminate and usually eliminated during soybean oil or biodiesel production, but it can remain in up to 3 percent of the fuel. “We need to figure out how to make sure it’s eliminated,” Patzer says. Inconclusive tests When Minnesota truckers started having problems with clogged filters in October 2005, some were advised to send their filters to AURI’s oils lab in Marshall for testing. “One of the problems was, we were never able to obtain an actual diesel sample,” Patzer says, so the oils lab didn’t know if the trucker had used B2, B5, B20, 100-percent biodiesel or regular diesel when the gelling occurred. “We only had part of the picture.” Biodiesel may not even have been a factor. Lower-sulfur petrodiesels now on the market could be prone to contamination, as sulfur has an anti-microbial effect “When there is a (fuel) quality issue, then we have an obvious answer – through chemical analysis. When it isn’t a quality issue … it could be water in the bottom of a tank where there could be microbial activity.” “There is no one answer — and no one cure-all,” Patzer says. “There are many problems, many different issues.”■ Rose Patzer, AURI associate scientist (left) and Renae Jorgenson, chemist, inspect one of the fuel filters that truckers sent to AURI in late 2005 after complaints arose that state-mandated biodiesel blends were causing filter plugging. An AURI study revealed that storage and handling problems contributed to fuel gelling.
I posted that article on cumminsforum.com but didn't get much support. Those guys think it's a Commie/Liberal/UN plot to destroy America's farmers.
I'm with you guys. I agree that we need to quit buying our oil from the mideast............. but turning all our corn into fuel is not to smart imo, as the above articles point out. I don't know how accurate this is but I'be heard that if all the corn in the US was turned into ethonal it would still only supply 17% of our fuel needs.:doah:
Soy beans are not the answer.Alge is one of the best sources.covered ponds in the desert and we can pipe CO to them from coal fired electric plants.The alge grows and absorbs the CO and it has a 20x or more yield per acer than soy beans.As you can see from the info below we have had this info for awhile. The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants. Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil)
Algae and switchgrass both of which grow very fast and are easy to harvest but you know what there's not much money in those alternatives for the big companies.
heck, there's no money in it for the little companies either..lots of bankrupt ethanol producers out there right now..
My $0.02 worth If you look up Montana and the governer he has been promoting the coal liquifacation for awhile now and this technology has been around since WWII as the German's were using it for their tanks at the time. The way I see it is it starts using our coal for produtive uses again, and should keep the tree huggers happy, and at least for the diesel users get us off of mideast oil.
