Biofuels - a crime against humanity - that and other topics related to rising food prices

[Makalakumu]

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10085859&fsrc=RSS

“THE world’s most vulnerable who spend 60% of their income on food have been priced out of the food market,” is the alarming warning from Josette Sheeran, head of the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP). As the price of wheat, maize, corn and other commodities that make up the world’s basic foodstuffs is soaring the poorest people in the poorest countries are the hardest hit. And as prices shoot up helping them is getting tougher too. The WFP’s food costs increased by more than 50% over the past five years. Ms Sheeran predicts that they will increase by another 35% in the next couple of years too.

For many years the least developed nations have worried about food security, especially countries at war and those battling droughts and other climatic hardships. Meanwhile the world’s richest nations have produced more than enough for their needs and spent more time and effort worrying about the problems related to an abundance of food. These range from the health risks associated with ballooning rates of obesity to subsidies for uncompetitive farmers, particularly from the European Union. Despite efforts to tackle spending on farm subsidies, over 40% of the entire EU budget still goes towards supporting agriculture.

This is a very interesting article, because I've been tracking food prices at my local supermarket and I have noticed the upshot. This has been taking a larger and larger chunk out of our families budget.

This, was a very surprising part of the article and I'm glad its being covered because I've personally thought that this was a problem too.

And efforts to alleviate one problem, finding an alternative to oil, has brought strong condemnation from a proponent of another, feeding the world’s starving poor. Jean Ziegler, the UN’s independent expert on the right to food, calls the growing use of crops to replace petrol as a crime against humanity and wants a five-year moratorium on biofuel production.

How is it ethical to turn crops to fuel when conservation could feed so many starving people?

 

[bydand]

I think there is a certain obligation we have to look into cutting the fossil fuel usage down as well. It is a fine line to walk, but I see really nothing wrong in producing bio-fuels from crops. How much of the soybeans and corn that is the biggest crops used for bio-fuel production would actually make it to those in other countries who need it? Not trying to raise an argument here, it is an honest question I have. How much bureaucracy is involved it getting food stuffs to those in need, what is the time from harvest to peoples hands and homes? Is it long enough to start losing those crops to spoilage? How much "skimming" is done at each point of the delivery chain? Just questions I don't have the answers too, but would play a BIG part in this discussion.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'm not in any way read up on the subject, but from what I know, the main concern with world food provision is in its distribution, not production. As the quoted article portions point out, while developing nations are struggling to afford enough of the basic foodstuffs, developed nations like the U.S. are gorging themselves. In other words, it's not the size of the pie that's the problem, but the size of the slices. That being the case, I wonder if the distribution problem were to be fixed, there'd be enough supply of corn and maize to both feed and produce fuel.

I'm definitely in favor of biofuels as a replacement for oil, as its own stand-alone issue, and I think that once the distribution problem is (gods willing) solved, there'll be enough for both purposes. A cheap, reproduceable, easily accessible (as in, there's no OPEC nations that get to screw with our gas prices) fuel source like corn would be a godsend replacement for oil, not to mention the lack of environmental concerns with drilling for it.

 

[Big Don]

The worst story I've seen about biofuels:
Mexican farmers are digging up their AGAVE plants to plant corn for biofuel.
Why is this bad? Because AGAVE is what they make TEQUILA out of! G-D environmentalist hippy bastages are raising the price of Tequila!

 

[Empty Hands]

How is it ethical to turn crops to fuel when conservation could feed so many starving people?

The US produces so much subsidized corn and wheat each year that huge amounts of it are burned as there is no one to buy or eat it. Why wouldn't you turn that waste into fuel? No one is pointing a gun at the African farmer's head and forcing him to produce biofuel crops. The world price of food, while rising, is still below the natural market rate due to extensive subsidies by the world's various governments.

Perhaps agricultural programs in needy areas to help them produce their own food makes more sense than food bequests grown in Iowa or Mexico. It would certainly be cheaper and would produce self-sufficiency.

 

[Big Don]

Since the most common biofuels are worse for the environment than petroleum based fuels, perhaps actually tapping into the VAST amount of oil under our own lands might be a good idea. If nothing else, using American crude wouldn't enrich foreign nations.

 

[newGuy12]

Growing livestock takes a huge amount of energy, and food. Its very inefficient. It also takes a lot more water to grow livestock than crops.

If push comes to shove, the easiest solution would be to eat less meat. Also, as was noted above, distribution of food is a problem.

 

[Steel Tiger]

We have definitely created something of a problem in another one of our hasty races toward a solution to a problem. In this case biofuels. As Bydand has pointed out at the moment it is a fine line between food production and biofuel crop production. I think it will all be worked out when we start throwing out the dud ideas.

As to the rising costs that the WFP is encountering. While the base cost of food is clearly having an effect, I would guess that administration is actually the biggest contributor to the WFP cost increases.

Is it ethical to grow biofuel crops instead of food crops? In the short term I would say no. But in the long term, the need to reduce our contribution to greenhouse gas generation is very important. Without some sort of slowing of the greenhouse effect we will be losing arable land and that will reduce crops of any type.

 

[tellner]

You have to make some serious distinctions when you talk about "biofuels".

The first sort is the corn-based ethanol that we are currently spending a shitload of money on. It's a scam. It's a travesty. It's basically an enormous welfare program for Archer Daniels Midland. Even the White House science and energy offices say it's a crock. It takes the most petroleum-intensive food and pours it into a gas tank. The most optimistic energy budgets I've seen say that energy output exceeds energy input by at most one in sixteen. It does nothing good. And it poisons the well for other things that do make sense.

Biodiesel is another matter. A lot of it is a matter of taking waste and turning it into something useful. The French fry grease would be thrown out otherwise. In fact, Dr. Diesel's original engines were designed to run on plant-based oil. It was only later that they were used with petroleum products. There is a number of very promising avenues here. Lipid-rich algae have really great potential.

A pilot project in Alabama run, I think, by Auburn University is getting better than six times the output as they are input using technology that isn't optimized for the task. The current species under consideration are about fifty percent oil by mass. Most of the rest of the mass is glycerol. You can't burn glycerol cleanly, but it has a wide variety of other industrial uses from soap to feed additives to a fertilizer constituent. Mid-line estimates are that we could replace all petroleum currently used for transportation with algae farms in the South. And it would be a boost to sections of the country which are economically in the toilet. That's with current technology, I hasten to add once again.

Boeing is setting up facilities for making it on a large scale to offset the unchristly cost of jet fuel. They're putting serious money into the effort, money that they are not putting into the overpriced subsidized corn squeezings.

Then there's rational ethanol.

By rational I mean "You get more energy out than you put in". The thing is, it's not sugar-based. It's cellulose-based. There's been a number of news stories and papers in the last year about cellulose-metabolizing bacteria and fungus research. Again, you get several times out what you put in. And the raw material isn't something expensive like gods-help-us maize. It's stuff that can be grown much more quickly and sustainably. Much of it is currently treated as waste like grass from grass seed farms, corn silage, brush, pulp mill residue, cotton waste and so on.

The pilot project I last read about was well past break even. And again, that's on a small (18 million gallons/year) scale with current first-cut technology.

In places like Brazil sugar cane residue makes a lot of sense for both sorts of alcohol production. We aren't Brazil, but the fact remains.

Another interesting area is the industrial animal farm. We currently treat the huge, ghastly, poisonous, nauseating tanks of semi-liquid chicken and pig crap as toxic waste. Which it definitely is. But it's also a rich source of methane. The nitrogen can be easily extracted for fertilizer. This is becoming seriously profitable as petroleum-based fertilizers get more expensive. Much of the rest can be turned into other sorts of fuel with a positive energy balance when you take into account that it would otherwise be a total loss.

There's a lot of energy out there. Since fossil fuel will never be cheap again we need to develop these sources. But we've done the stupidest thing possible by pouring expensive grain into gas tanks at a loss just to line the pockets of one of the most powerful special interests.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Wow. Another post of Tellners that I agree with. LOL.

But hes right, theres a lot of options out there, why is it that ethanol is front of the line? Probably lobbies for grain growers.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The US produces so much subsidized corn and wheat each year that huge amounts of it are burned as there is no one to buy or eat it. Why wouldn't you turn that waste into fuel? No one is pointing a gun at the African farmer's head and forcing him to produce biofuel crops. The world price of food, while rising, is still below the natural market rate due to extensive subsidies by the world's various governments.

I thought the program also had some farms not producing as well to keep the price stable.

Perhaps agricultural programs in needy areas to help them produce their own food makes more sense than food bequests grown in Iowa or Mexico. It would certainly be cheaper and would produce self-sufficiency.

Yes this could be a btter program. IN some areas population control was there based upon water and food supply. With Man's influence we now are able to import food and water into areas where before it did not have a level to support the existing population.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Since the most common biofuels are worse for the environment than petroleum based fuels, perhaps actually tapping into the VAST amount of oil under our own lands might be a good idea. If nothing else, using American crude wouldn't enrich foreign nations.

I am confused by this statement.

How is worse for the environment?

If a vehicle is E85 complient, and is ULEV for example, it still has to meet those emissions requirements for that level.

As to tapping into the Canadian and US reserves, this is part of the national energy plans. Long term thinking. I was surprised by this, but their thought was that if the oil runs out in other places, then we will still have some, while other forms are being developed.

 

[Rich Parsons]

We have definitely created something of a problem in another one of our hasty races toward a solution to a problem. In this case biofuels. As Bydand has pointed out at the moment it is a fine line between food production and biofuel crop production. I think it will all be worked out when we start throwing out the dud ideas.

As to the rising costs that the WFP is encountering. While the base cost of food is clearly having an effect, I would guess that administration is actually the biggest contributor to the WFP cost increases.

Is it ethical to grow biofuel crops instead of food crops? In the short term I would say no. But in the long term, the need to reduce our contribution to greenhouse gas generation is very important. Without some sort of slowing of the greenhouse effect we will be losing arable land and that will reduce crops of any type.

While I agree that it will get better and it is not the final solution, it should get better over time with further development. Look at the 8 to 12 mpg form the 1970's and the 30 mpg today, based upon new technology and new designs and workign through the development over time. It came out of Emission control not Fuel economy control.

As to Green House, look up what a new car produces and then research what a coal burnign power plant produces, and then the rain forest burning, which as a double effect of destroying a natural processor of CO2 whihc is the main green house gas people are monitoring now.

And for the vehicles to reduce the CO2, they need to reduce the C or carbon going in. So no matter if it be corn or suger cane or petro, the "C" going in comes out. If the reaction is perfect the hydrocarbon goes on and comes out as H2O and CO2. Today's levels are so much lower, because we have tried to improve. It has driven some cost into the product. The negative here is that people/customer blame the car companies, while it is driven to meet requirements for emissions and or fuel economy now. Note: safety also has had a major impact to cost as well. A car company will drop a line of engines and replace it with a new one or drop a vehicle line if it cannot get a four or five star under the new regulations or optional testing producedures. In Europe it effects the insurance ratings for PED-PRO which is Pedestrian Protection which also effects vehicles that are sold elsewhere.

Yet with all this stuff added in, I think it is a good idea to move forward with the understanding that it is not the golden pot or the silver bullet or even the brass ring, it is a stop gap to get better.

Of course this is all my opinion.

 

[tellner]

Like I said, BH, if we could get together over a few beers and get past the Coke vs. Pepsi branding that's been force fed to us by the Two Headed Republicrat Monster we would probably be in agreement about most of the important things. We are both fundamentally part of what the Administration disdainfully calls "the reality-based community". Most people of good will basically want the same thing. The way to grab and keep power is to hide that fact and keep the sheep scared enough to lead themselves to the slaughterhouse.

Power fears the truth like roaches fear the light. And that's not a liberal or conservative thing. It's just plain human nature. The most important war is the forebrain against the hindbrain. Facts and reason will serve us far better than mindless slogans and craven terror. Those just make us biddable slaves to whomever is shouting the slogans.

The best rule of thumb I've seen is this:

If someone tells you that there are two sorts of people in the world - people like you and everyone else - and that all the good qualities belong to the group of people like you, that man is not your friend. He is manipulating you.

If he goes further and says that the group of everybody else is an implacable barely human enemy motivated only by evil, then he is your enemy. He is trying to keep you so scared that you will do whatever he wants. That will be something that is against your own interests.

Or as President Franklin Roosevelt said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

 

[mrhnau]

There are alternatives. Some kinda of algae produce an incredibly high yield of biofuel. Why not have giant kelp farms, or facilities adjacent to waste water treatment plants? Poop = algae energy.

Yield of biofuel-crops
Check the bottom. Why such a huge interest in corn? It's one of hte most inefficient crops. Also some good reading in the rest of the page.

in edit: I think its poop = bacteria energy, sorry

 

[Rich Parsons]

You have to make some serious distinctions when you talk about "biofuels".

I agree.

The first sort is the corn-based ethanol that we are currently spending a shitload of money on. It's a scam. It's a travesty. It's basically an enormous welfare program for Archer Daniels Midland. Even the White House science and energy offices say it's a crock. It takes the most petroleum-intensive food and pours it into a gas tank. The most optimistic energy budgets I've seen say that energy output exceeds energy input by at most one in sixteen. It does nothing good. And it poisons the well for other things that do make sense.

I understand the issue with some who use the system to have smaller farms as companies under other comapanies to maximize moneis from the federal government.

Can you link in or quote a source of the 1 in 16? The data I have for Ethanol versus Gasoline is 30% less efficient by volume.

Do you mean that it takes more energy to produce the product E85?

Biodiesel is another matter. A lot of it is a matter of taking waste and turning it into something useful. The French fry grease would be thrown out otherwise. In fact, Dr. Diesel's original engines were designed to run on plant-based oil. It was only later that they were used with petroleum products. There is a number of very promising avenues here. Lipid-rich algae have really great potential.

Yes one can convert a vehicle to this. Although from what I have read in newspapers so nothing to link, that those that did convert now are not getting it for free, and the market has driven ti up to the price of Gas or more so.

Also, I have not seen one that runs in all temperatures and altitudes as a production designed tested and validated vehicle. Do you have articles to recommend that shows where they can make it a vehicle for someone to travel on in all conditions?

A pilot project in Alabama run, I think, by Auburn University is getting better than six times the output as they are input using technology that isn't optimized for the task. The current species under consideration are about fifty percent oil by mass. Most of the rest of the mass is glycerol. You can't burn glycerol cleanly, but it has a wide variety of other industrial uses from soap to feed additives to a fertilizer constituent. Mid-line estimates are that we could replace all petroleum currently used for transportation with algae farms in the South. And it would be a boost to sections of the country which are economically in the toilet. That's with current technology, I hasten to add once again.

How does one get the oil into the algae?
If glycerol does not burn cleanly then even in industrial uses does it not have a negative effect? Or is that your point?

Boeing is setting up facilities for making it on a large scale to offset the unchristly cost of jet fuel. They're putting serious money into the effort, money that they are not putting into the overpriced subsidized corn squeezings.

As Jets are not controlled by emisisons standards for vehicles, can you let me know the raio of improvement or decrease by switching to this algae? I think it should be investigated, so we can get better and or rule it out completely.

Then there's rational ethanol.

By rational I mean "You get more energy out than you put in". The thing is, it's not sugar-based. It's cellulose-based. There's been a number of news stories and papers in the last year about cellulose-metabolizing bacteria and fungus research. Again, you get several times out what you put in. And the raw material isn't something expensive like gods-help-us maize. It's stuff that can be grown much more quickly and sustainably. Much of it is currently treated as waste like grass from grass seed farms, corn silage, brush, pulp mill residue, cotton waste and so on.

What are the operating temperatures of this Rational Ethanol designed from algae? Does it work just like normal operation of ethanol? Are their other by products in it? i.e. Sulfur in the old gasoline and until recently diesel as well.

The pilot project I last read about was well past break even. And again, that's on a small (18 million gallons/year) scale with current first-cut technology.

Do you have an article I can read? A link or a trade mag I can order?

In places like Brazil sugar cane residue makes a lot of sense for both sorts of alcohol production. We aren't Brazil, but the fact remains.

I agree that each location should use what is best from their already produced environment and or use for others as well in a transition to something else.

Another interesting area is the industrial animal farm. We currently treat the huge, ghastly, poisonous, nauseating tanks of semi-liquid chicken and pig crap as toxic waste. Which it definitely is. But it's also a rich source of methane. The nitrogen can be easily extracted for fertilizer. This is becoming seriously profitable as petroleum-based fertilizers get more expensive. Much of the rest can be turned into other sorts of fuel with a positive energy balance when you take into account that it would otherwise be a total loss.

I agree that it should be researched. Methane I understand. Some vehicles have been produced using methane, it does ntohave the range that customers desire and does work for local fleets that travel a certain range around a central point for refueling.

You mention positive energy balance, can you explain the numbers? Is it theory or has someone done it? If they have done it on what level or processing? Every bit helps.

There's a lot of energy out there. Since fossil fuel will never be cheap again we need to develop these sources. But we've done the stupidest thing possible by pouring expensive grain into gas tanks at a loss just to line the pockets of one of the most powerful special interests.

While I understand the oxygenated gas issue, and that most do not believe it helps at all and even makes the emissions worse in some cases or studies. Sorry nothing other than personal discussions on that. I also understand special interests as this is how it got in to the system, and since Corn was being not used or given away to foriegn countries it seemed a logical source in the USA. Now, have other countries assumed that it is Ethanol based from Corn is the best? Most likely. As you mentioned and what I have read Brazil and Caribean using sugar cane by products is a good point that some are looking into being smart about what they try.

 

[Steel Tiger]

There is a number of very promising avenues here. Lipid-rich algae have really great potential.

This is very interesting. Can you give me any more information about it?

Then there's rational ethanol.

By rational I mean "You get more energy out than you put in". The thing is, it's not sugar-based. It's cellulose-based. There's been a number of news stories and papers in the last year about cellulose-metabolizing bacteria and fungus research. Again, you get several times out what you put in. And the raw material isn't something expensive like gods-help-us maize. It's stuff that can be grown much more quickly and sustainably. Much of it is currently treated as waste like grass from grass seed farms, corn silage, brush, pulp mill residue, cotton waste and so on.

Now I have always thought that this sought of chemical reaction would be more efficient than forms we are using now. And it is clearly something that can be produced in parallel with other things. This sort of parallel production is something that needs to be considered more seriously. I suppose the permaculture people have taken this view.

In places like Brazil sugar cane residue makes a lot of sense for both sorts of alcohol production. We aren't Brazil, but the fact remains.

Down here is Australia we have staggering vast fields of suger cane, so it is clearly something to consider. I hope our government will start to do just that.

Yet with all this stuff added in, I think it is a good idea to move forward with the understanding that it is not the golden pot or the silver bullet or even the brass ring, it is a stop gap to get better.

Of course this is all my opinion.

I'm pretty optimistic about this future because so many people are looking into it and trying to produce efficient systems.

One thing I recently had pointed out to me is the effect of temperature on biodiesel. In a big country like Australia or the United States might need three or four fuels because of the temperature. This problem is likely to be overcome in time, but it is an interesting conundrum at this point in time.

 

[Rich Parsons]

One thing I recently had pointed out to me is the effect of temperature on biodiesel. In a big country like Australia or the United States might need three or four fuels because of the temperature. This problem is likely to be overcome in time, but it is an interesting conundrum at this point in time.

Yes temperature and or additives can be an issue. Right now Gas is going up in the States. Part could be conditions of the market. The real issues is marker supply and demand but not of oil but of gasoline. There is winter and summer fuel designed for the temperature ranges of the seasons.

 

[tellner]

I have to begin by apologizing. I've had a bunch of links and pdfs of some papers on these subjects as of about six weeks ago. A hard drive failure took them all away. I hope to recover them eventually, but right now there just isn't the spare time. The facts and figures are to the best of my recollection.

I agree.

Can you link in or quote a source of the 1 in 16? The data I have for Ethanol versus Gasoline is 30% less efficient by volume.

See above. What I recall is that the total energy out was no better than 1 and 1/16 more than the total energy in when the inputs required to grow, harvest and process corn were taken into account. E85 is a temporary thing. And again, it's mostly a welfare program for ADM and the other huge agro-chem combines. If you look at Brazil, which has decided that the future is worth addressing, they are coming out with multi-fuel cars that can run on various mixes from pure petrol to pure ethanol. Slashdot or Wired (I forget which) recently referenced a venture to make an advanced Stirling cycle engine that will run on pretty much any combustible liquid and double as an electricity generator for remote areas. External combustion is under-explored.

Yes one can convert a vehicle to this. Although from what I have read in newspapers so nothing to link, that those that did convert now are not getting it for free, and the market has driven ti up to the price of Gas or more so.

It's not that difficult or expensive. We have a bottleneck right now. The infrastructure is only there for a small amount of biodiesel production. Demand currently greatly exceeds capacity. This is one of those wonderful things that market forces should deal with handily.

Also, I have not seen one that runs in all temperatures and altitudes as a production designed tested and validated vehicle. Do you have articles to recommend that shows where they can make it a vehicle for someone to travel on in all conditions?

You can get diesel engines to work in Minnesota and Denver in the Winter. It takes some tweaking and things like plug in heaters to make it work. But it can and is done. It isn't perfect, but the nice easy alternative is on its way out.

How does one get the oil into the algae?
If glycerol does not burn cleanly then even in industrial uses does it not have a negative effect? Or is that your point?

Getting it out is pretty simple. Mash. Press. Separate.
Glycerol is a lousy fuel with current burner technology. I'm sure it could be improved. But even without it the lipid-rich algae are worthwhile. It is useful in applications other than combustion.

As Jets are not controlled by emisisons standards for vehicles, can you let me know the raio of improvement or decrease by switching to this algae? I think it should be investigated, so we can get better and or rule it out completely.

I don't know. And I'm sure that some of the specifics are trade secrets. The point is that Boeing is willing to design aircraft and invest in infrastructure right now to make use of this particular resource. It's not just a bunch of hippies who have recycling deals with the local McDonald's.

What are the operating temperatures of this Rational Ethanol designed from algae? Does it work just like normal operation of ethanol? Are their other by products in it? i.e. Sulfur in the old gasoline and until recently diesel as well.

You don't get ethanol from the algae. You get oil for diesel engines. From a personal conversation with one of the scientists earlier this Summer, and with an eye towards his NDA, he said it had operating characteristics very close to other diesel fuel. He would not say any more. There are fewer byproducts than in many petroleum products. Sulfur and heavy metals are not a concern.

I agree that it should be researched. Methane I understand. Some vehicles have been produced using methane, it does ntohave the range that customers desire and does work for local fleets that travel a certain range around a central point for refueling.

Energy isn't just for cars, although living in the States it seems that way sometimes.

I think you'll find more special-purpose vehicles in the future. Instead of a car that can carry six people and lots of cargo for three or four hundred miles at eighty miles an hour you'll more short-range vehicles: a two-seater with a hundred mile range for commuting around town. Cargo delivery vehicles. Low-speed trucks for work on lots. That sort of thing. It's not as convenient as what we're used to. But the ever-rising cost of energy probably won't leave us any choice.

You mention positive energy balance, can you explain the numbers? Is it theory or has someone done it? If they have done it on what level or processing? Every bit helps.

Again, my references have largely fallen into the bit bucket. From what I remember fuels made from waste products whether alcohol or diesel as well as quickly renewable low-input ones like switchgrass and sugarcane (and hemp) ended up getting much more energy out per unit of total energy input than high-input crops like corn. If we hadn't gutted LISA (Low Impact Sustainable Agriculture) back in the 80s it would have been better. The LISA projects showed promising results at increasing the energy efficiency of the process.

While I understand the oxygenated gas issue, and that most do not believe it helps at all and even makes the emissions worse in some cases or studies.

I agree. As our favorite shadetree mechanic said about the MTBE-enhanced gasoline "It turns cars into frogs. They just sit in the driveway and croak." We've been stuck on the internal combustion engine for almost a century because gasoline was cheap. That has changed and will never change back. In order to get the required transportation without completely destroying air quality we will have to go back and look at other technologies.

I fear that the three American auto makers will not be able to make the transition. They've already missed the boat on nearly everything related to efficiency, innovation and agility. But that is another sad discussion

Now, have other countries assumed that it is Ethanol based from Corn is the best? Most likely. As you mentioned and what I have read Brazil and Caribean using sugar cane by products is a good point that some are looking into being smart about what they try.

China is trying everything under the sun to keep its industrial economy growing. The EU, from what I understand, has not decided that maize is the answer. They are also trying several crops.

 

[tellner]

This is very interesting. Can you give me any more information about it?

It's been mentioned on Slashdot and other such sites in the last few months. A kid won the Westinghouse Science Fair with some really high-quality work on the subject. I believe C&E news has covered it. Beyond that I just can't recall as much as I'd like to.

Now I have always thought that this sought of chemical reaction would be more efficient than forms we are using now. And it is clearly something that can be produced in parallel with other things. This sort of parallel production is something that needs to be considered more seriously. I suppose the permaculture people have taken this view.

It makes a lot of sense, particularly when something that was a cost turns into an asset. Unfortunately, such things are not rewarded either by this country's energy and agriculture policies or by the big players in the industries. It has always been at the margins of respectability and woefully underfunded. The fact that we're getting this much this quickly shows that there is a lot that could be done, maybe even quickly enough, if priorities changed even a little.

Down here is Australia we have staggering vast fields of suger cane, so it is clearly something to consider. I hope our government will start to do just that.

Consider that you can get both sugar-based and cellulose-based ethanol out of the same plant.

I'm pretty optimistic about this future because so many people are looking into it and trying to produce efficient systems.

I'm pessimistic because the large industrial players and the governments which they "influence" where influence is roughly "bought, paid for and command" put almost nothing into this. It's actively opposed by the automobile, oil and coal industries as well as the governments of the US, Russia, OPEC and to some extent the EU. That makes progress difficult, funding scant, respect vanishing and timelines desperately extended.

Back in the late 70s President Carter said that the United States was reaching peak oil (in fact, we had just passed it a few years earlier) and that we should prepare now for the future. He was widely harangued, damned and laughed at. Now we've passed the world peak oil point at a time of dramatically rising demand. If we are very lucky and have an attack of good sense we might squeak by. But I see exactly the same thing happening. It just doesn't suit the business model of the really big players. And they have both economic and governmental force on their side. Whatever we do will probably be just enough done at the last minute for too much money and without careful consideration. It could have been done at a leisurely pace with modest, steady funding over the last three decades.

One thing I recently had pointed out to me is the effect of temperature on biodiesel. In a big country like Australia or the United States might need three or four fuels because of the temperature. This problem is likely to be overcome in time, but it is an interesting conundrum at this point in time.

The easy answer is gasoline. The supply is shrinking, and price is rising. We are going to have to look at how best to engineer the alternatives. If diesel trucks can work in Russia, and they do, they can be made to work in the US and Australia.