Thread: Biofuels Friend or Foe

Thanks Phillip.

I found this passage interesting

Second-generation biofuels will be the answer

Most of the problems will be addressed by the introduction of so-called second generation biofuels. Most of the biofuel produced today is first generation, produced in the case of ethanol by fermenting crops, or from a wide range of different types of organic oils when it comes to biodiesel. Second-generation fuels will be produced using Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology.
This involves specialised heat treatment of biomass to generate a ‘dirty’ producer gas. After cleaning, the producer gas is converted to a synthesis gas of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This is then processed to form liquid fuel. It is not a new process and was developed in the 1920s, but it produces accurately formulated ‘designer’ fuel to tight standards.
“In this way it is possible to build fuels from very small molecules,” Andersson continues, “producing a high quality substitute for either gasoline or diesel.”


as GTL refining is about to come into large scale use in refining/producing conventional lubricants, too.

Phillip

That article hasn't even taken into account the effect on world food prices. The diverting of any organic grain, particularly rape seed or corn, from food into fuel alternatives reduces the global supply of grain. This has the effect of raising the price of grain for food to the worlds poorest nations.

In the United Nations "World Food Programme" meeting this week, it was reported that member delegates were making comments that biofuel is both genecide and a crime against humanity.

Next time you fill up with your biofuel at the local pump, think about how you feel about being an accomplice to World starvation.

Something to think about isn't it? Maybe the money you donate to World Vision is being undone by the E90 you fill up with?

Diana

Hey don't look at me. I have a petrol car. Just thought the diesel guys would be interested. I have even stopped using E10 as the cost /benefit is not enough.

IMHO, the bleats of "poor" nations are just so much hot air, wanting more "rent " for their leaders from the UN. Aid that goes to most poor nations is usually diverted by the rulers to their own pockets. It's politics that makes people poor eg Zimbabwe, once the richest country in Africa, Burma, once a jewel of SE Asia. Both are now among the poorest countries in the World.
When I was posted to Riyadh in the mid 80s, I discovered that a major export from Ethiopia to Saudi was live goats. This was during the great famine in Ethiopia .
Things are often not what they seem to the uninformed in wealthy countries, as both the UN and poorer countries' leaders have vested interests in exaggerating situations.
I was confronted by a UNHCR stall at our local shopping centre the other day seeking donations. My response is "Tell the UNHCR bosses to take a 10% pay cut to their astounding tax free USD salaries" and donate that.
Regards Philip A

Phillip

I am not suggesting anything other than whats being said in the world at the moment. It is very interesting that the poorest countries are also the ones who get millions of tons of donated grain.

Back in my uni days I did a science degree with a double major and zoology as one half. It was fascinating, the "environmentalists" in the faculty who couldn't care less about the starving millions, because they were the same ones destroying habitat and sending species into extinction. In was considered that human starvation was a good l thing and a form of population control. "If you can't feed yourselves, don't have so many children."

The very interesting thing about "famines" is the actions of those in power. Even during the "great potato famine" in Ireland, the country was a net exporter of food to the U.K.

I guess it still happens.

C Ya
Diana

P.S. The use of ethanol for use in petrol engines, has the same effect on food for grain as does biodiesel.

Diana,
The article was quite interesting in that it stated that the next stage of biofuel production will be from biomass. This will include such things as rice straw, corn stalks, wood chips etc, so should reduce competition for saleable ( or eatable) commodities. A major input will also be "wet" garbage.

I did a study once as the NSW Govt was considering setting up a biomass fuelled power plant, and was calculating the available inputs.
It turns out the rice farmers didn't want to sell their biomass as they wanted to burn it to return nutrients to the soil, although the biomass had a lot of silica in it.
Nothing is simple and there will be competition for every agricultural product, whether waste or primary that has dual uses. It should increase farmer's income, from what was in the past unvalued waste.

Make no mistake, things are going to change in regard to energy. But hey the Brazilians have just discovered the biggest oil field for the last 30 years. Who said Peak Oil? And Australia still has the Rundle Oil Shale. How long can misguided politics hold up that energy source which is enormous.
Regards Philip A

Phillip

Hasn't some Kiwi chemical engineer come up with a method of harvesting bacterial overgrowth in sewerage farms to produce a biofuel that will replace aviation kerosene in jet engines. This was all because the sewerage farm had a problem with the overgrowth and wanted a mitigation for the "problem".

There are some incredible solutions to problems out there. It only continues to amaze me the ideas people come up with.

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Phillip

That article hasn't even taken into account the effect on world food prices. The diverting of any organic grain, particularly rape seed or corn, from food into fuel alternatives reduces the global supply of grain. This has the effect of raising the price of grain for food to the worlds poorest nations.

In the United Nations "World Food Programme" meeting this week, it was reported that member delegates were making comments that biofuel is both genecide and a crime against humanity.

Next time you fill up with your biofuel at the local pump, think about how you feel about being an accomplice to World starvation.



Something to think about isn't it? Maybe the money you donate to World Vision is being undone by the E90 you fill up with?

Diana

A different slant to this subject from a farmer I know. His views have merit

Hi Grazzo,
Interesting, I have seen similar elswhere.
I can't post here so perhaps you could ask them why its immoral for farmers to be profitable? It seems that its okay for all the other sectors of the economy to be profitable but when farmers look like they will actually be able to make a reasonable business case everyone screams.
I have made a loss for the last five years and its only cause we sold the block that we have survived. If all goes well this year we may even get ahead a bit. People have to realise that they have been getting food for below the real cost of production for years and farmers have just kept going by running down machinery, not employing labour when they really need to (working insane hours as a result) and borrowing more. The future means there will just be less income spent on the latest whitegoods/wide screen/blueberry/dineing out and more spent on the basics of life food/energy/shelter.
End of rant. Feel free to cut and paste to that forum.
Cheers Gonz

Originally Posted by PhilipA

...I did a study once as the NSW Govt was considering setting up a biomass fuelled power plant, and was calculating the available inputs.
It turns out the rice farmers didn't want to sell their biomass as they wanted to burn it to return nutrients to the soil, although the biomass had a lot of silica in it.
Nothing is simple and there will be competition for every agricultural product, whether waste or primary that has dual uses. It should increase farmer's income, from what was in the past unvalued waste.

Regards Philip A

Phillip

Just a question, if the stubble from the rice producers was pupled and used as biomass for fueling the power plant.

• Would there be any "waste" after the biomass was used up?
• What would it contain in terms of nutrients and could they be ploughed back into the fields as a fertiliser?
• Has anyone calculated the cost/benefit (including transport and costs of tillage) of a system like that?

Originally Posted by Graz

A different slant to this subject from a farmer I know. His views have merit

Hi Grazzo,
Interesting, I have seen similar elswhere.
I can't post here so perhaps you could ask them why its immoral for farmers to be profitable? It seems that its okay for all the other sectors of the economy to be profitable but when farmers look like they will actually be able to make a reasonable business case everyone screams. ...
... Cheers Gonz

Gonz

Absoutely the farmers get the wrong end of the stick most of the time. Who were the ones who lost out on the millions of dollars the AWB paid as bribes, not the spivs who did the dirty deeds, they still got their fat paycheques, no it was the farmers who lost out on their returns.

Same with global fuel prices, the oil is still coming out of the ground at the same price, it is just the Wall Street Futures Market spivs who are gambling up the prices of fuel that the rest of us have to pay.

Damn all them spivs!


C Ya
Diana