I'm afraid they will destroy mother earths most diverse land ecosystems. Biofuels or more correctly agrofuels need huge amounts of land area. I am from Europe and we have silly EU directives ordering each nation to increase their renewable part on the fuels. It might sound nice but it's pure horror. Ie. 95% of the Finnish biofuel content is Brazilian sugarcane. It means tropical areas that could otherwise be rainforests are turned into sugarcane fields. It is estimated that EU 10% biofuel content requires area size of Belgium to be converted to "bio"fuel plantations. And that happens in Brazil. What happens if we go for 20%? 50%?
I have investigated this quite a bit and the more I investigate, the more unpleasent it gets. For example the sugarcane fields are burned before harvesting. There's no way in the world that greenhouse gas emissions would go down with biofuels. And the basic idea is when you look at it, that cars will produce the same CO2 whether renewable or fossil fuel. So the difference comes down to replacing rainforest with biofuel field and that should stop the global warming, now known as climate change or whatever.
The plan is just horrible.
I visited Malaysia this spring because I look for rare fish in the freshwater biotopes. The biotopes that used to be 5 years ago are now destroyed. Oilpalms are everywhere. More and more all the time. The plantations erode, they need fertilizers and pest control etc. Freshwaters die around them. 100% "bio"fuels in the form of diesel are marketed ie. by the Finnish NesteOil company and they hope financial success with it. It's bad now in SE-Asia, what if they get to European diesel market with that biodiesel thing?
The green movement nowadays object a little bit this, but seems like it's not important to them. And they are for Brazilian bioethanol. It's just sad. I can't believe they do it. It looks like they are afraid of loosing face in this thing first asking for petroleum replacement in the heat of global warming frenzy. Now the problem got much worse.
Here's a graph showing how much land use each energy producing method requires: http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/05/29/LandUseAndrews_610x373.JPG
Biofuels can't be the answer... Please don't use them.

I agree with you. The stupidest thing ever is for the US to promote corn based ethanol. Specifically corn based ethanol is one of the least efficient forms of ethanol there is. Much less efficient than sugar cane ethanol for example from a fuel produced per unit land mass. Putting food in our gas tanks is not smart. But here in the US the farm lobby is so strong and almost dictates who our presidential candidates are that I'm afraid we will chop down every square meter of forest to plant corn for fuel. Additionally, since so much land is going to corn, other food crops are not getting as much land as they should thereby drastically driving up the price. The farm lobby has been so successful that very little food in the US is made with real sugar. Most of it is made with... Yes corn syrup... Then there's beef production - don't even get me started on that.

But hey, according to most of our Presidential election candidates, it's all a hoax anyway and the earth is 5000 years old and we rode dinosaurs

Well, I'm not saying it's good, but at least it's slightly more honest to destroy the nature in your own country, here agrofuels are imported from the rainforests. In Finland probably about 0,001% of the population thinks the earth is 5000 years old. The ignorance comes a bit surprisingly from what I would consider about the opposite end of political spectrum. One green(?!) EU candidate suggested that we should chop down trees and hide them in the bottom of lakes or sea to fight climate change... Everyone here has brain marinated in the endless climate change simplifications, people just think if it's bio this or renewable that it's good.
I hope someone would start a facebook page or something for total banning of using living things as "bio"fuel. I'd be very happy and motivated to support and advertize that in every way I can. The world is going so fast into totally horrible direction with these agrofuels. It's just a permission for oil companies to come and use land as their oil fields. And these fields need to be huge compared to the traditional fields. Enormous. I think it's very strange that so few people see agrofuels for what they really are.

We have politicians here in my state that want to log every tree in the state to eliminate wild fires. The ignorance is staggering.

Yeah, it's hard times for the nature at the moment. I think caring for the natural habitats and wildlife is somehow out of fashion. Steady destruction on purpose like what happens with agrofuels is not dramatic and sexy enough. Media needs big accidents... Does not make good TV or something like that. It does not get the attention so nobody cares to fight for it in the political field. I remember when green party members opposed MacDonalds because they boiled the fries in palm oil. That was some 15 years ago. Now they wonder if it's ok or not to put a couple of hundred million cars running on it. It's just a game the politics. The destruction biofuels do should get more attention so that it becomes some kind of chip with a value in the political game.

But here in lies our catch 22. If we can't put ethanol in our tanks, and we can't pump oil, and we can't mine for coal, and wind energy is killing all of the birds what are we supposed to do? I understand we can't rape the planet for our resources but there has to be a way that is cost effective to produce the energy we need and not completely destroy ecosystems. I am thinking a variety of methods designed to fit each areas strengths and diversity. Out here in the West we have LOTS of wind. Sign me up for a wind powered electric car! However, in Iowa corn grows without trying (when they are not under water), down south sugar cane is more effective. It seems to me that each area should work its strengths and create the technoilogy to match. I think that is where we should drive our legislation. Diversity. No one fuel, or process is going to fill the need.

Well, looking at the link I sent with the first post we could choose and develop 5 first least nature eating energy producing forms and develop them. They consume tens or hundreds of times less nature for the energy producing task than biofuels. We just have to give a slap to ourselves and the guys next us and remind that fossil means a tree that no animal needs anymore. Bio means that you are stealing a living tree from someone who still needs it. Local biofuel production is not that bad idea but in this time of free trade and globalization it won't take long when things get out of hand. Here's a link giving idea what it really means when Europe adds biofuel usage:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/driving_to_destruction.pdf

"Total net GHG emissions from biofuels could be as much as 56 million tonnes of extra CO2 per year, the
equivalent of an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020. This means that instead of being 35
to 50% less polluting than fossil fuels (as required by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED)), once land use
impacts are included, the extra biofuels that will come to the EU market will be on average 81% to 167% worse
for the climate than fossil fuels.
----
The study reveals that the EU’s plans for biofuels will result
in the conversion of up to 69 000 square kilometres (km2) of
land to agricultural use due to ILUC. This will potentially put
forests, other natural ecosystems, and poor communities at
risk. Land conversion on such a scale will lead to the release of
carbon emissions from vegetation and soil, making biofuels
more damaging to the climate than the fossil fuels they are
designed to replace."

And of course this is a lot more expensive.
And is greenwashing making people happier to use more, promoting oil and car industry.

Now this European "green" plan should be in the dictionary where it says stupidity IMHO.


I don't think there's catch 22 in the real world. If we just do not dumb nuclear power and oil for biofuels in the heat of the moment and keep developing direct solar energy and wind and other up and coming forms, that's about it. The thing is that we do have technology for pollution free nature saving energy. The worst mistake is to let oil companies land on the ground and call everything and anything an oil field. It's a big mistake to let that happen if we think about the number 1 threat to almost all species: loss of habitat.

Seems like there should be waste sources for biofuels, like used cooking oil from restaurants (which has already been used in a few test cases), farm waste and wood waste from pulp mills, methane from landfills etc etc. That is how natural ecosystems work - what is waste to one is fuel/food for another. We need to employ that principle in our own systems rather than continually drawing down the ecological capital of the planet.

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

Indeed. Ethanol from straw (the waste stream from grain production) is something they're working on. Right now (AFAIK) it is a very inefficient process, to the point where it is not economic to run a commercial operation. Or at least you'd get better return on your investment by putting your money somewhere else. While you might be willing to put your investment dollars into a very green operation, most of the investment money comes from sources where return on investment is critical.

Likewise for many of the other sources of waste. There are lots of small scale operations (landfill gas, manure, etc.) all over the world, but the economics aren't there (yet) for large scale fully commercial operations.

Research is certainly ongoing, so let's hope we'll see more of these operations in the future, as the technology progresses and the economics improve.

-Paul

I agree as well that the waste sources are fine for biofuel. That does not require any extra land for the production and could actually make the environment cleaner.



Unfortunately the reality ie. with Brazilian sugarcane is just the opposite. Leaves are burned on site up in the air as smoke and the foody parts are used for the biofuel. Maybe there should be a clear distinction between the two types: if the plant is grown for energy only purposes, the product should be called agrofuel. If the material is of biological origin but waste/by-product, it could be called biofuel. The first one getting no extra support, tax reliefs etc. Something should be done anyway to stop the confusion and make distinction between good and bad sources a bit easier.
But it's not easy. I have a feeling some of the palm oil companies will start mixing the two types because awarenes is growing and they have hard time marketing the product. Idea being of course to get some EU climate certificate (! just climate, it doesn't take into account the habitat destruction) and then they will be able to get the mostly palm oil origin stuff into the market. They invest a lot, Neste Oil just recently opened worlds largest "bio"fuel plant in Singapore. That's nicely located between Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo. That location can not have been chosen by any other criteria than proximity to tropical oil palms. Let's be sharp, otherwise I'm afraid it's goodbye rainforests because they surely will push hard to make the investment profitable...

As far as I'm concerned liquid fuel is where our problem lies. We have the ability to generate electricity from renewable resources with far less environmental impact than our current methods. Wind farms are far less hazardous to birds and other wildlife (particularly when a wildlife inventory is done prior to development); windows, cats, and collisions with vehicles kill more birds each year. Hydropower, solar power, and wind power are all less efficient than oil, but less costly too, and often effective enough for powering buildings and other needs. We've had less success finding a suitable substitute for gasoline and petroleum.

One liquid biofuel I wish would be more strongly considered is Giant Miscanthus. It is far more efficient than corn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus

I agree with Kari, the problem is on liquid fuels. There's enough knowledge and technology out there to widely use wind, tide, sun, magnetic and other truly ecological renewable energy sources for almost every need. The problem is on the multi-trilionaire oil barons of the world. The Bushes, the Obamas, the Petrobras, the arabs. They are all to blame. As long as these people remain in power, there will be no solution. We don't need to use oil anymore, or ethanol for that matter. The only reason we are still using it is to make huge profits for these oligarchies.

Sorry to say, but if I had the chance to destroy all living specimens and seeds of that plant I would do it. Even if more efficient, it would still require tremendous land areas of this plant to produce any significant amounts of fuel. It always diminishes natural areas, increases pesticide use, pollutes waters, and drives food prices up and nature down when it's agrofuel.
Electric cars and nature would have a chance...

I can't wait for electric powered planes. <g>

I'd like the idea too, if something goes wrong now with the take off passengers are sitting next to 60 000 gallon fuel tanks.. Would improve safety dramatically if the electric plane worked.

My problem, and natures major problem, is with the biofuels. I have no problem with fossil fuels or nuclear power, the latter should IMHO be one of the major solutions and added. I live in Finland and I'm not sure we should change into electric cars or planes. Small population, long distances and very cold winters are not providing the best platform for that. However in central Europe which is more populated electric car would work very well.

Once the car is moving, it can create its own energy. There's an energy recovery mechanism called regenerative braking, which has been used in trains for many years. I'm not an engineer and I'm not sure if this really works in this scenario, but it's an idea. I think there is lots of energy created by a moving car that is just not used right now.

The biggest problem with all of these oil, biofuels and so on is that they are based around the idea that we will be able to continue to live they way we are presently. Not only that, but population control isn't needed, much less something to even dare be discussed. The consumption lifestyle simply can't be maintained at this pace, much less expect that all the world's 6 billion+ inhabitants can.
I agree about the biofuel mess, the conversion of food crops to biofuel is poorly thought out. Or maybe it's not, as everybody seems to be working hard at putting "green" on their product labels lately as a way of selling them.

Here's the beauty of banning all biofuels (I mean the agrofuels, exluding waste material ones):
Oil price will go naturally up and that will lower the amounts used. And that will tone down the overall consumption. At the same time it will protect remaining natural areas.
In Europe population would decline naturally but politians insist continuing the rather easy immigration to Europe.
Basically the world would go to better direction in many ways naturally but politicians and industry want cheap fuels, cheap labour and pressure to cut social security and minimum wage.
So, the natural things are not let to happen. Biofuels being the most harmful and dishonest part in this game to secure endless growth.

Regenerative braking is used in some cars already. It can load the battery and in hybrid models the advantage is most obvious. It's good technology. I don't have this in my car but mimic this effect other way, by braking as little as possible. Stepping of the pedal early when there's red light ahead and taking the corners faster without braking are some examples. Saves gasoline when the energy of the moving car is not cut down by braking.

I think the toyota Prius does that does it not? Another way to save fuel would be if people didn't idle it all the time. I can't believe often I run in to a variety store and there is a car running outside(whether winter or summer).