Food or Fuel?
In the rush for bioenergy, the world has turned to food for production of ethanol.Pros:
- Reduced Greenhouse Emissions
- Energy independence
- Sustainability
However these benefits come at a economic, social and environmental cost.
Cons:
- Increasing the price of basic food staples
- Hurting the world's poor (37 countries now in a food crisis)
- Environmental damage from fertilizer runoff and nutrient erosion
Is it worth it?
Although I felt the article was rather biased against using food for fuel, I agree with the author that the cons outweigh the pros. Food is already a scarce resource in other countries and it's gluttonous to convert it into fuel while countries such as Bangladesh, Haiti, and Egypt are having food riots. Though the process is marketed as sustainable since food can regrown, the need for food is ever increasing with population and the practice is not suitable in the long run.
Local Biofuel
Bionol Clearfield LLC, an ethanol plant, began operating in Clearfield, PA a few weeks ago. Clearfield is located slightly west of central Pennsylvania.
 |
| http://clearlyahead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Clearfield-County-Map.png |
“For
its corn supply, the ethanol plant has an agreement with Lansing Trade Group,
which is headquartered in Overland Park, Kan. currently, up to 75 percent of
its corn is off trucks coming from Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, Schmidt
said.”
This is beneficial since the corn supply is staying relatively local rather than importing from the corn belt in the Midwest. Assuming that Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio can keep up with the demand, it will probably be helpful for the farmers in the region.
'Biofuels in Europe
The European Union (EU) proposed an end to "first generation" biofuels in Europe. It turns out that due to indirect land use change these biofuels were actually worse than the fossil fuels that they were replacing. By converting land to be more biofuel efficient, the environmental benefit was lost. In response to this the European Union is pulling funding for biofuels in 2020 that do not have "substantial greenhouse gas savings".
Biofuel supporters are upset because they feel that the proposed bill will severely reduce the number of biofuels produced. It was argued that the funding would be severely hurt since investors won't be interested after what happened to the first generation.
On the other side, environmentalists are upset as well. They feel that the EU should have done more to restrict these first generation fuels. By delaying until 2020 the issue was compromised rather than outright corrected. It was quoted that the government chose to be "precisely wrong rather than roughly right."
The incoming "second generation" of biofuels should be much better for the environment. They will only be subsidized if there is at least a 45% increase in carbon emission savings.In addition, they will also use less food. The requirement has been stated that at least 40% of the fuel should come from non food & feed sources.
Corn Ethanol
Chances are that there is some ethanol in your gas tank right now. It is estimated that 95% of all U.S. gasoline contains ethanol. This gasoline blend helps to oxygenate the fuel as well as reduce air pollution.
In addition to the ethical controversy of producing corn ethanol, opponents of corn ethanol argued that it cost more energy to produce than was yielded. However, studies using updated data have shown otherwise. The production of corn ethanol does, in fact, produce a net gain in energy (meaning it has a positive energy balance).
 |
| (http://perc.org/sites/default/files/2011/05/ethanol-corn.jpg) |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
I agree with your comments on whether or not it is worth to use food as biofuels. I don't think it is the solution to alternative energy, especially with the current population starvation trends. However, there are certain instances where a biofuel market is plausible.Such as arid regions in Africa where the soil is too nutrient poor to grow food, however, it may be suitable to grow certain drought resistant corn varieties. This could turn unutilized land into a market for biofuels.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ana, I have no idea why we thought it would be a good idea to make fuel out of something that is already so integrated into our diet. Regardless whether corn is a good or bad part of our diet, it is still there. It was a major feat in fuel discovery to be able to make fuel out of a quickly renewable resource such as plants. What more impressive that just growing plants sequesters carbon which will hopefully reduce greenhouse emissions. Corn is tricky because we ‘spend’ a lot of carbon just growing corn which we still ultimately burn. What we really need is something with a negative net carbon gain, which means that it is semi-permanently taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Check out the Ted Talks video I’m about to upload onto the blog for more info.
ReplyDeleteI am skeptical about what may happen if biofuels are brought to subSaharan Africa because of what happened when GMOs were brought to the area. The farmers and the land evolved to only support the GMO seeds, so they could no longer grow anything else without acquiring the seeds. I also think biofuel production could have an effect on neighboring food crops in Africa causing cross-contamination. Another important consideration to consider is who will be in control of the biofuel production. Everyone is always trying to find ways to make Africans more independent, and if foreign companies are brought in to control biofuel production, what will happen to the progress already made against colonization if farmer's can't grow the biofuels themselves.
ReplyDelete