Stop Biofuel Lunacy: Effects on Global Food Crisis

[Integral]

Please do not equate ethanol to biofuel. Ethanol is only ONE source of renewable fuels, and not a particularly good one. As other alternatives become available, and cheaper ethanol will go by the wayside. For the reasons you mention, and more it is simply not viable in the long term. But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.

 

[vanesch]

But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.

I have to say that I am no expert in these things at all, and I would agree with you that research in biofuels (as research in about anything) is always a good idea. However, but I don't know in how much this is the cause for the current food price rises, it is not unthinkable that massive *state subventions* for trading food crops for biofuel crops WILL put the food market in competition with the skewed (by subventions) biofuel market, and will as such give rise to strong rises in food prices (but, again, I don't know if *this* price rise has anything to do with it).

We have witnessed similar problems in the past, when food growth is put in competition with a more lucrative market. We've seen this with tobacco, we've seen this with cotton, we've seen it with cocaine. Each time that food growth has to compete for farmer land and farmer activity with more lucrative crops, we get a regional food crisis. Because usually the "rich customer" is not local.

 

[vanesch]

This is the problem, biofuel is pushing up world food costs, and the only options the people
who cannot afford those food price have is to die or go down fighting.

I propose that they drink the ethanol...

 

[Hurkyl]

But do you have more recent figures than that?

I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures.

From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6)

Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains')


The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods')

The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)



P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?

 

[wolram]

About China

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=40915

 

[Evo]

But do you have more recent figures than that?

This gives some interesting stats on grain export, including corn and soy, it's from March 5th, 2008. This is some interesting information that relates to this thread.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3629

 

[esbo]

I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures.

From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6)

Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains')


The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods')

The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)

Seems to be at odds with the several figures I posted, also I believe you figures exclude
biofuels, if seem food used as biofuels is not included.
Also the figures are quite close and were probably effected by the falling dollar making exports easier and imports harder.

 

[esbo]

P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?

I just posted as per normal. I don't consider them 'opening statements', for what it is worth, nor side topics in particular, just a slection of words contained in my posts.
If I intended to withdraw them it is most unlikely I would have posted them in the first place.

 

[Hurkyl]

Seems to be at odds with the several figures I posted,

How so?

If I intended to withdraw them it is most unlikely I would have posted them in the first place.

So, you don't find it at all hypocrticial for you to make lots of comments on side topics and complain when others respond to those comments?

 

[esbo]

How so?

The ones I posted showed the US was a net importor or food.

 

[Hurkyl]

The ones I posted showed the US was a net importor or food.

How that is at odds with the fact that, for certain kinds of foods, the US is almost exclusively an exporter?

You can even find the figures you quoted in the 2004 data from that page. Did you look?

 

[esbo]

So, you don't find it at all hypocrticial for you to make lots of comments on side topics and complain when others respond to those comments?

I think it is not very helpful when you igmore the main point of a thread and then take a part of it out of context and use that in the manner it was never intended in the first place it is not very helpful.
I was illustrating the vast ammounts of grain required to create biofuel.
Your comment that we could possible produce more grain than we currently produce, or whatever the point was you were trying to make does not change the fact that
it requires staggering amounts of grain to produce biofuel. You also seemed to be confusing the capacity to produce food with the food actually produced.
Hence it was a pretty pointless comment in that sense.

It would not have been so bad if you had actually addressed rather than ignored the main point raised, especially as it concerns a serious issue such as people dying of starvetion.

Yes I would think I was being hypocritical if I had made posts like that but I don't believe that is the case.

 

[wolram]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/26/food.unitednations

This is the new face of hunger," Sheeran said. "There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before."

WFP officials say the extraordinary increases in the global price of basic foods were caused by a "perfect storm" of factors: a rise in demand for animal feed from increasingly prosperous populations in India and China, the use of more land and agricultural produce for biofuels, and climate change.

 

[esbo]

How that is at odds with the fact that, for certain kinds of foods, the US is almost exclusively an exporter?

You can even find the figures you quoted in the 2004 data from that page. Did you look?

The issue in question is total food imports/exports
I am sure what you are referring to in "the figures you quoted in the 2004 data".

 

[esbo]

How that is at odds with the fact that, for certain kinds of foods, the US is almost exclusively an exporter?

You can even find the figures you quoted in the 2004 data from that page. Did you look?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/26/food.unitednations

This is the new face of hunger," Sheeran said. "There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before."

WFP officials say the extraordinary increases in the global price of basic foods were caused by a "perfect storm" of factors: a rise in demand for animal feed from increasingly prosperous populations in India and China, the use of more land and agricultural produce for biofuels, and climate change.

They keep mentioning the prosperous middle classes in China, but the growth is the middle classes is not something whic happens overnight, I somehow doubt they managed to double their middle class population in a year in line with grain prices.
Funny how they don't mention Chinas biofuel production isn't it?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35905

However at least China seems to have actually recognised the problem.
"China is now clamping down on the use of corn and other edible grains for producing biofuel."

"In China the first thing is to provide food for its 1.3 billion people, and after that, we will support biofuel production"

Whereas in the West the attitude seems to be "sod the people let's use even more food for biofuel to pump into our lovely shiny SUV's."

The really stupid thing is some reasonably wealth people seem think, well it will only effect
the poor nations, it won't effect me. However it is worth reminding them that some of
the countries likey to be seriously effected include China and Pakistan, who have, if you need to be reminded, Nuclear weapons.
Pakistan is already pretty unstable and China cannot afford to let it's 1 billion+ people
starve.

 

[Hurkyl]

I was illustrating the vast ammounts of grain required to create biofuel.

No, you were exaggerating the amounts of grain required to create biofuel.

especially as it concerns a serious issue such as people dying of starvetion.

If you were really serious about it, I would have imagined that you would neither make things up, exaggerate, insult people, nor digress into other topics. (I still don't see how your rant against Vista is on-topic, despite your objection that you are not bringing up side issues)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

esbo, this is a subject that I feel strongly about as you do [though perhaps not quite as much], and I think you are correct that biofuel from crops is not a solution to the energy problem. I also think you are correct, and undeniably so, that if we continue to pursue the crop energy market, eventually the results will be catostrophic for everyone. But, the fact is that biofuels only constitute a few percent of the US energy market as compared to petroleum products, so we are not that far along yet. And we too are beginning to see the rising food prices as a result of corn ethanol in particular, so it won't take long until Americans start complaining about the effects. In the mean time, I suggest that you learn about the algae option as this is a practical solution that eliminates the need for food and energy to compete. Rather than ranting about a problem that will be self-evident to everyone soon enough, why not direct your efforts towards the solution - biofuels from algae?

Integral to the case for algae is the absurdity of allowing food to compete with fuel. And the sooner mass produced algae fuels can hit the market, the sooner other sources [corn, soybean, palm, etc] will cease to be cost competitive as fuel options.

We should certainly stop all subsidies for corn-ethanol farmers, today. That would be a realistic place to start.

 

[esbo]

If you were really serious about it, I would have imagined that you would neither make things up, exaggerate, insult people, nor digress into other topics. (I still don't see how your rant against Vista is on-topic, despite your objection that you are not bringing up side issues)

Well let us look at the origins of the Vista business for starters:-
"the United States has for many years been the greatest supplier of food aid to other countries, in fact many years supplying more free food and technology than the rest of the world combined"

So I was merely mocking a point that the USA was giving away free technology in it's 'benevolence' to the rest of the world, so I did not bring up that topic, I merely responded to a post on the matter.

Vista is not free and it is certaintly not cheap, far from giving away it's technology it is exploiting it's monopoly position, which dates back to IBM historically I believe.
You only have to look at how much Bill Gates is worth, and the embarassing large amount of money he has, some of which he is now giving away, but perhaps if he had not overchargedin the first place he would not need to do that?

Anyway, it is what you might call a side issue, but I did not initially briing it up, I merely used it as an example to ilustrate my point in my response.
Had I not responded to that point no doubt you would have accused me of igoring it!
So I can't win can I?

I will reply to any points about exageration or insulting people when you provide specific examples because I do not recall doing that, same goes for digression but I believe I have explained that for the example which you gave.

 

[esbo]

No, you were exaggerating the amounts of grain required to create biofuel.

No I don't think so I started from the fairly well established premise that the grain required
to fill the fuel tank of an SUV could feed a person (or whatever) for a year.
I then tried to work out using that calculation of how long it would take before SUV's would
consume all the grain used for food.
You then replied with something like well we can produce more grain than that, but that really is not the point is it?
It really is hard to see how grain prices have doubled?? tripled? if we have such a surplus of it.
Also I have read that if it would take the entire USA to produce enough grain to produce
your fuel needs - that does not leave you with any food whatsoever, and I guess it is kinda hard growing grain in the Rockies anyway.

 

[esbo]

esbo, this is a subject that I feel strongly about as you do [though perhaps not quite as much], and I think you are correct that biofuel from crops is not a solution to the energy problem. I also think you are correct, and undeniably so, that if we continue to pursue the crop energy market, eventually the results will be catostrophic for everyone. But, the fact is that biofuels only constitute a few percent of the US energy market as compared to petroleum products, so we are not that far along yet. And we too are beginning to see the rising food prices as a result of corn ethanol in particular, so it won't take long until Americans start complaining about the effects. In the mean time, I suggest that you learn about the algae option as this is a practical solution that eliminates the need for food and energy to compete. Rather than ranting about a problem that will be self-evident to everyone soon enough, why not direct your efforts towards the solution - biofuels from algae?

Integral to the case for algae is the absurdity of allowing food to compete with fuel. And the sooner mass produced algae fuels can hit the market, the sooner other sources [corn, soybean, palm, etc] will cease to be cost competitive as fuel options.

We should certainly stop all subsidies for corn-ethanol farmers, today. That would be a realistic place to start.

Whilst "biofuels only constitute a few percent of the US energy market as compared to petroleum products", that is not the issue, the issue is what percentage of your food/grain is required to produce that energy. It's a lot more than a few percent I'd wager. I don't know the figures but I would hazzard an idle guess that it takes 10% of your grain to produce 1% of your energy, but that's just a guess. You may be able to see a 'sllight' problem when you get to 10% of of you energy requirements - no food whatsoever!


Now there is a choice phrase "so it won't take long until Americans start complaining about the effects".
Long before "Americans start complaining", places like Pakistan, China and Russia will have
starving desperate populations, we can forget about real third world countries they will
have starved to death long before that, but that does not matter, they are only dead people, no problem for the USA. However the three countries I did name are somewhat
more of a problem.

They have Nuclear weapons, and if they face starvation because the USA is consuming all the worlds food, well, I think you get the picture.

It is not just the USA which consumes biofuels of course, other countires do, including China which already seems to have realized what a dangerous path the world is going down.
"In China the first thing is to provide food for its 1.3 billion people, and *after* that, we will support biofuel"

Now if China cannot provide for it's 1.3 billion people because richer countries are consuming the world food supply as biofuel what do you think it is going to do?

Roll over and die?

 

[esbo]

Another reason I am uncomfortable about this is because I feel Bush's hand is on the tiller
and his track record is, well, for want of a better word - crap.

There are a lot of people in the world who spend more than 50% of their income on food and if you double the price of food well...they are dead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whilst "biofuels only constitute a few percent of the US energy market as compared to petroleum products", that is not the issue, the issue is what percentage of your food/grain is required to produce that energy. It's a lot more than a few percent I'd wager. I don't know the figures but I would hazzard an idle guess that it takes 10% of your grain to produce 1% of your energy, but that's just a guess. You may be able to see a 'sllight' problem when you get to 10% of of you energy requirements - no food whatsoever!

Well, let's see: If we assume that the low efficiency of ethanol crops is compensated for with petroleum energy, which it is, we can assume a typical yield of 400 gallons of ethanol per acre-year of corn. We use about 400 million gallons of gasonline per day, or 1.4 E11 gallons per year. I think we are currently supplementing petro with about 2% ethanol, so we need about 7.3 million acres of corn to produce that much ethanol. We currently dedicate about 73 million acres to growing corn, so we are using 10% of our corn to provide 2% of our fuel for autos.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

Not a very good trade-off. And most important of all, we still needed about 1.3 billion gallons of petroleum fuel [worth of energy] to make the required 3 billion gallons of ethanol. Note also that 3 billion gallons of ethanol only provides as much energy as 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline.

 

[esbo]

Well, let's see: If we assume that the low efficiency of ethanol crops is compensated for with petroleum energy, which it is, we can assume a typical yield of 400 gallons of ethanol per acre-year of corn. We use about 400 million gallons of gasonline per day, or 1.4 E11 gallons per year. I think we are currently supplementing petro with about 2% ethanol, so we need about 7.3 million acres of corn to produce that much ethanol. We currently dedicate about 73 million acres to growing corn, so we are using 10% of our corn to provide 2% of our fuel for autos.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

Not a very good trade-off. And most important of all, we still needed about 1.3 billion gallons of petroleum fuel [worth of energy] to make the required 3 billion gallons of ethanol. Note also that 3 billion gallons of ethanol only provides as much energy as 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline.

So the 10% for 2% would mean 100% of our food supply could make 20% of out energy.
But that 20% needs to be factored by about a half (1.8/3) or times 0.6. Which gives
12% of our energy.

Also if 1.3 gives 3 which is only 0.6 as good ie 1.3 gives 1.8. then we don't really get
12% we get (1.8-1.3)/1.8 = 0.5/1.8= 27% of the 12% =3%!

So...I have probalby screwed up real bad on the maths, but if I am right, and I hope
I am not, if we used our entire food supply as energy we would only have 3% more
energy! That's madness.

Anyway my gut feeling is that it is a mad idea.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As you stated, we would need 100% of the corn currently produced to provide for 20% of our fuel demand, by volume. Next, we only get 60% as much energy per volume, so we only add 12% to the energy supply, as you said. The next step basically just factors back in the efficiency of ethanol production, which as a best case is about 30%, so we replace 3.6% of our energy supply for gasoline if we use all of our corn to make ethanol. Of course this assumes that the ethanol process is really 30% efficient. As I mentioned, this is a widely disputed claim that is difficult to quantify. It may be that we gain absolutely nothing, or worse!

Ironically, a couple of days ago I filled my tank with E10 for the first time. I had no choice.

 

[wolram]

esbo, i think or hope that every one knows that using good land to grow bio fuels is just not on, if they do they are idiots, so far the only probable scheme i know to produce biofuel is algae. my biggest worry is over population, there has to be a limit to the people Earth can support in relative comfort, we all ready spend billions supporting people that can not feed them self's, how much of your income would you be willing to give to support (non productive people) 10% 50% ? it will be an ever increasing spiral, until the money just dries up, each country has its own problems, and the people of those countries will only give so much, that is a political fact.

 

[vanesch]

esbo, i think or hope that every one knows that using good land to grow bio fuels is just not on, if they do they are idiots, so far the only probable scheme i know to produce biofuel is algae. my biggest worry is over population, there has to be a limit to the people Earth can support in relative comfort, we all ready spend billions supporting people that can not feed them self's, how much of your income would you be willing to give to support (non productive people) 10% 50% ? it will be an ever increasing spiral, until the money just dries up, each country has its own problems, and the people of those countries will only give so much, that is a political fact.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. There are many examples that show that if the quality of life and economic wealth reaches a threshold, the population growth drops dramatically, to almost stabilize the population, as is the case in most of Europe and the US.

So the real issue is to bring 3/4 of the world to a relative state of prosperity, and the spiral will be broken. Asia is well on its way. Northern Africa and South-America too. The only place that is in deep doodoo is central Africa. They don't seem to make it.

Of course, this rise in prosperity will also mean a serious rise in energy consumption, until a certain level of wealth is reached, after which also energy use levels off.

All this is encouraging: it means that we don't have to fight exponentially growing numbers (people, energy consumption, food) for ever, which would indeed not be possible. But for the moment we're still on a steep slope. Shall we win until we stabilise, or shall humanity loose the battle ?

So I guess the 21st century is going to be a very determining part in human history.

 

[Andre]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. There are many examples that show that if the quality of life and economic wealth reaches a threshold, the population growth drops dramatically, to almost stabilize the population, as is the case in most of Europe and the US.

So the real issue is to bring 3/4 of the world to a relative state of prosperity, and the spiral will be broken. Asia is well on its way. Northern Africa and South-America too. The only place that is in deep doodoo is central Africa. They don't seem to make it.

Of course, this rise in prosperity will also mean a serious rise in energy consumption, until a certain level of wealth is reached, after which also energy use levels off.

All this is encouraging: it means that we don't have to fight exponentially growing numbers (people, energy consumption, food) for ever, which would indeed not be possible. But for the moment we're still on a steep slope. Shall we win until we stabilise, or shall humanity loose the battle ?

So I guess the 21st century is going to be a very determining part in human history.

Spot on

But to get there, it's very important to have a crystal clear picture of reality and avoid personal bias and groupthink for taking the right decisions on our way to a sustainable society. Onfortunately, we do have a very poor historical record on that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A little more math worth considering:

Scenario A: Chevron sells 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline

Scenario B: Chevron sells 3 billion gallons of ethanol and 1.3 billion gallons of petro.

The net energy gain is the same, but which is the most enticing scenario for Chevron?

... the President touted his massive ethanol mandate as a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary--[continued]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1897.cfm


However

... Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Friday that the growing emphasis on corn-based ethanol has contributed to higher food prices, and he said the nation should begin "moving away gradually" from ethanol made from food such as corn.[continued]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856165709227927.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Dale]

There are two primary biofuels: ethanol and biodiesel. Both can be made from food (corn, soybeans) and both can be made from inedible biomass (cellulosic ethanol, algae biodiesel). I think everyone agrees that we shouldn't burn our food, but that should lead to a rejection of specific biofuel technologies not a rejection of biofuels in general.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Battling Ethanol-Propelled Food Prices

Food prices worldwide have risen dramatically in the past few years, due in part to a similarly dramatic rise in the amount of corn used for ethanol production in the United States. Now, in an effort to make food less expensive, experts are calling for limits on ethanol production, subsidies for corn, and more incentives for biofuels made from nonfood sources.[continued]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4683795&page=1