Last Thursday, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, announced substantial subsidies to boost Canada's production of biofuels. Under its "ecoENERGY for Biofuels" program, the government will provide up to C$ 1.5 billion (US$ 1.4 billion) in the form of incentives over nine years to producers of renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel.
"With leading-edge technology and abundant supplies of grains, oilseeds, and other feedstocks, Canada is uniquely positioned to become a global leader in the production of biofuels," said the prime minister.
Today, the BBC ran a story explaining that, in part thanks to the increasing diversion of Canadian durum wheat into biofuels, supplies of this very special grain are getting tight. The result: the price of pasta, one of Italy's staple foods, is forecast to go up by about 20 percent this autumn.
The BBC explains:
Italian pasta tastes good because it is made from durum wheat, of which Italy is one of the world's main producers. But with strong demand at home and a growing export market, Italians are increasingly forced to import high quality durum wheat from abroad.
Much comes from Canada and Syria but, according to Mario Rummo, president of the Italian pasta manufacturers association, the Canadians have said they have no more durum wheat for sale until November. Syria, meanwhile, has just banned the export of grain.
The result will be a price hike of 20% for spaghetti and fettuccine by the autumn for Italians who have long been accustomed to cheap pasta in their supermarkets.
Canadian production of durum wheat has soared in recent years, but it is increasingly being sold as a bio-fuel to make ethanol which is why the wholesale price is going up.
Holy moly!
The tar sands blow
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
wiscidea Posted 9:05 am
10 Jul 2007
The folks living around me are very concerned about their inability to afford health insurance and their future economic security. It is the major reason they give for wanting to sell their land to housing developers.
Let's hope other agricultural products become more valuable. Then farmers can sell it to the highest bidder and invest that cash into better lives and better farms.
If you want cheap food, try growing it yourself. I suspect most people would discover they don't mind paying more so someone else will continue to produce it for them.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:19 am
10 Jul 2007
Isn't this good news for ORGANIC farmers? I tried switching to organic pasta, but I'm not sure I'll be able to bring myself to spend twice as much on this product on a regular basis. But if "conventional" pasta goes up in price, I might as well start buying the organic pasta. See... I'll have no option but to pay more. It's just what environmentalist should be hoping for! Drive up the cost of "conventional" food rather than finding ways to reduce the cost of organic food.
When folks started worrying about the price of milk going up, I was wondering what the big deal is. I already pay over $6.00 per gallon... for organic milk. When "conventional" milk approaches $6.00 per gallon, it is much easier to persuade a consumer to buy organic.
What am I missing here?
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:24 am
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:34 am
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:02 am
10 Jul 2007
If there is a shortage of food because people stop growing it (that is, they can't earn a living), millions or tens of millions of people could die before market forces correct the problem. It is awfully expensive and not especially a quick operation to switch from subdivisions or even brush-covered fields back to agriculture. Might take a couple of growing seasons for supply to catch up to demand... unless demand drops dead.
On the other hand, most people will survive if there is a sudden shortage of autos, DVD players, golf clubs, et cetera.
That's my theory. I'm sure there are some pretty good reasons the government started helping farmers. Maybe it was that dust bowl back in the early 1900s. Or maybe is was the food shortage that occurred just before the Civil War. Or maybe the American Colonies wanted to avoid depending on imports from other continents. Imagine if we imported most of our food, instead of oil, from other countries... that would lead to some interesting foreign adventures, all VERY strongly supported by hungry voters.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:09 am
10 Jul 2007
Just my two cents.
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:30 pm
10 Jul 2007
UNTIL we start talking about feeding CARS rather than people.
You can't have it both ways -- either farmers are the tillers of the soil and the producers of life, or they're just another motor fuel business.
I'm happy to pay more for wholesome fresh food AND subsidize small growers so they can stay on the land. But, as for SUBSIDIZING them to grow fuel, THEN SUBSIDIZING them further with special sweet tax deals (did you know farmers don't pay gas tax on fuel for farm machinery?) only to have them get out of the food for people game ... well, f--- that.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:09 pm
10 Jul 2007
The various subsidy ideas were put in place before the world went flat. Most of our food comes from far away, another state or another country, what's the difference? Will reducing subsidies cause other countries to stop producing food? No, and it won't stop us from doing it either. The farmers may have to charge more but that does not necessarily drive up food costs. Not if the government returns to consumers the taxes it was giving to the farmers. No one can say what our agriculture would look like today had the government not stepped in and made such a mess of things. Our cities might be surrounded by local farmers making decent livings because the middlemen might hold much less power. You don't know.
Trading partners are less likely to go to war. Trade interdependence is a good thing.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:30 pm
10 Jul 2007
Farmers are just like gas station attendants.
You'd think that if the price of oil goes up, that they get more money.
Quite the opposite.
Gas station attendants get less money, since the cost of the oil they buy goes up for them too.
_
In the same way, the cost of fertilizers, pesticides, water, and land goes up due to biofuel farming.
In addition, since most farmers don't own their land, they rent, they are being pushed off the land in turn for larger corporations to take over.
http://greyfalcon.net/farmers2
_
The real issue with biofuels is political pandering, and political diversion away from realistic solutions.
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/56047
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:43 pm
10 Jul 2007
First, let's consider the argument one hears again and again: that farmers are special, because without them we'd starve.
Oh, come on. One might as well argue that without the people who drive the trucks that deliver our food, we'd starve. Without the people who build the farmers' tractors, we'd starve. Etc. (See my longer excursion on this topic here.)
The point is: the limiting factors in agricultural production are land, water and nutrients, not the number of people prepared to farm. (And in North America, farming is a voluntary occupation, unlike the situation facing children born into subsistence farming in least-developed countries.) We may lament the continuing concentration of farmland into fewer and fewer hands, and the loss of the reservoir of knowledge of old farmers who once farmed more sustainably, but those are different problems, requiring different solutions than the kinds offered through blunt instruments like biofuel policies. Agricultural economists are virtually unanimous in their opinion that the bulk of current farm policies work AGAINST the interest of small, family farmers, not for them.
As for biofuel-support policies aiding organic agriculture, you couldn't be more wrong. For one, almost none of the crops grown for biofuels are farmed using organic methods. As summarized here:
In 2001, in the United States, organic corn acreage was 0.12 percent of the total acreage planted with corn, and organic soybeans accounted for 0.24 percent of the soybean total. In 1999, in Canada, organic canola accounted for just 0.09 percent of the total canola acres. There is no recorded organic canola grown in the United States.
The percentage of corn farmed organically in the United States is likely to have fallen since 2001 with the expansion of corn acreage (by 15% this year) to feed ethanol plants.
A vital point in respect of government support for biofuels is not just that it distorts market competition between fuel and all the other demands on agriculture -- in the presence of biofuel mandates actually giving legal precedence to fuel -- but it also distorts the market for factors of production used in agriculture, notably land. Let me give you an anecdotal example. (The original article is now behind a pay-wall, but you can find the synopsis here):
Hmong farmers, who immigrated to the U.S. after the Vietnam War, grow vegetables using organic and biodynamic techniques on rented land in Minnesota. With the ethanol boom driving up demand for corn, the landowners are pushing the Hmong out, even though their farms are three times more profitable than a typical Minnesota farm.
Finally, as I assume you are aware, while the high prices for grains may be manna for crop farmers, they hurt livestock farmers, not to mention consumers in general. The ethanol industry likes to talk up its byproduct, dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). But DDGS is generally cheap only in the Midwest, and is of limited utility to pig and poultry farmers. If you are a dairy farmer in New England, you are paying more to feed your cows these days.
Finally, to underscore what JMG wrote, "You can't have it both ways -- either farmers are the tillers of the soil and the producers of life, or they're just another motor fuel business." If oil prices rise so far that it pays to produce crops for energy, so be it. But it is not the market that is determining the choice these days, but governments, through mandates and subsidies.
That, in my opinion, both poses high risks for unintended consequences and is morally questionable.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:51 pm
10 Jul 2007
My enthusiatic support for the rising price of durum wheat is probably not appropriate if the rising price is the result of government subsidies to large private industrial facilities converting it to biofuel. It would be fine if market forces -- free of government interference -- were diverting grain into the biofuel market.
However, I use the term "sort of" because as long as massive subsidies go to those extracting energy from oil and coal, I believe those extracting energy from biomass are entitled some support, preferably directed toward developing the technology, in order to level the playing field.
Furthermore, we are going to have to derive more than energy from biomass. Efforts are underway to derive a variety of chemical compounds from biomass. And the processes are far more environmentally sound and energy-efficient than synthesizing those chemicals. So I guess I'm looking at this from a slightly broader perspective than most discussions generally cover. Energy from biomass is not the ultimate goal, but a bridge to completely ending our dependence on toxic processes and their enormous demand for energy. We are building a whole new infrastructure for meeting our need for materials. Eventually, improved efficiency and a variety of other alternative energy sources will be far more practical than energy from biomass and biomass will be too valuable to "burn".
I agree with JMG... subsidies for food production are one thing... subsidies for fuel production are another matter.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:05 am
11 Jul 2007
You are correct... I think... trading partners appear to be less likely to go to war. Look our cozy relationships with the various oil-producing countries around the world. The exchange of ideas, resources, and material goods has created peace and prosperity for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, the peace and prosperity relies on long trade routes and a steady diet of fossil fuel. I wonder what will happen when that energy disappears. How long will it take to ramp up food production, to replace imported food, when that fossil fuel is gone? Is anyone thinking about this? Global trade floats on a sea of oil, which will soon look like the Aral Sea.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:52 am
11 Jul 2007
as long as massive subsidies go to those extracting energy from oil and coal, I believe those extracting energy from biomass are entitled some support, preferably directed toward developing the technology, in order to level the playing field.
Two wrongs don't make a right. And the direction in Congress is to reduce the subsidies to oil, which at the international level are tiny compared with the world market: they make little difference to the retail price of gasoline. That is not a defense of subsidies to oil, I should add.
Yes, subsidies to coal are bad. But let us not forget that some ethanol plants are being built that will obtain their process heat from coal.
And I agree that there may be some justification to spending money on R&D into 2nd- or 3rd-generation biofuels -- but not in unlimited amounts, especially if prospects for reducing costs substantially (because of the fundamental issue of limited feedstock supplies) are poor.
As for trade in food products and the fuel used to transport it, the fuel required to ship basic (non-refrigerated, or air-freighted) commodities is not as large as you probably assume. Big ships are very energy-efficient modes of transport. And that energy needs to be set aside higher energy requirements for some home-grown production (compared with the tropics), or to transport those products across large areas of land by truck.
What happens once (if?) oil runs out? I would not rule out the return of wind-powered, or at least wind-assisted ships.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:35 am
11 Jul 2007
That is, the price of grain is going up because of a subsidized DEMAND. I suppose the government could be giving the money to the farmers and requiring them to sell their grain to the processors. Doesn't make much sense, but it certainly wouldn't stop them!
Anyway...
What made me think it owuld help farmers? Increased demand... increase price for product. They are already spending money on land, fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, et cetera. Furthermore, if the subsidy is going to the processor, it is likely suppressing the cost of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, et cetera. I'm not an economist. I'm just giving my opinion based on what I've picked up from other sources.
I've never applauded rising fuel costs or suggested it would be a boon to farmers because they will make a killing growing biofuel crops! Quite the contrary. I'm pretty sure the majority of my relevant comments on the Grist website show I'm interested in reducing the net cost of inputs for farmers. For example, though I support GMOs, I'm not particularly fond of GMOs that require farmers to spend more on chemicals (replacing an expensive hazardous chemical with a less-expensive safer chemical is a different matter).
On the other hand, I think I understand how an increase in demand for biofuels might harm famers if it leads to an increase in cultivated land area (not simply conversion from food to fuel). This WILL drive up cost as famers have to compete for resources required for growing crops.
The original post implied the subsidies were going to processors and suggested that farmers, for each Candian dollar in, would get more for their product.
I don't think they are gas station attendents. They are more like Middle Eastern oil states being manipulated and exploited by oil distributors.
I'll check out you link regarding ownership of farms. I believe most of the farms around my home are owned by the farmers, so I did not think about this matter.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:08 am
11 Jul 2007
"Oh, come on. One might as well argue that without the people who drive the trucks that deliver our food, we'd starve. Without the people who build the farmers' tractors, we'd starve."
No. There is no replacement for food. There are, however, alternative ways to move food around. There are alternative ways to grow crops. And if you have a sudden shortage of trucks dedicated to delivering food, other vehicles can be used in an emergency. Furthermore, it is not a simple matter to remove and return land to production. It is not like a vacant store that someone can just walk into and start a new business and, if they fail, have another person give it a try a few months later. So... no, I would not argue that we should also subsidize the trucks or tractor manufacturers.
Ron wrote:
"As for biofuel-support policies aiding organic agriculture, you couldn't be more wrong. For one, almost none of the crops grown for biofuels are farmed using organic methods."
I was not assuming organic methods are used for growing biofuel! That's absurd. The primary reason people buy organic, in my opinion, is that the products are safer. Who's cares whether there's pesticide residue in the fuel you put in your car?
I was wondering whether the diversion of wheat from conventional farms to biofuel and the rise in price of that product results in more interest in buying the organic product. Aren't they different, but interchangeable, products? The biofuel producers are competing for conventional grain, not organic. Why should the prices for both products necesssarily rise at the same time? And as the conventional product becomes more expensive, there is less sticker-shock when consumers switch from conventional to organic. Just a theory. I'm sure someone will clarify this for me. I appreciate it... really.
Regarding rental of land, I view that as a separate issue. There should be programs in place to help farmers own the land they care for. Otherwise, there is no incentive to improve the land, no incentive to avoid chemicals, no incentive to build a stable community. And it become a treadmill to poverty. You can't get ahead by renting.
Ron wrote:
"Finally... while the high prices for grains may be manna for crop farmers, they hurt livestock farmers, not to mention consumers in general. The ethanol industry likes to talk up its byproduct, dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). But DDGS is generally cheap only in the Midwest, and is of limited utility to pig and poultry farmers. If you are a dairy farmer in New England, you are paying more to feed your cows these days."
Well... perhaps livestock farmers should wean themselves from dependency on grain. Perhaps policies that drive of the price of grain will reduce the consumption of meat in world, reduce the extent of factory farming, and promote interest in smaller farms where the owners have a mix of livestock, crops for human consumption, and crops for feeding their livestock. Based on what I see around my home, the farmers have a mix of dairy cows, sweet corn, the feed corn, alfalfa, hay, and soybeans. I don't think they purchase a lot of grain, but I'll ask them about this.
And, yes... the market for dried distillers grains is saturated. Sale of this by-product can no longer "subsidize" ethanol production. But not all biofuel is ethanol. And we can get more than energy from biomass; there are indirect ways to use it for reducing CO2 emissions and other potentially harmful chemicals.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:10 am
11 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:51 am
11 Jul 2007
For once (in this string), I agree with you, Wiscidea, or at least agree that such a mandate would be better than mandating biofuels.
However, you miss several of my points. I was not arguing that people could live without food, I was saying that the potential supply of farmers was not a limiting factor in the supply of food. But, yes, I would argue that everybody involved in the supply of food is important (as are nurses, doctors, teachers, fire-fighters, garbage collectors ... ).
I was wondering whether the diversion of wheat from conventional farms to biofuel and the rise in price of that product results in more interest in buying the organic product. Aren't they different, but interchangeable, products? The biofuel producers are competing for conventional grain, not organic. Why should the prices for both products necesssarily rise at the same time?
For two reasons: because the high prices for grains for biofuels drives up the costs of inputs like fertilizer, and the opportunity cost of land. The other reason is arbitrage. It is why the prices of white corn, used to make tortillas, has risen in Mexico, even though ethanol is made from yellow corn. As the price of the latter rose, livestock farmers turned to white corn for feed, driving up its price.
In short, I think your hypothesis has no basis in economics.
Well ... perhaps livestock farmers should wean themselves from dependency on grain. Perhaps policies that drive of the price of grain will reduce the consumption of meat in world, reduce the extent of factory farming, and promote interest in smaller farms where the owners have a mix of livestock, crops for human consumption, and crops for feeding their livestock.
Um, current biofuel policies are ENCOURAGING the co-location of ethanol production and large-scale factory farming. And if you are so keen on small farms, a good way to kill them off in places like Vermont is to raise the price of grain, which the cows need to tide them through the winter. (Even the Polyface Farm buys grains for winter feeding.)
Let's keep to the topic of the damage that EXISTING policies are doing, and how to reform them, and not assume that with blind chance we can reach an agrarian utopia through blunt, non-targeted means.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:53 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 3:30 am
11 Jul 2007
US ethanol demand has DOUBLED the maize price in much of Africa in the last year. Maize is the staple food in much of Africa, and many people's chief source of protein. Bearing in mind that many Africans spend the MAJORITY of their income on food.. well, even ignorant North Americans can figure that one out. Biofuel is turning into one of the biggest social disasters since AIDS.
Whiskerfish (on the southern tip of Africa)
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:46 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:50 am
11 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:11 am
11 Jul 2007
http://www.sfbayview.com/index.php?option=com_content& ...
And what about the Africans growing the maize? Don't they benefit from the higher price and invest that in their community? Or is all the land still owned by Europeans?
Why should I neglect people trying to earn a living in my own community to correct problems that should really be addressed by local politicians halfway around the world? Is it better to allow a elderly farmer in Wisconsin to put a bullet in his head than to allow an African child to starve? I DON"T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS! There just has to be a better way to approach the issue than suppressing the value of something someone worked very hard to produce. Perhaps something should be done to ensure African farmers own the land they grow their crops on so they have some control over what is produced. Perhaps environmentalistt should permit limited use of GMOs so African farmers have fewer plant diseases and pest to deal with. Perhaps we should all stop wearing cotton so there will no longer be a market for it. Stop drinking coffee, so the Africans acan grow food instead. I suspect food purchased for filling bird feeders in North America comes from Africa; stop feeding birds and start feeding people. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS. But how about trying to deal with each issue as directly as possible?
Please don't punish American farmers for other failed government policies.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:18 am
11 Jul 2007
drinking coffee, drinking cocoa, consuming sugar, eating peanuts, wearing cotton, buying anything containing natural rubber, drinking tea, buying anything containing palm oil, buying anything containing african wood, smoking tobacco, eating chocolate, et cetera.
Every time you consume one of those products, even if it comes from Asia or South America, you drive up the global price of the product and make all the more difficult for Africans to grow food for their families. It's not just biofuel. It's almost everything we consume that is killing African children.
RULE ZERO: Mindful living.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:24 am
11 Jul 2007
Ignoring all of the potential problems, dowstream consequences, and other objections to biofuel, perhaps it would be worth subsidizing them full tilt if it would just put a !@#$% end to our obsession with controlling the oil fields in the Middle East. How could they really be worse than what we do now to get our energy fix???
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:17 am
11 Jul 2007
Hey, Wiscidea: Love your spirit, brother/sister! Fight the Fight! Sometimes I find myself nodding my head and saying "Amen" like I was autistic or in a religious trance--or both. I find that here when reading several people's comments.
I can accept that Ron's title to the thread may be a little facetious, since what I see happening has two parts:
One: Prices for all farm products do and will go up, due to gobbleization (not a misspelling) and the corporate oligarchy, in a fairly uniform way, so agro-fuels AND pasta will BOTH be as high as the market will allow.
Two: The payment small farmers around the world receive do and will be LESS for their crops, due to the exact same forces as above. The spread between the growers and the sellers will increase, and the sellers will dominate. After all, gobbleization is THEIR idea, and they are NOT altruists.
I do grow some of my own food (by no means all), and it is not that hard, and is in fact very rewarding: pick 'em, knock the dirt off, bite into 'em/cook 'em, and enjoy. A very nice feeling. Done organic/low tech/low impact, even better. Eggs/chicken (sorry, Canis) add to the very local menu.
What do we have to do to show people that agro-fuels are a destructive and inefficient boondoggle sold to us by the Mega-Agri-Bidness branch of the Corporate Oligarchy? Despite what many of us thought in the beginning?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:07 am
11 Jul 2007
More important and more relevant, I am bowled over by what Whiskerfish wrote about the huge increase in the price of maize in Africa. And I am struck breathless by the words of our new prophet, WiscIdea, as he takes his place alongside of the venerable and beloved Sunflower. How in the world could I possibly live without coffee and tea?!
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:21 am
11 Jul 2007
Easy. There's more Carbon and Heat-Reflection in the soils/trees of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and various peat wetlands. Than all the oil in the ground right now.
If you think a couple hundred thousand dead is big, you ain't seen nothing compared to what biofuels could unleash.
Besides which, it'd be JUST ABOUT as expensive as the war in Iraq to do biofuels.
As is we're spending roughly $10 billion a year to meet 0.15% of our fuel needs with ethanol. (2006 stats)
Multiply that by 100x, and you get $6.66 trillion dollars.
Thats considerably more than we spend on Oil every year.
_
That said, it's nearly a physical impossibility using just US land resources.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol2.png
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:30 pm
11 Jul 2007
I'm not saying biofuels are the final solution for our energy problems. This all started with a suggestion that farmers might benefit if they can sell their grain for a higher price. I did not intend to discuss our nation's entire energy policy. Obviously, photovoltaics and wind, combined with improvements in efficiency (LEDs for lighting, lighter electric personal transport, use of trains, better construction methods, et cetera) would be preferable over both biofuels and petroleum in most cases (for example, battery-powered aircraft are probably not going to be landing in a city nearby anytime soon).
Our dependence on petroleum is not merely measured by the number of lives lost in Iraq, nor even the $12 billion dollars spent in Iraq each month. Our entire foreign policy seems constructed around securing access to oil. Our involvement in the Middle East, our hostility toward certain South American nations. The environmental damage caused by the infrastructure for removing oil from the ground, refining it, and distributing it. Cleaning up the toxic residue left behind by the oil industry. The corruption of our government and other governments that it facilitates. Excess corporate influence preventing us from adressing other environmental problems, preventing us from adressing social and economic problems.
I sincerely believe, though I have no numbers, that biofuels might be worth subsidizing if it can lower our dependence on oil. Not just OUR dependence on oil, but the world's dependence on oil.
Furthermore, your figures present corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol as the biofuels under consideration. Ethanol is not necessarily THE biofuel. And, for the figures you present, are you assuming the latest technology? Corn ethanol is clearly not much of an advantage over petroleum. I agree. Cellulosic ethanol via current technology is better, but not very impressive.
But we're working on using microorganisms or combinations of enzymes from those organisms that will allow us to extract more energy from biomass (not just from the starch and the easily extracted cellulose molecules) and do so in a more environmentally friendly way, probably at relatively low temperatures.
I think you are rejecting biofuels before the technology has an opportunity to mature. And if we don't add them to our energy portfolio, they will never have a chance to mature.
I doubt we will ever derive 100% of our energy from a single source. Rather than reject biofuels, please consider offering constructive criticism regarding how we can take advantage of them and, at the same time, avoid planting corn from sea to shining see, which you seem to assume is inevitable. The choice it not "no biofuel" or cultivation of every square inch of the planet. How about "some biofuel"?
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:51 pm
11 Jul 2007
Well Algae has some potential.
Mainly because it doesn't use topsoil, and it can usually recycle the water used.
But then again, GreenFuels the leader in Algae tech just fired half it's staff, including the CEO.
_
But yeah, some biofuel. Certainly we need a little bit of it for parts lubrication. Perhaps some to make industrial plastics.
But not as fuel.
_
And either way you roll it, we should not be subsidizing any of it, unless it's purely for R&D.
The federal budget for biofuel subsidies entirely dwarfs that of solar, wind, and geothermal combined.
Then you have the bloated hydrogen budget.
Even if we had perfectly operating PEM fuel cells, they would get contaminated by mere airborne CO2 and Nitrogen.
To the point that they would break within a few years.
_
And, for the figures you present, are you assuming the latest technology
Yeap.
And frankly, even if you could magically turn ethanol into 100% energy with 0% conversion losses it would still be pretty crappy.
Since Ethanol is only 6% solar effecient at maximum. (Well, technically 11% if you're operating at the theoretical limit of physics)
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
Considering you lose roughly 75% of that energy by turning it into a biofuel, that leaves you with something like 2.75% solar effeciency total.
And thats before it gets to the engine, where it loses another 80% of it's energy.
_
By comparison, Solar Thermal can operate at 50% solar effeciency. And lose only about 15% of that energy inbetween the panel and the battery.
And then only lose about 10% of that energy when it's put into the engine.
http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
_
To tell the truth, the biofuels studies in that graph are actually be too kind, by using the USDA figures.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are- ...
In reality you're looking at something more like 1% of our fuel needs being met if we turned ALL of the corn into ethanol.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/e85-spinning-our- ...
And as is, we're using 30% of our corn to make ethanol.
You'd get more CO2 reductions by properly inflating your car tires than driving on corn ethanol.
_
Just in general, as long as it uses topsoil, it's going to be a pipedream. (Or rather a money pit)
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:28 pm
11 Jul 2007
First, Wiscidea is now railing against "suppressing the cost of food and ensuring that those responsible for the very foundation of civilization live in poverty." Where in the world did THAT notion come from? Certainly I would not count the ending of indiscriminate production subsidies and mandates for biofuels as "suppressing the cost of food", unless one counts the new, even more distorted market as the norm. Neither, I think, is Whiskerfish advocating policies to suppress the cost of food. All he has done is to point out the consequences of policies that have resulted in a doubling in the price of maize for Africans.
If anything, the kinds of support policies that dominated the U.S., and therefore the world market, for maize (until the ethanol boom emerged) encouraged over-production of corn in the USA (70% of the world's export market), thereby depressing prices for the grain. But the price-depression effect was normally considered to be somewhere around 20%, not 50%.
But rather than reduce the subsidies directly, the U.S. Government eliminated (some of them) indirectly, by providing even more generous ones for ethanol. Unfortunately, we are now seeing copy-cat responses in other countries, including Canada.
You keep talking about some future biofuels, like algal biodiesel. Nobody is complaining about those. But let's stick to the here and now. Government funding for research into such future fuels is a tiny fraction of the billions it is providing to support first-generation biofuels based on corn and soybeans.
Finally, I am astonished that anybody would think that avoiding coffee, cocoa, cotton, tea, or chocolate will help people in developing countries. Certainly, nobody in the Fair Trade movement would agree with that sentiment.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:50 pm
11 Jul 2007
Let's see, in the original post, there is an indication that the author is concerned about biofuel facilities receiving subsidies, which raises the demand for duram wheat, which means farmers can get more money for their product, which means people have to pay more for pasta (not all food).
I view this as a positive development because I thought there was some concern about farmers not being able to earn sufficient income to take care of themselves, get out of debt, retire, et cetera. Discussions at local town meeting indicate, where I live, that the primary reason farmers sell land to housing developers is that they are in trouble financially.
I don't believe farmers can improve their situation by reducing their expenses. Farmers must receive more income from their labor. Food will have to cost more. Subsidies for biofuels appear to help.
You, Ron, link biofuel and the cost for food. And if you are going to say biofuels are bad because they allow farmers to actually earn a living, you're in effect suggesting that government policies should continue to ensure food is dirt cheap, even if those producing it live in povery.
I regret African farmers are affected, but I don't believe biofuels are entirely to blame. If you looked at the link I provided, you'd see that situation in Africa is much more complex. I have not studied the matter, but I've gathered from various websites and news stories that the global economy somehow pressures African farmers to grow cash crops for export rather than food for their neighbors... and we're not talking about corn. (I think it has something to do with colonialism, land distribution, and despots propped up by Western nations wishing to secure their access to natural resources like oil.) When they grow cotton, coffee, tea, cocoa, they are not growing food. And when you consume those products, you drive up the value... just like someone mentioned regarding corn. And the more valuable the cash crops, the less likely farmers will be growing food.
It's not just biofuel, it is every single damned thing we consume that is driving up the cost of food in developing nations.
Surely you know more about this -- the cash crop problem in developing nations -- than I do!
Given my limited knowledge on the subject, I would really like to see an intelligent Grist contributor or two or three cover the issue of cash crops vs. food in Africa. Exactly how do the products we consume affect people already living in poverty?
As far as I know, the price of pasta is the result of Africans growing coffee insted of grain for themselves and for export to Europe! Let's find out what's really going on.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:59 pm
11 Jul 2007
Why are Canadians obligated to compensate for the harm inflicted by centuries of European domination of the Afican continent?
Why are Africans dependent on maize? Shouldn't they be growing a more nutritionally balanced food, perhaps a crop more suitable for a tropical climate? Perhaps that's part of the problem?
Should we really have policies that promote shipping grain around the globe? Subsidies for biofuels create a market for grain here, in North America. Instead of shipping grain over to Europe and shipping crude oil to North America, the grain can stay here and some of the oil can stay their, which might lower fuel costs for Africans wishing to build their economy by selling more fruits and vegis in Europe.
Win win win.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:04 am
12 Jul 2007
You, Ron, link biofuel and the cost for food. And if you are going to say biofuels are bad because they allow farmers to actually earn a living, you're in effect suggesting that government policies should continue to ensure food is dirt cheap, even if those producing it live in povery.
No it does not. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. I (and, I think, JMG and BioD) are saying that the means you seem to approve of -- mandates and subsidies for biofuels -- is blunt, poorly targetted, and prone to huge unintended consequences. There are many better ways to improve the income of farmers, especially small farmers, and some of those was are being discussed in Congress now. But one way that demonstrably has not worked is to continue to subsidize production so heavily that it drives the price of corn down below production costs.
As for the nutrition of people growing cash crops in the highlands of Colombia, Central America and Assam India, these are not the people who are starving. People in the drier parts of Africa are more typical of those who are starving. Cheap imports of maize may not be a long-term solution for them, but neither are policies that in one year double their food bill.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:15 am
12 Jul 2007
"But one way that demonstrably has not worked is to continue to subsidize production so heavily that it drives the price of corn down below production costs."
Ron!!!
This entire thread is critical -- or supportive -- of subsidies that indirectly raise the price of food! And your final response is this? Subsidies are bad because they drive the price of corn BELOW production cost?! The subsidy in question is driving the price of grain ABOVE production costs! Which is why I express some support for it. I have never suggested that government policies should drive the prices of products below production cost and would agree with you that such policies should be phased out.
I'm pretty sure the link I posted goes to an article about cash crops in Africa. Consumption of such products appears to be killing Africans. Did you look at the article?
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:40 am
12 Jul 2007
That's where biofuel policies come in. Politicians saw them as a magic elixir to absorb the surplus, and drive up prices. It did that, but by more than they could have imagined. So the price-sensitive subsidies, such as loan-deficiency payments, did not kick in. End (for the moment) of commodity payments, except for decoupled direct payments.
What Congress has committed the country to in the coming ten years, however, are subsidies to biofuels that will swamp even the peak subsidies paid out to corn farmers in the 2005 commodity year.
What we are talking about here in BOTH cases -- commodity payments and biofuel subsidies -- are policies that are highly market distorting. Or, to put it in another way:
Policies that artificially drive DOWN the price of commodities: BAD
Policies that artificially drive UP the price of commodities: BAD
Policies that address the fundamental structural problems of farming, reward land stewardship, and transmit new knowledge: GOOD.
Capiche?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:20 am
12 Jul 2007
No, they don't get more profit if the price of all the inputs goes up.
Which is exactly what has happened.
_
It's like saying a gas station attendant will get more money as the price of Oil goes up.
It's just not true.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:25 am
12 Jul 2007
It appears to me a problem exists that is related to the complexity of the issue and the lack of sophistication and specificity in the language. When you say 'cost' or 'price', whose cost or price are you referring to? What part of the pie are you referring to, or from what point of view are you speaking? Do we not all know that the price we pay for food at the store, is not the same amount the farmer receives for that same product? This sounds condescending, but it needs to be kept in mind constantly.
One of the huge problems of gobbleization (gotta gotta GOTTA luv it!) is the proliferation of middlepeople [to be gender-neutral]. Consider the Katrina boondoggle--the members of the Corporate Oligarchy got the contracts for cleanup, supplies, etc., they hired subs, who hired subs, who hired subs, who hired subs.... Tasks that had a $1 price tag ended up with $0.05 to do the actual job. IN the case of global food supplies, the grocer may charge $1 for Kraft mac 'n' cheese on the grocery shelf, whereas the small farmer on the far opposite end receives too little to make a living. It is all the people in the middle that prevent the farmer from making a living.
AS more people get their fingers in the pie, literally, the less there will be for all. This applies to the people and corporations in the production chain, it applies to the customers in the store, and it applies when other demands are placed on the food resource for other purposes. The few winners are the corporations, who as we know, have the political power to ensure they don't lose out. They win at the expense of all the rest. They have economy of scale, broad horizontal and vertical integration, connections to power, etc. The small farmers have none.
The huge marketing effort behind ethanol, completely overwhelming the objective analysis of its full impact and its real value, has created an unnatural market force. One need not use Canadian durum wheat and Italian pasta: dairy prices have already gone up in the U.S., due to reduced supplies of corn for cattle, corn being diverted to ethanol production. Until we see through the marketing hype, there will still be huge numbers of victims, mostly the powerless, and also the biodiversity of the planet.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 1:44 am
12 Jul 2007
Yes, these issues are complex. Yes, there are pros and cons to farm subsidies. But raising food prices to keep a few inefficient farmers in business hurts the poor - all over the world - and there's a good argument to be made that it hurts nature too (why plough more land than we absolutely need to?)
African peasant farmers tend not to benefit from large, export-oriented farming. They can't afford the tractors or chemical inputs required to produce to the required consistency etc. etc., and they generally get squeezed out of the game by and lose their land to big industrial agribiz companies.
So higher crop prices tend to benefit already-wealthy, capital-rich farming businesses.
It's a crude oversimplification of what's going on, but it's what's going on, if you catch my drift.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:52 am
12 Jul 2007
When you say 'cost' or 'price', whose cost or price are you referring to?
I, at least, except in the case of pasta in Italy and maize bought in Africa, am talking about farmers' costs and the prices they receive for selling commodities.
What part of the pie are you referring to, or from what point of view are you speaking?
Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for. The simple point -- that, thanks in part to the artificial stimulous of biofuel policies, Canada is diverting durum wheat into biofuels, rather than sell it to pasta manufacturers -- is newsworthy, I think, and worthy of discussion.
Do we not all know that the price we pay for food at the store, is not the same amount the farmer receives for that same product?
I should hope so. But for simple foods, like pasta, the price the manufacturer pays for the grain (which, yes, includes transport and handling) accounts for a significant proportion of the final price of the packaged good.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:15 am
12 Jul 2007
I interpreted the original post as follows... there is more demand for the product... the farmer is already growing it... so he is bringing in more income without paying more for inputs.
I never said that every time prices go up, the farmer benefits. He only benefits if the price of HIS product goes up. I realize that processors and distributors are responsible for a large part of the cost of food.
Elsewhere on the Grist website, I expressed concern for the rising price of fuel. Some do see this as a boon for farmers, but I do not. It is obvious that their costs will increase, so they won't benefit from a rise in the price of gasoline. It does not create a better market for them.
What I've supported is not equivalent to saying gas station attendents benefit if the price of oil goes up. It is more like saying Saudi Arabia benefits if the price of oil goes up.
Just because I believe farmers benefit from an increase in the value of what they produce does not mean I'm foolish enough to believe they benefit everytime the price of a box of Cheerios goes up.
Just because I believe a subsidy that increases demand for their product might be good, does not mean I believe all subsidies are good.
Why must a person always be 100% for or against an idea? Why do you assume that a person supporting a policy in one area would use it as a hammer to solve all problems? Why do you assume that because I believe subsidies for biofuels (for starting processing facilities, not for growers) might be useful, I support other subsidies.
Regarding the original post:
(1) Didn't the subsidies go to the biofuel facilities?
(2) Didn't the value of the grain go up?
(3) Didn't the farmers sell that grain for a higher price?
(4) Exactly how does a subsidy given to the biofuel facility raise the farmer's input cost?
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:28 am
12 Jul 2007
Why do you assume that because I believe subsidies for biofuels (for starting processing facilities, not for growers) might be useful, I support other subsidies.
Did anybody say you did?
Regarding the original post:
(1) Didn't the subsidies go to the biofuel facilities?
Canada offers a combination of assistance for investing in biofuel facilities and a mandatory volumetric target. Some Provinces also provide their own subsidies or mandates.
(2) Didn't the value of the grain go up?
Yes.
(3) Didn't the farmers sell that grain for a higher price?
Yes.
(4) Exactly how does a subsidy given to the biofuel facility raise the farmer's input cost?
In aggregate, subsidies for biofuels are encouraging farmers to plant more corn (one of the most input-intensive crops grown in North America), and that is driving up the cost of fertilizers worldwide. In the longer term, it will drive up the price for land, which may be good for current land-owners and their heirs, but not for people like the Hmong organic farmers I mentioned earlier, nor other farmers who have to rent some or all of their land, nor young, idealistic people who might want to enter farming.
But, more generally, you are looking at this whole issue from the narrow perspective of the existing grain farmer. Broaden your perspective to include livestock farmers, food consumers and taxpayers, and those with an interest in protecting biodiversity, and I suggest your view might change. Well, maybe slightly.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:38 am
12 Jul 2007
(1) Didn't the subsidies go to the biofuel facilities?
(2) Didn't the value of the grain go up?
(3) Didn't the farmers sell that grain for a higher price?
(4) Exactly how does a subsidy given to the biofuel facility raise the farmer's input cost?
1) Some of it was towards biofuel facilities, about $10 billion dollars was just towards the fuel. Whats more, why should they be subsidizing the facilities?
Why should we be subsidizing anything but the R&D?
Yes the grain went up
Yes the grain got sold at a higher price
Higher demand for fertilizer, pesticide, herbacide, land, and water drove the price up. More or less, they knew they could get it.
The price of nitrogen fertilizer for instance:
http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/33925
The farmers aren't making much additional net profit. And the few "farmers" who are, are the large agrobusiness.
(Corn Ethanol uses 3x more nitrogen fertilizer than any other US crop) (Yeah the interviewer is a jackass)
_
Iowa State figures that Corn Ethanol will no longer continue to be economically profitable in 2008.
_
And yes, increasing the price of corn goes a long way to increasing the price of food.
First off, because we eat a hell of a lot of corn in our US diet
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/04/13/philpott/
Second off, by growing more corn, we're growing LESS of everything else.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:41 am
12 Jul 2007
http://insidegreentech.com/node/1292
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:11 am
12 Jul 2007
I apologize for my narrow point of view. But I don't feel guilty about a caring a bit more about my neighbors than the people in Italy or even Africa. Fortunately, the only suffering -- related to this issue -- that I've seen is a family reduced to tears at a town meeting because they are close to loosing a farm that their family has owned for several generations. They just want to sell a few lots to housing developers to help them through the crisis, but our town plan does not permit it. No execeptions because it would be difficult to decide where to draw the line. If their income rose because the price of what they produce rose, it would save the farm and save some agricultural land. There is enormous pressure on our town board to losen the restrictions on development. I extrapolated from this situation to that of other farmers in other places.
I also apologize for general remarks about African farmers and the cash crop vs. food crop problem. It is clearly not an issue everywhere in Africa. There are probably communities that would benefit from a shift toward food and communities that would benefit from finding additional cash crops to export. I will post links covering this issue later.
That said, my general remarks regarding African farmers are s bad as general remarks regarding North American farmers. As I mentioned earlier, the dairy farmers around my home own their land. They grow a variety of crops (corn, soybean, alfalfa, grass) and appear to have enough food for their cows through winter. I'll have to ask them about this. Their situation is clearly different from that of someone who must eventually purchase grain for their cows. I actually thought grain was not suitable for cows... I learn something new every day. Government policies good for some farmers are clearly not good for others.
Regarding the complexity of the issue, everything is connected and, as I've pointed out, we should all practice mindful living. But I think there are limits to how much we can worry about. At some point, a problem is so far downstream, that other factors come into play.
Off Topic...
I'd really like to see a separate discussion of why there is a food shortage in Africa. And exactly where the shortage is occurring. Part of the problem in bringing this up, is that I think we each talking about different parts of the African continent as though it represents the whole. I apologize for my contribution to this communication problem.
On Topic...
I think I'm starting to comprehend the objection to the subsidies for biofuel facilities. But I'll have to take time to digest what I've learned here.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:16 am
12 Jul 2007
If you are criticizing biofuel, you should really start complaining about the latest incarnations of the concept. Most of us, even those who support biofuel, know corn ethanol is not practical.
Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:48 am
12 Jul 2007
If you are criticizing biofuel, you should really start complaining about the latest incarnations of the concept. Most of us, even those who support biofuel, know corn ethanol is not practical.
And what praytell, is the "latest incarnations" ?
Cellulosic?
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:44 pm
12 Jul 2007
What I had in mind was enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellosic material to release more cellulose and hemicellulose than current methods accomplish, thereby increasing the yield of sugar from a given amount of biomass and consuming less energy to do so. Furthermore, other enzymes are being identified that can permit us to use more of the sugars released for producing fuel or for synthesizing other valuable materials. By reducing reliance on chemical treatments and high temperatures, the process should also be more environmentally friendly.
The net result will be more energy from a smaller amount of crude biomass.
I do not believe this technology is as far off in the future as the authors of your PDF article suggest.
No doubt... I'm completely insane.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:47 pm
12 Jul 2007
On a cash basis, many schemes for cellulosic ethanol look great on paper. But, as researchers at Iowa State University have shown, unless you bribe (i.e., subsidize) farmers to grow switchgrass, under all scenarios they looked at, farmers in the Corn Belt would continue to grow the most remunerative crop on their land, which is and will remain corn:
Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass and biodiesel from soybeans do not become economically viable in the Corn Belt under any of the scenarios. This is so because high energy costs that increase the prices of biodiesel and switchgrass ethanol also increase the price of corn-based ethanol. So long as producers can choose between soybeans for biodiesel, switchgrass for ethanol, and corn for ethanol, they will choose to grow corn. Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover does not enter into any scenario because of the high cost of collecting and transporting corn stover over the large distances required to supply a commercial-sized ethanol facility.
Outside the corn belt, the economics of cellulosic ethanol would be even more marginal, because biomass yields would be lower, requiring a larger catchment area for a given size of plant.
If you have in mind wood chips, there are many different industries eyeing that source. Have a look at this article, for example. One company has now secured options on a significant share of insect- and storm-damaged trees in the eastern states, thereby driving wood-chip prices up by possibly 100% within the year. That wood is destined not for cellulosic ethanol plants, but for wood-fired power plants.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:43 pm
12 Jul 2007
Looks like you're on top of things.
What I had in mind was enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellosic material to release more cellulose and hemicellulose than current methods accomplish, thereby increasing the yield of sugar from a given amount of biomass and consuming less energy to do so. Furthermore, other enzymes are being identified that can permit us to use more of the sugars released for producing fuel or for synthesizing other valuable materials. By reducing reliance on chemical treatments and high temperatures, the process should also be more environmentally friendly.
The net result will be more energy from a smaller amount of crude biomass.
I do not believe this technology is as far off in the future as the authors of your PDF article suggest.
No doubt... I'm completely insane.
True, but even if we could magically turn all of our farmland into switchgrass, and then magically turn all of that switchgrass into pure energy.
I wouldn't be suprised if that is still not enough to power all our cars. Much less power twice our ammount of cars in 2025.
_______
Since really you're looking at a realistic 6% conversion of sunlight into energy.
(With a theoretical maximum conversion of 11%)
Even if you had 11% solar effecient plants. The theoretical MAXIMUM photosynthesis can possibly deliver.
Thats still pretty crappy.
________
That said, Cellulosic Ethanol from US feedstocks, as per the DOE's stats would be roughly HALF as effecient as Sugarcane is right now.
(I'll have to go find the bar chart....)
Anyways assuming I can find the chart again, the point is that cellulosic isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Hell, merely the logistics of temperate climate cellulose crop harvesting would be a nightmare.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:06 pm
12 Jul 2007
He's describing some of the stark impossibilities of biofuels in terms of their physics limitations.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.org/the_reality_report_the_m ...
________
And here's an article talking about that "One Billion Ton" Report, which says we got 1.3 billion tons of farm "waste" just sitting around.
http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol- ...
Some pretty crazy assumptions going into that as well.
Permalink