1700 Miles Per Tank, Free!
Unfortunately, there could be a big problem with biodiesel if its use becomes widespread; ie, more than a few eccentric guys taking used French fry oil from the school cafeteria for their souped-up cars. From a piece in Engineering News Online, by Esmarie Swanepoel:
The biggest disadvantage of biofuels is its potential to compete with food production, said University of Cape Town senior lecturer in economics Jeremy Wakeford, during the September Biofuels Africa 2007 conference. "This is most obvious in the case of maize- ethanol, considering that maize is one of the world's major staple foods. Maize forms the basis of the diet for the majority of South Africans. However, this concern also extends to other feedstocks that are also food products, such as sugar, wheat, and soya, as well as nonfood feedstocks that are grown on land, which could otherwise support food production."Wakeford said the global biofuels boom is already a contributor to rising world food prices. "This is particularly acute in the case of maize, on account of nearly 30% of US production now being converted into fuel ethanol. This poses a potentially severe threat to food security among the world's poor, especially in Africa."
And then there's this, from the same piece:
While biofuels is seen as potential competition for food production by some, blaming food inflation on the increased demand for grains to produce biofuel is simplistic, says Southern African Biofuels Association (Saba) president Andrew Makenete. In the latest ‘Agricultural Outlook' report, the Food and Agricultural Organisation highlights the factors contributing to higher agri- cultural commodity prices. These include lower world market opening stocks, an unprecedented demand for agricultural products from China and India in particular, drought, and market inefficiencies. Makenete says the relative weights of these factors have not yet been determined and the Outlook report warns it is premature to attribute a long-term rise in commodity prices to biofuels."The true impact of maize-to-ethanol production on international markets is also distorted by the peculiar characteristics of the US maize industry. A study by the US's Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development concluded that maize-to-ethanol production would increase US food retail prices by 10%, and, hence, also world prices," says Makenete.
However, the underlying assumptions of such conclusions must be taken into consideration, says Makenete. "One assumption is that US ethanol import tariffs remain in place. Such tariffs prevent US refineries from sourcing [more cheaply] produced ethanol from, say, Brazil. They also don't encourage US ethanol plants to use a range of feedstocks, which could reduce the acute demand for maize."
Makenete says biofuels present a valuable opportunity for sub-Saharan Africa to attract significant investments into rural areas, promote agricultural development at an unprecedented scale, and provide for import substitution of oil with savings for the national fiscus. The industry can also provide ethanol exports primarily to the north, and overcome the trade distorting effects created by subsidised agricultural commodities.
He adds that Saba is of the opinion that the proposed fuel blend in the draft strategy is inadequate, and that South Africa indeed has the resources to support a 10% bioethanol blend, and a 5% biodiesel blend, and that supplying fuel to captured fleets in South Africa is a realistic expection.
Biofuel crop production, if it prioritises the procurement of feedstock from emerging farmers, presents a unique opportunity to commercialise farming in depressed rural areas and so can contribute to food security, says Makenete. "This is particularly true if biofuels offtakers include existing oil companies who are able to provide a guaranteed offtake for the feedstock produced by emerging farmers."
The Economist points to "The End Of Cheap Food":
But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks.Dearer food has the capacity to do enormous good and enormous harm. It will hurt urban consumers, especially in poor countries, by increasing the price of what is already the most expensive item in their household budgets. It will benefit farmers and agricultural communities by increasing the rewards of their labour; in many poor rural places it will boost the most important source of jobs and economic growth.
Although the cost of food is determined by fundamental patterns of demand and supply, the balance between good and ill also depends in part on governments. If politicians do nothing, or the wrong things, the world faces more misery, especially among the urban poor. If they get policy right, they can help increase the wealth of the poorest nations, aid the rural poor, rescue farming from subsidies and neglect—and minimise the harm to the slum-dwellers and landless labourers. So far, the auguries look gloomy.
...According to the World Bank, the really poor get three times as much extra income from an increase in farm productivity as from the same gain in industry or services. In the long term, thriving farms and open markets provide a secure food supply.
However, there is an obvious catch—and one that justifies government help. High prices have a mixed impact on poverty: they hurt anyone who loses more from dear food than he gains from a higher income. And that means over a billion urban consumers (and some landless labourers), many of whom are politically influential in poor countries. Given the speed of this year's food-price rises, governments in emerging markets have no alternative but to try to soften the blow.
Where they can, these governments should subsidise the incomes of the poor, rather than food itself, because that minimises price distortions. Where food subsidies are unavoidable, they should be temporary and targeted on the poor. So far, most government interventions in the poor world have failed these tests: politicians who seem to think cheap food part of the natural order of things have slapped on price controls and export restraints, which hurt farmers and will almost certainly fail.
Over the past few years, a sense has grown that the rich are hogging the world's wealth. In poor countries, widening income inequality takes the form of a gap between city and country: incomes have been rising faster for urban dwellers than for rural ones. If handled properly, dearer food is a once-in-a-generation chance to narrow income disparities and to wean rich farmers from subsidies and help poor ones. The ultimate reward, though, is not merely theirs: it is to make the world richer and fairer.
Gee, if only we could terminate agricultural subsidies! That would fix a lot of problems. But wait, we can't, because it'll hurt the struggling individual farmers, the ones that Willie Nelson lionizes. What's that you say? There are hardly any of those left and our subsidy practices are really supporting Archer Daniels Midland and the Fanjoul brothers? Heresy!
More seriously, various researchers are working to develop feedstock crops that would 1) not have to be edible and 2) would be more efficient sources of biofuel. The whole ethanol-is-competing-with-people's-bellies-for-corn thing may be well be short-lived. Plus, if you're talking about crops that no one will be ingesting, you might have more leeway to genetically engineer those crops to need less water and fewer pesticides than food crops, though someone with more agricultural knowledge than I have will have to investigate that.
Me, I'm hoping that the rising prices of corn will cause U.S. food and beverage manufacturers to return to using cane sugar rather than corn syrup to sweeten products. Soft drinks sweetened with cane sugar (which can be purchased in Mexico/Central America/South America and are sometimes imported to the U.S.) both taste better AND cause the brain's "have ingested sufficient sweetness" switch to be tripped earlier. Win-win situation, from my POV.
marion at March 15, 2008 9:45 AM
I'm hoping that the rising prices of corn will cause U.S. food and beverage manufacturers to return to using cane sugar rather than corn syrup to sweeten products.
Let's hope.
FYI, they have bottles of sugar-sweetened Coke for sale at Costco. Having some delivered on Monday.
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Not to mention the fact that fuel from corn is dumb as dirt. Tractor furel, transport and fertilizer made from crude oil - the result, in terms of energy delivered, is just about break-even. The only reason ethanol-from-corn makes any economic sense is because of massive government subsidies.
There are bio-fuels that have potential, but corn isn't one of them.
And there's another fact that the few people seem to be aware of: agricultural productivity has risen tremendously in the past decades, and a large part of this is due to increased CO2. For example, around 1/4 of the total yield of wheat is due to the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Put another way: if one could reduce the CO2-level, a substantial portion of the world's food production would disappear.
bradley13 at March 15, 2008 9:51 AM
Corn ethanol is a huge boondoggle. Biodiesel can't provide enough energy for our needs. Period. Nuclear power is the only proven source of non-fossil energy that can meet our needs. For the life of me, I can't see why people don't get this.
justin case at March 15, 2008 11:22 AM
I am hoping that there is some reason to believe that the reports of vats filled with bacteria that can produce biofuel will bear out with a reasonable alternative.
I will know it's real when I hear that Dannon is switching production....
jerry at March 15, 2008 11:22 AM
Justin, it's because they assume that nuclear means Chernobyl.
If Rad pops in today, he'll have something to say about this.
I'm for nuclear power, by the way.
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Nuclear power is the only proven source of non-fossil energy that can meet our needs. For the life of me, I can't see why people don't get this.
Because nuclear is SCARY! People prefer to pretend that the energy for their 10,000-SF McMansions came come painlessly and cleanly from thin air, without any need for nasty refineries, frightening nuclear plants, and/or noisy wind turbines.
(Note: I'm not Ms.-Anti-Sprawl chick; I more or less agree with Reason that trying to socially engineer people into dense cities is a bad idea. But I get very, very annoyed by people who use a lot of energy for their gadgets and their homes who are unwilling to put up with the tradeoffs that energy supply currently requires.)
marion at March 15, 2008 11:29 AM
> if you're talking about
> crops that no one will be
> ingesting, you might have
> more leeway
Hadn't thought of that.
> I can't see why people
> don't get this.
Because both nukes and fossils have hideous downsides.
Hey Amy, did you ever try to get out of Costco without showing them your receipt?
Crid at March 15, 2008 12:51 PM
I haven't. Costco is a membership store, and I figured that was one of the conditions of membership.
I don't show my receipt in stores without memberships. I also try not to shop in stores that treat me like a thief (ie, where they take away your possessions when you walk in).
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2008 1:15 PM
Attention Smart People! Will someone please walk me through this? I experience perplexitude.
--- "This is particularly acute in the case of maize, on account of nearly 30% of US production now being converted into fuel ethanol. This poses a potentially severe threat to food security among the world's poor, especially in Africa."
I'd always heard that the United States policy produced far too much maize at far too high a cost. How is this hurting the third world? Was all that goofy grain being magically transported to the Dark Continent at zero cost without me knowing about it?
Or, if third-world producers are getting capsized by the wake of our markets, shouldn't they simply be encouraged to compete more efficiently? Should underperforming cultures be permitted or encouraged to grind at weak levels just because we think it's quaint and inspiring that they could do so?
Secondly, shouldn't the United States ag policies be composed primarily upon economic reality more than any warm-&-fuzzy intentions? If American maize can't be delivered to Africa at a price rewarding to our farmer, then why should he grow it?
Thirdly, what are "captured fleets"?
Fourth, I get the feeling that Whitey's about to have his nuts taxed off -
--- "This is particularly true if biofuels offtakers include existing oil companies..."
Good luck with that. The Commies used to tell their industries which vendors and customers were acceptable. Didn't work out.
Fifth, this is horseshit rhetoric-
--- That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year.
I hate that sentence more than anything I've read this year. If the effect were really so direct, the author wouldn't say "a person", he'd name names. The equivalence of a tank of fuel and a thousand meals is completely bogus.
A whole lot of distinct forces are being conflated so that the author can pretend that if only he were in charge, simple horse sense would allow him to direct resources to the best destinations. Actual people --and the markets they create-- would not need to be consulted.
Sixth, WTF is this? -
--- "The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year..."
What does "extra" mean? Extra compared to what? By who?
Seventh -
--- "Dearer food has the capacity to do enormous good and enormous harm..."
Welcome to adulthood, where events have consequences. Try not to be an asshole about it.
This essay does not gladden the heart.
Crid at March 15, 2008 2:07 PM
I live in southern az and for the life of me I cant figure out why every highty light doesnt have at least 6 solar panels on each of them
lujlp at March 15, 2008 2:43 PM
That should read 'highway'
lujlp at March 15, 2008 2:44 PM
the bottom line is that everyone wants something for nothing... or was it money for nothing?
Since ethanol has less energy in it, your gas milage goes down if you use E85, my understanding is 25%... The ethanol lobby says 5% the critics say 30%... But the state of Iowa fleet says 17% plus, because they haven't always been able to run E85 exclusively. Still they have been running about 60-40 E85 to E10 on average since 1991. I think their numbers are probably the best. So if you get your E85 for 25% less money, but your mileage is that much worse? Seems like a 0 net to an individual. Except for the part where the reason the E85 is cheaper, is that it's subsidized.So you are paying that amount anyway. IMHO the advantages of E85 just arent enough to make it worthwhile to hype this much. There have got to be better things to subsidize...
The flip side of all this thing about the farmers and the price the charge, is that for 20 years or more, there was very little profit in raising corn. Enough to eke out a living. A lot of those types of commodities don't have much profit margin in them. So people how were buying it may well have been enjoying a long period of artificially low price. Now that it's back up, everybody screams.
A cat for a Hat, or a Hat for a Cat. But nothing for nothing. People in general, I think, don't seem to get the whole idea that energy, no matter where you get it, ISN'T infinite. Solar seems like a good answer since the energy production is offworld, but the worldwide panel prduction is at full capacity now, and I don't see companies running out to increase it, on a large scale. If we all wanted solar panels tomorrow, there would have to be a huge increase. That's not even addressing the toxic waste issues of large scale solar.
Just like if everyone got plug-in hybrids tomorrow, where would that electricity come from? From coal. Or natural gas. And there is some indication that the grid couldn't actiually handle it. We all talk nukes, but it'll take 20 years or so to get one from drawingboard to prodution, and that's IF all the anti-nuke people get over their Not-In-My-Backyard issues.
The only silver bullet I can see is if everyone suddenly wakes up and starts counting ACTUAL costs of doing something, instead of only counting political costs. E85 is being pushed because it makes everybody think that something is actually being done, to offset foreign oil, and supposedly something about pollution, athough neither one is clear...
sheez, I sound so cynical... oh, wait.
SwissArmyD at March 15, 2008 5:12 PM
If you are going to talk about "bio(anything)", please note that the intervention of plant life is not going to magically produce more fuel than either a) you can use, or b) can be collected from the biosphere. "b" is actually what we do now: carbonaceous reserves built and stored over million of years are extracted and converted to propel butts to WalMart because they are bored - in a 300+ HP pickup truck that never sees work.
You really need to think about the amount of handling each fuel production method requires. You are nearing $4/gallon for a process which consists of pumping something out of the ground and distilling it; processing plant life is not magically cheaper. From the standpoint of energy usage, the issue is exactly the same as attends your personal budget: spend money one way, that money is not available for something else. Burn something for fuel, you cannot use it for shelter or food. Expend effort to make fuel, you are not using that effort to make food or shelter or any of the other things you might need.
You really, really need to understand motor vehicle efficiency. I've made a start at explaining this issue before. Don't miss the fueltable link - or that awesome invention, "lipodiesel"!
Radwaste at March 15, 2008 7:08 PM
Raddy comes through like a fuckin' brother.
I missed the worst passage during my earlier drive-bys; let us now aim for the heart of the beast:
> Over the past few years, a
> sense has grown that the rich
> are hogging the world's wealth.
Let's start by agreeing that whenever someone clouds the specifics of their perception by describing them with the word "sense", we are almost certainly being bullshitted. Furthermore, let's acknowledge that "a sense has grown" is passive language in the league of "mistakes were made. If this writer was worth his beans, he'd tell us who's so stupid to have this "sense".
And it is stupidity. I've never heard anyone tell the truth in fewer words than P.J. O'rourke did in an offhand summary: "Wealth is created when assets are moved from lesser- to higher-valued purposes." What that means is that anytime two parties voluntarily execute a transaction, both walk away richer.
Between writing that last comment and this one, I spent an hour reading Bjorn Lomborg, my new intellectual hero. And he reminds us that time and time again, we see that farmers in the third world aren't allowed to grow what they want and charge what they want... There's always someone like the guy who wrote this piece ready to tell them what the nature and price, and customer of their product ought to be.
Crid at March 15, 2008 9:57 PM
To Hell with Bio-D. I want a car that runs on blood.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 16, 2008 9:26 AM
After being told that farm subsidies and low prices for grain hurt African farmers, I can only think that a spike in corn prices is a help to the same.
Right? And a reason to get them off the gov. tit too.
liz at March 16, 2008 2:32 PM
liz, it won't matter because (1) those same African nations either have incredibly high tariffs (if not outright bans) themselves, and (2) they insist on confiscating farmland for their various grand social experiments. Africa could easily feed the whole world if they could manage to get rid of their various Beloved Leaders. Well, we've been waiting a century on that now, and I'm not holding my breath. BTW, whenever anyone talks about "making the world more fair", I instinctively check to make sure I still have my wallet.
As far as the nukes: The very first priority is to reverse the stupid current EPA policies that are pushing baseline power generation towards natural gas. I can't begin to explain how stupid that is. It's wasting all of the advantages natural gas has as a fuel, and it's causing wild fluctuations in the prices of both natural gas and of electricity where it is used heavily (think California). Long-term, our goals should be to move towards nukes for all baseline power generation, but as SwissArmyD points out, that's going to take a while. So, short term, we're going to have to accept an increase in coal use.
The other thing that's hurting us, and it doesn't get talked about much, is transmission infrastructure. The stupid "powerline cancer" scare of the 1990s set back transmission improvements about 15 years. There are now a number of areas of the country (think California again) where, even though there is usually sufficient generating capacity available, it doesn't matter because the electricity can't get to where it's needed. If SCADA hadn't come along when it did, most parts of the U.S. would be suffering from regular rotating blackouts now.
Cousin Dave at March 17, 2008 8:31 AM
The one thing no one brings up is that the US is not only subsidizing farm production but actually paying farmers to leave fields fallow to keep prices high enough for the farmers to 'earn a living'. There is plenty of US and worldwide agricultural capacity to keep increasing the biofuel industry for years to come. There may not be a net benefit to the world in terms of energy produced or cost, but for the US the benefit is in becoming self-sufficient and no longer needing to purchase their energy (i.e. oil) from other countries. Having control of the source of energy can be as important as the amount of energy being generated and the price.
Mojo at March 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Leave a comment