Ethanol is not "green" at all.

As it stands, the sugar industry is slightly CO2 positive, in that slightly more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere than emitted into the atmosphere. However estimates are that with ethanol production, the CO2 emissions will significantly increase.

To make even a dint in oil consumption in Australia by growing sugar cane for ethanol will require much “new ground”, or ground that was previously forest and quite often wet land area to be turned into sugar cane fields, thereby destroying an enormous amount of natural habitat.

Converting forest into sugar cane fields requires much diesel fuel, and using this diesel fuel eats up remaining oil supplies and adds to CO2 emmissions.

Ethanol production also requires much water and produces a liquid waste product termed “dunder”, which can be used as a fertilizer.

But dunder has a very strong and disagreeable odour, which makes it a pollutant, and many people do not want dunder applied anywhere near their homes. So eventually it becomes very difficult to dispose of the dunder, which creates a waste disposal problem.

A factory producing dunder may have to transport the dunder long distances to dispose of it, and this transportation then adds to CO2 emmissions.

Liquid biofuel investment is driven mostly by high oil prices and anticipated declining petroleum production. Environmental concern poses only a minor obstacle.

I'd urge anyone interested in biofuels to keep an eye on the website

http://biopact.com

It takes a rosy-eyed view, but reports negative developments also.

Biofuels supply 10% of the world's primary energy, a growing share as agricultural wastes and underutilised land are exploited. It would be foolish to dismiss the long-term potential of biofuels, liquid and solid, to meet a very substantial part of energy needs and help make the energy economy sustainable in the long term.

That said, some practices are unsustainable. At best, subsidised liquid biofuels provide small quantities of carbon-neutral fuel. At worst, associated land-clearing destroys biodiversity and is a major source of greenhouse gases.

Starch, sugar and oil crops in temperate latitudes tend to require plenty of agricultural chemicals and energy. Their "energy balance" when used to make liquid fuels is poor, though not as bad as sometimes made out.

But some liquid biofuels are demonstrably carbon-negative, such as ethanol-from-sugar in Brazil. This has mostly taken over pasture lands, not rainforest. Indeed as biofuels boom in Brazil, rainforest clearing has slowed and reforestation efforts are taking hold.

Competition between biofuel and food for the same crop is iniquitous and destabilises both markets. However since the greatest scope for the expansion of biofuel production is in countries which remain primarily agricultural, opportunities for greatly increased cash-crop income and import substitution have progressive implications. Agrarian economies stand to make a fortune from the biofuel boom. To stand in the way of this transition by opposing international trade in biofuels is to try to hold back a tidal wave.

In the medium term, competition from biofuels may even help keep petroleum prices down even as production declines. Extortionate oil prices will merely encourage ever-greater biofuel production.

Nick, I'd love to know what the "cloud-seeding bacteria" are that supposedly thrive in south-east Asia. Rainforests promote rain by absorbing solar energy whilst keeping the air above them cool, and by transpiring heavily and actively increasing humidity.

"From every perspective other than the purely short-term commercial, conventional agro-fuels make little sense."

Actually not so. The author makes the same black/white mistake
as many do. Stop trying to find one single solution to the energy
crisis, for the answer will be many, each playing a niche role.

Fact is that energy for power is worth more then energy for people
and to try to prevent the two from competing, makes no sense at all.

Whats wrong with converting tallow into biodiesel? What is wrong
with growing canola/mustard as a fuel source? They may not power
all the world's vehicles, but they certainly play a role in future
energy consumption.

Subsidies for biofuels have been tiny in comparison to other
agricultural subsidies in the US and EU, encouraging farmers to
reduce grain plantings. Grain prices have been so low for so long,
that large areas of production are not even attempted, for lack
of profitability.

Personally I am well aware that the West is hooked on ME energy
and if the proverbial crunch should happen, given their political
instability, I can power all my farm vehicles by growing 25 acres
of canola and have it processed locally.

That might not matter to the author, but it certainly matters to me.

And what of the "green" credentials of biofuels? In the long run bio-fuels will be carbon neutral as there will be a closed cycle in which biomass is converted to fuel which is burnt. The CO2 taken up in forming the biomass will be released when the fuel is burnt. This requires that all fuel used in the production of bio-fuel is itself bio-fuel – a difficult, but not impossible task. Providing there is surplus bio-fuel after this (and some studies have said there wil not be) then bio-fuel production and use will be carbon positive by replacing some fossil fuel. What the issue is with CO2 generation from clearing to grow biomass could be seen as an investment – a cost now, but one expected to yield future benefits.

Some respondents mentioned electric cars. The environmental benefit of this technology is felt at street level, and that there is a global penalty in terms of CO2 emission when (as in Australia) the electricity used to charge the car comes from base load coal-fired power stations. The internal combustion engine is quite efficient in extracting the chemical energy of petrol or diesel and converting it into shaft power. Gearboxes and drivetrains are very efficient. By comparison the shaft power of an electric motor is likely to have required much more chemical energy (coal or gas) because of the many steps from coal to car. The coal is burnt to raise steam, the steam turns a turbine which turns a generator which produces electricity, the electricity is transformed to a higher voltage for transmission, then (usually in two or more steps) it is transformed to low voltage delivered to your home, it is then rectified to direct current to charge the car battery, the battery then supplies energy to the electric motor. Every one of these steps has some level of inefficiency. Substantially more CO2 is released to move an electric car than an internal combustion engine car of similar weight and shape at the same speed. An electric car supported by a nuclear power station would reduce global CO2 emmissions.

Reynard, if creation of biofuels doesn't produce a significant surplus, ie more fuel produced than is consumed in making & transporting it, then no-one will bother investing in it at all. Why spend time & money on something that's a net loss?

To get to the nuclear energy/electric car paradigm, nuclear power stations will need to be built across the country to replace all the coal-fired ones, plus the existing internal combustion-driven car fleet will need to be replaced with hybrid and/or plugin vehicles. Both will require decades to achieve.

The problem is that we simply don't have decades - either global warming or peak oil will require substantial changes much sooner. We also have a looming credit crunch & potentially a recession, which would dry up finances right when they'd be most needed to get new schemes underway.

Peak Oil in particular won't give us much choice. Prices at the pump will continue to skyrocket until people can't afford to drive to work, and it won't take much of a disruption in our fuel imports to cause real supply headaches across the country. While alternate energy sources are all well & good, nothing comes even close to making up for what we consume in fossil fuels, especially oil. Our energy sources are becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, yet we still merrily burn them up like there's no tomorrow.

We'd be much better off investing in widespread public transport, eliminating tax breaks that encourage excessive motoring & find various ways to entice people out of their cars. The less we drive, the less emissions are created & the less the demand for fuel no matter how its produced. Instead there's this scramble for agrofuel, no matter what the cost to food production or the environment - its all ok so long as we don't have to change our lifestyle.

An electric car supported by a nuclear power station would reduce global CO2 emmissions.
Posted by Reynard, Thursday, 22 November 2007 2:31:06 PM

Now you are talking, particularly if the nuclear power station was one using Thorium as the major fuel source.

David