I didn't see any posts on the outrage we should have for the gvmt subsidies farmers get for destroying crop overages or not growing altogether. We can grow enough to feed the world several times over, yet they feel the need to artificially prop up the market by limiting the crop growth.

Don't even get me started on how much we sent to Russia, china and other 3rd world countries - and they still hate us.

jcoleman
"Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving..."

which is quite a bit different then the headline implies. Too bad we don't hold ourselves accountable to the same level of objectivity that we hold news reporting to.

No, no, no.

The "full quote" doesn't make this any less asinine.

The problem has never been having "enough food to go around," it has been on distribution of existing supplies to the starving people in question.

The very idea that using "food crops" to produce fuels somehow contributes (or has any effect whatsoever) on how many people are starving in the world or how quickly they starve is farking ridiculous and they know it (and you damn well ought to as well).

Major Thomb
Hook...line...sinker. Another gullible person buys the politicial rhetoric.

Don't be so hard on yourself man. You'll come around.

Would anyone call me a cynic if I wondered whether or not their new version of biofuel is going to require hefty licensing and patenting?

Bubonis
Actually I agree with the guy. Using food to make fuel when there are starving people in the world is morally questionable.

Well everyone's entitled to their asinine and ill-informed opinions as they say.

"Finish driving your SUV dear, there are starving children in China."

Major Thomb: Hook...line...sinker. Another gullible person buys the politicial rhetoric.

OK, you've had your smug little sound bites. Now prove theodicey wrong.

netcentric: Seems like biofuel proponents take a very short view. The uninspiring lurch towards the quick fix.

But oil will eventually become prohibitively expensive while biofuel can be grown in pretty much any piece of land. Some potential biofuel plants require less care and can survive in tougher conditions than most plants we eat. So yeah, maybe big farms will become the new anti-christ to some people but at least we'd have plenty of biofuel because the energy source for biofuel, photosynthesis, doesnt run out for roughly 5 billion years.

A) Oil companies want to sell not using the overly abundant food crops because it costs less, which means lower profit margins.

B) Feed starving children... drive the SUV... Feed starving children... drive the SUV...Feed starving children... drive the SUV... Wait a sec... FEED STARVING CHILDREN TO THE SUV!

OMW! Is this gonna be the new right wing talking point??!!!!

"biodiesel takes food away from starving children"

I can see it now.

I happen to agree with them.

In general, biofuels from (name your crop) aren't very efficient in terms of energy recovered from the biofuel as compared to the energy that went into farming the crop in the first place. In fact, the efficiency is pretty darned poor.

The initiative and incentives beinging pushed stateside to produce ethanol from (mainly) corn is more a porkbarrel kind of thing than a wise investment in renewables.

Non-food bio sources and post consumer bio waste make much more sense for sourcing the production of biofuels.

OK. Lets look at the TRUTH and discern his real motivation.

Truth: There isn't a FOOD shortage, just a delivery problem. Corrupt governments, black marketing, war and stupidity are the reason people are starving. There is mcuh more food available on this planet than people need. Look in a restaurant dumpster after one day, heck, one meals worth of table leavings. There is enough caloric material in one dumpster to feed a village. That throw away is just a small example of what is wasted (PS... It can also be converted to bio-feul and in some cases is) Now look at what governments let rot on docks, in warehouses and sell black market groups. Add to that what the US DESTROYS for subsidy fees. Take all those food sources and delivery problems away and the world hunger problem is solved. And that isn't even counting what is being converted for biofeul or what can be converted to increase supply. The sad part is that many human aid groups will buy this guys BS because it makes good, controversial press.

Truth: Big Oil isn't interested in world hunger, just world oil dependence. If they were interested in world hunger they would start opening free cafeterias in and around the oil fileds and refineries in some of these third world countries they are sucking the black gold out of istead of pocketing the 100+ Billion in net profits.

right...

And I guess you'll also blame the oil companies when beef and pork cost $10/lb. at the grocery store, because the cost of feed for those animals will skyrocket because the feed crops are also being used for machine/auto fuel. Not saying that would actually happen, but it's an illustration of how ridiculous the "blame the oil companies for friggin everything" attitude is.

Also, Starbucks makes an insanely higher profit margin on coffee than oil companies make on gasoline. But I guess Starbucks can't be evil, since we don't have cars that run on coffee.

Here's my attempt at tackling both sides of the issue:

Producing biodiesel does not require fresh crops. Fast food restaurants produce millions of gallons of waste oil a day, which can be converted to biodiesel.

Unfortunately, I have read that it does take more energy to produce biodiesel than the fuel provides. Same as the problem with electric cars; the car might not produce pollution, but in order to charge the batteries we have to burn coal.

So, maybe biodiesel isn't the answer, but "feeding the hungry" isn't the reason.

2006-07-11 09:34:09 AM darklordseth

But oil will eventually become prohibitively expensive while biofuel can be grown in pretty much any piece of land. Some potential biofuel plants require less care and can survive in tougher conditions than most plants we eat. So yeah, maybe big farms will become the new anti-christ to some people but at least we'd have plenty of biofuel because the energy source for biofuel, photosynthesis, doesnt run out for roughly 5 billion years.

Interesting, but not complete, view of the issue. Biomass takes more than just photosynthesis. It takes nutrients as well (carbon and nitrogen, just to mention a few). At this point, most of the nutrients come in the form of fertilizer - which is petroleum-based. So, you need to come up with another source for that as well.

Secondary to that are the certain estimates show that biomass couldn't be produced in significant enough quantity to satisfy current demand for petroleum.

Given that, the point of this being a quick fix might not be that far of the mark, no?

revskippy

Oil companies want to sell not using the overly abundant food crops because it costs less

That's just it. Food crops don't cost less to produce biofuels than pumping crude outta the ground and refining it.

Yellowbeard: "Algae, Baby!"

Yes, this will solve all of our problems...just as soon as someone invents the right "photobioreactor." This important point is sort of soft-pedalled in your linked article. Simply put, the whole "algae" thing is nothing but wool-gathering until such time as someone invents the "economically-feasible photobioreactor." Not to mentoin that the entire process has never been attempted on an industrial scale, and so it is pure speculation. And that this algae will have to be retorted to make alcohol, which is another huge energy input. Something tells me that using 800 square miles of desert to grow algae might not adequately replace current transport fuels. Just a hunch. It sounds suspiciously too easy.

fireclown

TheWizard: Similar to how we produce ethanol from corn, rather than sugar beets. If I heard correctly, it is less inefficient to use beets.

Actual content! You got any data to back that up? Actually interested, not bashing you. ;) .

I couldn't find any links to studies, but here's one article of many that mention how sugar is more efficient to convert to fuel than corn is. The reason we're using corn instead of sugar? Lobbyists from corn producers such as Archer Daniels Midland convinced Congress to subsidize U.S. produced corn and enact tariffs on sugar imports.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Where's doc brown when you need him?

arseholes - why don't they say what the really mean - its "economically inappropriate" -

But using arable land to grow fuel crops that are not edible, that would be ok?

Corn, sugar beets, hemp, ... what are the crops that are best suited for bio-deisel that _can't_ also be eaten?

jonny_q: Also, Starbucks makes an insanely higher profit margin on coffee than oil companies make on gasoline. But I guess Starbucks can't be evil, since we don't have cars that run on coffee.

Uh, people hate Starbucks ever bit as much as they do oil companies. Have you been living under a rock?

"Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving..." He says, from atop his mountain of cash, inside his solid gold jet, before boarding his rocket car.

What kind of moran would read that statement and feel like they're "morally" doing the right thing? Unless Shell is talking about using the food products that your pennies-a-day donations to "Save the Children" now provides...that would just be mean and if they're going to use wood chips instead of that, then and only then do I tip my cap to them.

jcoleman

A fine example of how selective quoting and not using the entire sentence makes a vast difference in the spin on the message poster.

I question the actually convection of the company, but the statement they actually made isn't nearly as harsh as you made it out to be.

For those too lazy to read the article, the ENTIRE relevent part of the sentence is:
"Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving..."

which is quite a bit different then the headline implies. Too bad we don't hold ourselves accountable to the same level of objectivity that we hold news reporting to.

What exactly is your problem? Them being a "top marketer of biofuels" was not part of the statemnt they made and has only little relevance to the quote.

You are upset because the qualifier "as long as there are people in the world who are starving" was left out?

Why would you be upset about that? It doesn't really change anything. It is like saying "as long as the sun rises in the east" or "as long as deserts are dry." There will always be some people starving if you want to wait until there is no more poverty on earth you will wait forever so cutting that qualifier out of the quote for length did not distort it very much.

ORLY, then where were these crops going to in the first place?

How about you spend some of your billions in profit to feed those starving people.

Bring backs nukes.

Doooom

I have read that it does take more energy to produce biodiesel than the fuel provides.

That is true or at least the efficiency is so poor that it might as well be true. That is one reason that using food-crops (or just about any crop) strictly for biofuel purposes isn't as wise as some would like us to believe. Post consumer waste (the fast food waste oil you mention, among others) ARE a good choice.

The actual conversion of vegetable oil to biodiesel is actually not terrible inefficient, but dedicating a crop soley to biofuel from seed to your gas tank is inefficient.

If we decrease the amount of gasoline we use by 85%, isn't that the same as switching every car to E85, except without the problem of using food for fuel?

Efficiency should be the first goal, since it's also the easiest. My $40 progammable thermostat saved me about $300 between November and now.

See, this statement from Shell is the typical thinking of the Right-Wing, conservative mind, and why this planet is going down the shiatter.

RatOmeter

What about biodiesel from algae grown on non-arable land?

And I consider Shell Oil stupid.

So let's see here. If this statement was attributed to AL GORE instead of an oil guy you asshats would all be shouting, "Right on Al!" What a great idea! FOOD products should be used as FOOD to FEED the people who do not have FOOD. And instead of throwing away WASTE products we can produce a USEFUL, ECO-FRIENDLY biofuel. Brilliant!!! But an oil man (merely pretending to be HUMAN) said it so it must hide...EVIL INTENTIONS!!!! There must be an ulterior motive...yes...YES, I see it! He wants to help FEED the STARVING people so they can become more healthy, which is horrible you see because these people will then be able to develop an economy and BETTER their way of life and might actually start driving CARS which we know is the root of all evil because they will then HAVE to buy biofuel or maybe even *gasp* petroleum from the same EVIL oil man that helped put FOOD in their STARVING bellies! He is suggesting this because he thinks it will OPEN UP a NEW MARKET! He doesn't care about PEOPLE, he only wants to make... A PROFIT!

Get off it you farking asshats. In the real world that is called a WIN/WIN and, believe it or not, that is the ONLY way the human condition improves.

Loki-L
You are upset because the qualifier "as long as there are people in the world who are starving" was left out?

Why would you be upset about that? It doesn't really change anything.

It completely changes the meaning of this story. jcoleman was just pointing out that most people didn't seem to have read the article, and were just assuming Shell was saying we should be using oil instead biofuel, whereas the actual content of the article gives the impression Shell thinks biofuel can work, but just with something other than food crops.

Making fuel useing crops like corn is not only morally wrong, but it requires more energy to make the fuel than the fuel is actually worth. This is a huge misunderstanding in the push for sustanable fuel. If ethanol fuel made from corn was made from waste products instead of corn wrong specifically for fuel, the process would be worth the outcome. Thats why farmers are pushing for this type of fuel. They get paid a whole lot for nothing, especially with all the subsidies the US grants.

/pushing for biodiesal

The solution is to use all bio crops and bio-refuse to make fuel supplements, not to be selective just because the oil companies refuse to help starving people grow their own food.

Make electricity with wave power from the oceans, then make hydrogen with the damn sea water that is directly beside the generator.
Pursuing more modern nuke power is cool too, i guess, but I would try and keep that on the short term. I do have to kind of agree with this guy about the food for fuel thing though, there are better sources. Seems to make sense to use a waste product if it does the job. Not to mention solar, hydro, conservation, etc.

Actually hemp would probably help in that mix too I think... well... it would help me out, at the very least.

heh heh

My hooker told me that it would be morally inappropriate for me to visit another hooker because that other hooker was charging less. She said I should continue to spend my doe with her because blab la bla, morality high horse, blab la bla. As my hooker isn�t a good source of moral advice, and I know she is only protecting her bottom line, obviously I chose to visit the other hooker, instead. You know what, the other hooker even gives me better head.

The moral of the story:
Oil companies and prostitutes will do anything they can to keep screwing you, but like most things in life, there are always alternatives.

Major Thomb: Hook...line...sinker. Another gullible person buys the politicial rhetoric.

And you can of course provide proof of this...

2006-07-11 09:19:26 AM fireclown


TheWizard: Similar to how we produce ethanol from corn, rather than sugar beets. If I heard correctly, it is less inefficient to use beets.

Actual content! You got any data to back that up? Actually interested, not bashing you. ;) .

Seb linked it earlier. I don't have anything on hand at the moment. It was just something I heard that I am not sure if it was true or not.

However, ethanol is easier to produce from simple starches and sugars. I would imagine that is why sugar beets are preferred in the process of ethanol creation. It's probably just a question of whether it is easier to make moonshine from corn or beets. Answer that, and you will know which crop to grow*.



*This is of course, related to the study that said biofuels were inefficient in their current state. The energy required to grow and process them into ethanol was greater than the energy produced. Who knows if this study included sugar beets, or was limited to corn?

The second generation of biofules? WTH? I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE FIRST GENERATION!

And P.S.....these fuels can easily be produced from the WASTE from sugarcane and similar plantations here in the S.E., not from the actual foodcrops.

*grown, incase anyone actually reads my post.

Thing is, there is a huge surplus of food worldwide. In the US, we have so much food that the government pays farmers not to grow more. So why is there starvation in Africa? Because anything given to Africa never gets to the people and anything given to the people directly gets taken from them.
World hunger isn't caused by a lack of food by any stretch of the imagination. The oil companies just can't see a way into the food industry.

Switchgrass is food?

2006-07-11 09:53:10 AM Flaming Asshat


The second generation of biofules? WTH? I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE FIRST GENERATION!


I have, it is now 10% of the fuel I consume. I have no idea if it is safe for my vehicle, but its added anyway. I have seen my fuel economy drop (very slightly over several hundred miles) but it is a drop, that seems very counterproductive.

hahaha, those asshats. It's not like this takes away from the world food supply -- the world is oversupplied with food anyway. We just don't give it to all the poor people who can't pay for it.

If we actually did that (produced even more and gave food to all the hungry) then Shell might have an argument. But until we actually TRY to distribute the world's surplus of food, no points for them.

We have the ability to increase food production, a lot, but that would bring prices down. With these kinds of fuels, production rises slightly, prices hold about even, and there is no effect on the world hunger situation. Whether these fuels are a good idea or not is another matter, but it's totally unrelated to the world food supply and world hunger.

I wonder how we would distribute those food products if we didn't have the fuel to transport them?


/food for thought ;)

The Icelander

What about biodiesel from algae grown on non-arable land?

That actually has some interesting possibilities. In a desert setting one might be able to use solar energy (wind/ photovoltaics) to feed at least some of the process, cutting down further on the non-renewables expended. It would be, however, a massive undertaking which would need be funded by someone with very deep pockets... like a government, or Shell.

ronaprhys: Given that, the point of this being a quick fix might not be that far of the mark, no?

I dont believe that biofuel will solve everything, no. But our current resources arent going to last us indefinitely so we need to start working on alternatives before it's too late. Agreed, oil-based fertilizers are an issue but there's plenty of non-oil-based fertilizer around as well. The most common fertilizer around here is manure; cheap for the farmers to get from their own cattle and no distribution nescesarry beyond spreading it over their own fields. Reeks like hell though.

Also, don't forget that that high-density hydroponic farming can be used to increase yields. Like I said, some potential biofuel plants such as hemp are quite capable of surviving in tougher enviroments with less nutrients in the soil. Will the yield be sufficient to completely replace the need for oil for fuels? Doubtful, but it will most likely be a significant percentage, though.

Like I said, biofuels arent the solution. They're a decent idea that is at best a part of the solution. It's still far preferable over continuing the use of fossil fuels up to the point where no-one can afford them anymore before asking "Now what?".

Morally wrong because people are starving? If gas prices go any higher I am going to be one of those people that are starving!!!!