Taking up valuable land and growing edible crops for biofuels poses a dilemma: Is it ethical to produce inefficient renewable energies at the expense of an already malnourished population?
David Pimentel and his colleagues from Cornell University in New York highlight the problems linked to converting a variety of crops into biofuels. Not only are these renewable energies inefficient, they are also economically and environmentally costly and nowhere near as productive as projected. Their findings1 are published online this week in Springer’s journal Human Ecology.
In the context of global shortages of fossil energy – oil and natural gas in particular – governments worldwide are focusing on biofuels as renewable energy alternatives. In parallel, almost 60 percent of the world’s population is malnourished increasing the need for grains and other basic foods. Growing crops, including corn, sugarcane and soybean, for fuel uses water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption.
Professor Pimentel and his team review the availability and use of land, water and current energy resources globally, and then look at the situation in the US specifically. They also analyze biomass resources and show that there is insufficient US biomass for both ethanol and biodiesel production to make the US oil independent.
Their paper then looks at the efficiency and costs associated with converting a range of crops into energy and shows that in each case more energy is required for this process than they actually produce as fuel. The research finds a negative energy return of 46 percent for corn ethanol, 50 percent for switchgrass, 63 percent for soybean biodiesel and 58 percent for rapeseed. Even the most promising palm oil production results in a minus 8 percent net energy return. There are also a number of environmental problems linked to converting crops for biofuels, including water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, global warming, soil erosion and air pollution.
In the researchers’ opinion, there is simply not enough land, water and energy to produce biofuels. They also argue that ironically, the US is becoming more oil-dependent, not less, as was intended through the production of biofuels. In most cases, more fossil energy is required to produce a unit of biofuel compared with the energy that it provides. As a result, the US is importing more oil and natural gas in order to make the biofuels.
The authors conclude that “Growing crops for biofuels not only ignores the need to reduce natural resource consumption, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide by turning food grain into biofuels…Increased use of biofuels further damages the global environment and especially the world food system.”
Reference
1. Pimentel D et al (2009). Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs.
Human Ecology DOI 10.1007/s10745-009-9215-8
http://www.springer-sbm.com/index.php?id=132&no_cache=1&L=0
Comments
Biofuels are Barack Obama's fatal blunder!
February 23, 2009 by Anonymous, 39 weeks 6 days ago
Comment: 34785
Biofuels are Barack Obama's Vietnam, his Watergate, his Iraq War!
NEWS: Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment says biofuels speed global warming.
SEE: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQy7VFLFs365aBNrduM-V...
MORE DETAILS SEE - http://storybank.stanford.edu/stories/biofuels-boom-could-fuel-rainfores...
When you try to grow both fuel and food at the same time, you greatly increase the rate of topsoil erosion, because disturbing the land by tilling and harvesting makes soils vulnerable to wind and rain. Globally, topsoil is being lost ten times faster than it is being replenished, and 30% of the world's arable land has become unproductive in the past 40 years due to erosion. Without topsoil the human race would quickly starve to death, and the USA is in serious jeopardy of losing adequate food growing capacity within 100 years or less due to erosion. Biofuel production is helping clog the Mississippi and other rivers with topsoil from our prime growing areas. In 1850 Iowa prairie soils had about 12-16 inches of topsoil, but now have only about 6-8 inches. We are continuing to lose Iowa topsoil at a rate of approximately 30 tons of topsoil per hectare (10,000 square meters) per year. As it takes nature hundreds of years to replace just 1 inch of lost topsoil, ask biofuel advocates if helping to destroy the ability of future generations to grow food is a worthy environmental goal.
Oregon State University agricultural economists, William Jaeger et al., found that to achieve a given improvement in energy independence using ethanol from corn, biodiesel from rapeseed (canola oil), and ethanol from wood-based cellulose could be 6 to 28 times more costly than other policy options, such as raising fuel economy standards. Using all three biofuels at maximum estimated scales of production in Oregon would lead to a net energy gain of just two-thirds of one percent of Oregon’s annual energy use. None of the biofuels were found to be marketable without large taxpayer subsidies, and the much hyped cellulosic ethanol was found to be the most expensive of all the biofuels to produce. Jaeger says his latest, yet to be published findings are even more pessimistic about the usefulness of biofuels.
SEE Biofuel Potential in Oregon - http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/sr/sr1078.pdf
For full details of the biofuel disaster and better energy alternatives, see The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis! at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html - with active links to resources
Christopher Calder (Democrat - food security advocate)
Post new comment