The largest issue with biofuels from a human perspective are that they consume vast quantities of drinkable water. You cannot irrigate a farm with seawater, and you cannot process organic matter into fuel with saltwater either. Both processes require huge amounts of drinkable water. That is a major problem, many countries are perpetually in drought, and some are past a 'tipping point' where they simply cannot supply their entire populations with water. The US is roughly 60 years from a severe water crisis as we drain the Great Plains Aquifer, which is the primary water supply for US farming, when it is gone the midwest will essentially become a desert.
Outside of human concerns is the required cropland. If ALL of the farmland in the world were utilized purely for biofuel production, the biofuel produced would cover roughly 10% of just the United States needs. Thats assuming no need for growing food. It can never be a serious solution on a large scale, its simply not possible. We consume far too much in this nation alone to have a crop based solution.
Europe has moved towards Biofuels in a large way, requiring 10% of their fuel consumption to be bio based by I believe 2020. The result has been mass deforestation of southeast asia, up to 80% in some nations (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332282/ ), countries like Brazil have slashed and burned millions of acres of rainforest to feed their Ethanol thirst.
You are also correct that fertilizers, pesticides, genetically modified crops, and other components of the modern mechanized farming system are serious detriments to environmental health. Ultimatly though, the largest question that should be asked about biofuels is "Does it work?"
I'll let Cornell and Berkley universities answer that for you:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jul ... y.ssl.html
Quote:
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Hmm, perhaps its just slightly off and needs a bit of adjustment? Lets see the numbers:
Quote:
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
- corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
- switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
- wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
- soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
- sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Uh oh, its not even close. He MUST be an oil industry shill, right? Lets see what he says about future power so we can discern his oil company roots:
Quote:
Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
Gee, he dosen't sound like he's advocating oil either, does he?
Sorry for the sarcastic tone there, I just think some people need to read more than the diesel vehicle forums for their information on energy. Its frustrating to see the level of ignorance displayed on the subject, often trumpeted. Studies like this are all over the place, it is not even that hard to find. Studies demonstrating an energy postive tend to either ignore all costs in the process(for instance the fact that ethanol must be transported by vehicle rather than pipeline), or utilize 'best case' scenerios that simply will never be achieved in the real world.
Do some research on the topic. Environmental groups are quickly distancing themselves from biofuels, many at the grassroots of the political parties are starting to see the mistake. Politicians promoting them are in my experience seeing the dollar signs that three billion in subsidies represent for their districts, typically agriculture districts, or come from states where their large campaign contributers are corporations like Archer-Daniels Midland and Monosato.
A quick guide to the environmental dangers can be found in the articles collected at this site:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/index.php
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
