BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

Dear all,

We all heard about food prices related riots around the world. But we do not hear much about reasons for recent sky-rocketing rise:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4683795&page=1
And this is only part of the story that destabilises so many poor countries. The line of the article could be extended further. Any biofuel crop on arable land will reduce land for other crops or drive deforestation further.
When we add serious shortages of fresh water around the world, the answer seems quite clear: seawater algae cultivation on non arable land. And one step further: afforestation and new arable lands without use of fresh water.

I would say that, when dust settles, seawater algae cultivation will emerge as a clear winner.

Sincerely,
Damir (Lunatic to some)

 Damir,

The ASP came to that conclusion more than ten years ago.

 Later research showed CCMP647 is a good speices.

 

liberty1:

The ASP came to that conclusion more than ten years ago.

Did anybody tell this to (US) legislators?

 Damir,

There were no lobbyists handing out bribes so they were not interested. 

wow I found the right place.............this is like paradise for intellectuals who despise the government......and their energy monopolies 

liberty1:

There were no lobbyists handing out bribes so they were not interested. 

Dear Bobby,

I doubt that we could afford bribes, but public pressure might do the trick without them. Instead of lobbying government, we need to lobby media, scientific circles and even UN. We need to put forward clear, undeniable reasonings and math everybody can understand. Can we do this?

Sincerely,

Damir 

Damir:

We all heard about food prices related riots around the world. But we do not hear much about reasons for recent sky-rocketing rise:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4683795&page=1
And this is only part of the story that destabilises so many poor countries. The line of the article could be extended further. Any biofuel crop on arable land will reduce land for other crops or drive deforestation further.
When we add serious shortages of fresh water around the world, the answer seems quite clear: seawater algae cultivation on non arable land. And one step further: afforestation and new arable lands without use of fresh water.

This latest attack by big oil to blame food prices on ethanol production is just the latest in a series of lies propagated by big oil to protect it's profits.   While I agree that long term it is stupid to swap food crops into oil production, the current food crisis has very little to do with diverting food into fuel.

Bigger factors are the rapid rise in disiel, which affects most farmers and the rising demand for food, which has been on pace to create a "food crisis" for years.   Big oil has just used the current crisis to create fear in many peoples mind about biofuels.   They don't want large amounts of government money poured into research of a product that would in essence put them out of business.  So, they have unleashed a full court press of psuedo facts to try to get the media to report that biofuels are the reason prices are going up, not the fact that regular desiel is now 4 times more expensive then it was 8 years ago.

 

Blakec:

     blame food prices on ethanol production  

While I dont know if there is a conserted effort to confuse the issue on anyone in particular, the facts easily known.

In the USA, ~ 18% of each $ of your food bill goes to the cost of that food to be grown. I dont care if its a piece of meat, egg or wheatgerm granola... only 18pennies of each dollar goes to the farmer. The rest of the value of the food that the consumer is paying for is in value added services such as; crushing, process, packaging, sterilization, chemicals to prevent the chemicals to kill you, more sterilization and packaging and shipping, the store you bought it from, the kids to bag your groceries and to get the carts in the parking lot, the recalls from poison ecoli, the cost to run the slurppy machine, the McD's golden arches sign letters that the kid has to change the special of the day ... you know... everything else.

So, explain to me how the cost of corn going up 2x would cause food costs to 2x. The answer is that it wouldnt. Its the cost of oil that is the driver, end of story. And it is this fact that should scare the hell out of everyone... how addicted everything we eat is to cheap oil. Its also proof of where all our jobs went? Not to farming but to truck it, bag it and sell it. Its where so many manufacturing jobs went because guess what... farming IS manufacturing. Our addiction has eroded our economy to such a point that a few tilts and riots run amuck in the streets.

By the way, this is also true in all parts of the world, just not to the same extreme of numbers as in prepackaged America.

Yes there will be some withdraws symptions of fossil fuel addictions but look at the uglyness it causes. As I have said many times, raise the price of oil now because when it really gets ugly... we have started the process and are not completely crushed by the weight of human populations. We can either do this easy or do this rough... but one way or another, the habbit kills you or you shake the monkey off your back.

Getting back on topic, by raising the price of oil and pollution, seawater algae cultivation can infact be a safe bet.

 

i greatly doubt thhat the use of bio-fuels has been the cause of a rise in food prices. there's just not enough extra food to be consumed by the biofuels industry to make a difference in price levels. Additionally, the us dollar is trading at a very low value, so the price of foods produced in the US should have gone down in other countries. The real problem is that agriculture is very dependant on the petrochemical industry, for fuels, fertilizers, pesticides.

 The 'food' of 'fuel' hype is just propaganda, most likely paid for big big-oil.

 In spite of this, I believe that corn & soy are inefficient methods of fuel production, and that algae is the best.

 

Thanks for the article Damir,

 You don't sound like a lunatic to me. I agreed with those who have commented here that the media are doing a pathetic job re biofuels and that politicians will follow the mood of public opinion rather than science and common sense. It is up to us to "educate" our friends, neighbours, relatives, etc in such a way that they will be able to understand that  not all biofuels are  equal in the eyes of mother nature. To begin with, lumping together ethanol and biodiesel is not fair to the latter. Ethanol's emissions are far worse than  biodiesel (as in the latest generation of diesel engines). To produce ethanol massively from corn was a colossal  US mistake. A short sighted US Gvt sponsored conversion from food (feed) products to fuel. I hope that the American public will become more receptive to diesel engines and that biodiesel will be one day a more attractive business endeavour. Yes indeed, biofuel production from non food sources should be encouraged and the public should know that such alternatives are available.

Biolotus.

 

Biolotus:

It is up to us to "educate" ...

Dear Biolotus at al,

If we are to educate others (and be convincing), we need a bit of practice, for not all of our thoughts/believes hold water. We also need to consider biodiesels within larger picture to avoid mistakes similar to those US legislators made. So, let us start, but please without “big oil conspiracy” type arguments; they cannot be sold easily to everybody.
To begin with, there is not only US in the world. Believe it or not, there are also other countries.  It is true, however, that when US sneeze others catch cold; like with recent credit crunch. And ¢5 rise for food in US might mean something to eat every second day in some countries.
Now, let us consider few simple facts.
We have reached and passed upper limits of arable land on this planet long time ago. (That we have passed these limits could be seen in effects of prolonged drought in Australia.) We have passed these limits by deforestation. Global warming cannot be, therefore, blamed on burning fossil fuels only.
Here we are between rock and hard place. I guess that we agree that deforestation (for more arable land) is not an option any more. And to sustain population we need to grow food related crops wherever possible. If we don’t, the whole world will be destabilised and US with it. (Consequences could be worse than leaving global warming unchecked.)
Now we are faced with two problems: global warming and global hunger. Global warming will probably impact food production and global hunger will probably force us to create more arable land. And if something like my Greening Method does not take place, deforestation will be a must even if it accelerates global warming further.

Sincerely,

Damir

"deforestation will be a must even if it accelerates global warming further."

 

Well I enjoyed reading this thread and appreciate everything that was said.  However most people don't praise what things they agree with, but take on things they don't even if they should maybe just be agree with things previously that have been said.  But to further debate and maybe get more discussion going.

 

So I must say I couldn't disagree more with you on that issue in the quotes.  

 

If populations can't feed themselves they shouldn't populate like rabbits.  First of all the land is being deforested right now not to make farmland out of it but to build homes on, and farmland is being taken away in certain parts of the country to build homes on.  Thankfully this credit crises has put a stop to that madness.  However the damage will be felt for a long time to come.  

 So you think it is wise to chop down the rain forests in Brazil and burn it out to be able to get a few crops out of it before the land is useless?

 The Great Plains states if turned to Organic  farming and used most of it's farmable land it could change things alot.  However as someone stated in the previous post that is not the problem because it is the cost of fuel and energy it takes to such a thing to increase farmland production in a sustainable manner and not in a short-sighted policy to help things at the immediate moment.  

Water problems will probably be the biggest issue in the future.  And not just that but specifically "Water Quality"

Cutting down forests will destroy water quality and pollute more rivers and streams that you can think of.  

  

 

 

  

 

 

Damir:

  Dear Biolotus at al,

et al.

Damir:

  Global warming will probably impact food production and global hunger will probably force us to create more arable land. 

I dont think we can just assume that global warming will decrease food production. An example is Wisconsin's growing season is increased. And there is alot of land in the norther reaches of the globe.

And global hunger is almost exclusively a economic issue, not a logisitcal/production issue. An acre of corn can yield 10t of corn that turns into 1/2 ton of beef that turns into 1/4 ton of food (unless you eat bones blood hair teeth...).

Or that same acre could yield 10+tons of veggies that could directly sustain people.

But there is more money in feeding cow's than there is in feeding starving poor people. Truth hurts. Its not a technical issue, its an economic issue.

"But there is more money in feeding cow's than there is in feeding starving poor people. Truth hurts. Its not a technical issue, its an economic issue."

 

This is where Ethanol from corn and food has a very big plus with it creating feedstocks as a byproduct for cattle ect...... 

Jonathan84:

"deforestation will be a must even if it accelerates global warming further."

Well I enjoyed reading this thread and appreciate everything that was said.  However most people don't praise what things they agree with, but take on things they don't even if they should maybe just be agree with things previously that have been said.  But to further debate and maybe get more discussion going.

So I must say I couldn't disagree more with you on that issue in the quotes.  

A classic example of quoting out of context. Reread the whole sentence and you will understand that Damir is saying that (see Greening Algae thread) if his Greening method is not adopted, then it will become necessary to chop down more forests.

Dear Jonathan,

I was rather expecting something like this: Other countries! Lies! Other countries are just myths damned democrats are trying to sell to decent Americans.
I have never expected so clinically clean argument:

Jonathan84:

If populations can't feed themselves they shouldn't populate like rabbits.

But of course! How I could not see it before? They should not overpopulate like rabbits.
What do you think? Should we nuke them?

Sincerely,

Damir
Disclaimer: Although I sometimes wished, I have never worked on population increases in other countries.

Wow I am laughing reading those two last comments...............bravo I guess I am now suppose to say I was wrong now and give up the fight in light of a superiour argument.  LOL I will only lament on you my laughter and contrite to such weak handed tactics against someone superiour to yourself. 

Jonathan84:

Wow I am laughing reading those two last comments...............bravo I guess I am now suppose to say I was wrong now and give up the fight in light of a superiour argument.  LOL I will only lament on you my laughter and contrite to such weak handed tactics against someone superiour to yourself. 

Dear Jonathan,

I prefer to leave judgements about superiority to others. Űbermensch title was never really attractive to me.
I am puzzled however about what you are really standing for?

Sincerely,

Damir

Damir:

We have reached and passed upper limits of arable land on this planet long time ago. (That we have passed these limits could be seen in effects of prolonged drought in Australia.)

 

Actually, there is still a fair amount of arable land (if it means what I think it means) left. But it's growing forests.Most of New England (the one here in the usa, I know you have an area named that in Australia as well) is in fact forest. It's not that it won't grow crops, but that it's rocky soil and therefore cheaper to farm out west where there's less rocks and land is cheaper, because there is less competition for land from the industrial economy.  Also, a lot of the forest land in N.E. and New York is protected (look at the size of Adirondack state park on a mape some time -- it's huge!).

 I am not trying to disagree with you and shoot down your main points, which is that we humans keep on pushing the imits of what we can do on this planet. Imagine a world with the Haber process! We simply have too many people. We need some more wars and famines and diseases to thin the herd. But guess what, when it comes to energy issues, the herd that's going to get thinned the most is going to be the industrialized countries and the perpetually starving countries. It will be the in-between countries that will survive. Countries like Uruguay for instance. They've got good farm land, and they don't spend a lot of money on petrochemicals to squeeze more out of it. They've got controlled population growth. Too bad they're right next to Brazil, which has a population problem.

 

Dear BobK,

If you haven’t already read “Brave New World”, I recommend it. It was written long time ago, but its relevance seems to be growing in time; unlike some other SF.

bobk:

Actually, there is still a fair amount of arable land (if it means what I think it means) left. But it's growing forests.

My point exactly.

bobk:

I am not trying to disagree with you and shoot down your main points, which is that we humans keep on pushing the imits of what we can do on this planet. Imagine a world with the Haber process! We simply have too many people. We need some more wars and famines and diseases to thin the herd. But guess what, when it comes to energy issues, the herd that's going to get thinned the most is going to be the industrialized countries and the perpetually starving countries. It will be the in-between countries that will survive. Countries like Uruguay for instance. They've got good farm land, and they don't spend a lot of money on petrochemicals to squeeze more out of it. They've got controlled population growth. Too bad they're right next to Brazil, which has a population problem.

Population growth has been identified as a problem long time ago and we may soon face global hunger. Checking population growth does seem as a reasonable measure, but as soon we get to hows we find ourselves in ethical minefield no reasonable politician will dare to enter. (China’s one child policy seems to be working but miseries it caused might resurface. There are also some estimates that in 2020 there will be 9 boys per 1 girl. Quite explosive mix.)
Consequently, we are in for a rough ride with either global hunger or chopping down more forests. Again, no reasonable politician will be willing to face hungry mob and we will likely see more deforestation and accelerated global warming.
And not only that we are running short on food, many other resources vital to developed countries are also running low. (US seem to contemplate Moon colony to mine some rare minerals. Russians would like to join, but…)
We are unlikely to face these extremes soon. Maybe in hundred or more years, if we don’t do something now. I have been thinking a lot about all these problems and my Greening Method may give us some breathing space. Unfortunately, many have already invested heavily into biofuel crops on arable land and this could be the biggest obstacle.

Sincerely,

Damir