philba

I submit this with no particular bias one way or the other. There have been statements that biofuels are carbon neutral and this article strongly disagrees with that point of view.

http://alternet.org/environment/54218/

mneary

The article is very short on facts, and to my eye is little more than a rant against the evil Big Agriculture.

philba

yes, I agree that it's author appears biased but the claim that biofuel has a much larger carbon footprint is worth following up on. I believe there is some truth to that but a 33X larger footprint does seem wrong. Anyone know the reality?

HarveyH42

What a load of crap. Farms have been closing down for years because they can't sell crops. Biofuels would turn things around in many ways. Old and damaged food crops could be used for fuel instead of landfill. Fuel crops don't need people friendly fertilizer or insecticides, use sewage sludge and let the bugs have fun. There are a lot of rapid growth plants, that aren't of food interest, but would make great fuel. Genetically altered plants could be used for fuel (never understood why its such a scare as food). I think it would create a lot of jobs, strengthen local economies. Farming for fuel wouldn't involve an special care of the crops, as it wouldn't matter what the product looked like, how ripe (or over ripe). No special harvesters (might help with the border issues, sorry mexico). Wouldn't have to seperate anything, different type plants could grow together in the same fields. Not much worr about pest, majority of the damage is cosmetic. Bacteria would be killed when the fuel is rendered. Farming without the hassles. Really don't see how this will effect the world food supply.

Carbon based fuels will polute just the same, don't think enviroment friendly applies here, except more plants, cleaner air...

upand_at_them

I thought it was a reasonable article and agree with phil that it's worth following up on. The reason that we're in, and will be in for quite a while, an environmental predicament is that we too often don't consider our impact. Too many times we hear about some "simple" solution that will save the world; agro-fuels is no different. There is no one simple answer to our mess and we need to get out of the "hey...let's do this thing over here" attitude.

And Big Business behind any solution should always be a concern.

Mike

Oznog

While there are troubling questions about the usefulness of the biofuel cycle in helping the planet or even getting any net gain in usable fuel at all, keep in mind there are more than a few paid pundits quietly being very well-funded by oil companies or other such big corporate entities. It is corporate propaganda masquerading as informed, individual thought.

Well, that being said the article is by Eric Holt-Giménez, who comes with some credentials to suggest he's on the level:
http://www.agroecology.org/eric.html
Traveling Professor
International Honors Program (IHP), Boston University
B.A. The Evergreen State College
M.S. University of California, Davis
Ph.D. University of California, Santa Cruz

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

HarveyH42

Could be just fishing for grant money...

upand_at_them

Nope. If he was looking for money he'd go work for the corporate propaganda machine.

j.p.bill

Transport is always going to need some portable fuel supply, but power grneration gets to stay in one place. There are several nuclear reactor designs around that are much less dangerous that the crappy old 1950's era boiling water designs still in operation here. Building new reactors stops zillions of tons of pollution, plus lets us use up some of the thousands of weapons just gathering dust.

upand_at_them

Yes, but the problem with nuclear power is that it generates extremely hazardous waste that lasts for thousands of years. Think about it...the power used to run your fridge or make your clothing produces waste that's still highly toxic long after your great great great...great grandchildren are dead.

Mike

HarveyH42

Doesn't a nuclear reactor still just boil water to drive a steam turbine? The fuel rod is consider 'spent', when the can no longer maintain a consistant reaction temperature. Not sure if they replace a single rod, the entire core at once, or sort through individual fuel pellets... But seem if the fuel is still dangerously radioactive, then perhaps it's not being completely used, or used to the best advantage. I would hope that after all these years of relatively safe power generation, they have learn enough about the material to come up with something less wasteful.

upand_at_them

No, a nuclear reactor doesn't JUST boil water. It also generates nuclear waste.

3v0

One thing people like to point out is that it takes fuel to grow the crop, process the plants, and then distribute the product.

While all this is true there is bound to be a net gain in the fuel supply.

The carbon released by the fuel was obtained as carbon dioxide when the plants were growing. Show be close to a zero sum unless ones uses fossil fuel to process the plants.

And as pointed out Harvy442 it puts money back into the local economy that would otherwise go elsewhere.

I am not favor of tearing down the rain forest.

An there is this thing about creating jobs.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

philba

nuclear has it drawbacks but I've read about studies that have consistently said that even with some radioactive releases, the death rate from nuclear power is lower than the death rate from coal fire plants for equal amounts of power generated. These were older studies so they didn't take into account the greenhouse gas issues nor the impact of chernobyl-like events. I'd bet that an unbiased study would still conclude that nukes are a better bet.

Or we could all just go back to being peasant-farmers.

HarveyH42

If even one nuclear plant blew up, the death and destruction would be far greater than all coal fire plants, past and future. Chernobyl was bad, mostly because the russians waited so long to admit they had a problem. Even then, they got off easy, another week or so...