Biofuel hoax is the cause of recent food inflation and new biofuel bill will skyrocket food prices higher!
calde...@yahoo.com
The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
by Christopher Calder
On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law an
historic energy bill that mandates massive increases in the production
of ethanol, which is to be used as "biofuel" to run automobiles and
trucks. Ethanol is currently made from corn and other foodstuffs, and
all of the various forms of biofuel, including "biodiesel," are made
from food or from inedible crops which displace normal agricultural
activity. Even at current limited levels of biofuel production, this
"renewable energy source" has already caused huge increases in the
price of food around the world, which can be experienced firsthand at
any supermarket in America. Unfortunately, consumers/voters are
undereducated as to exactly why food prices have risen so
dramatically.
The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the
world because of the high cost of food due to biofuel production.
Local food banks in the United States are running low on supplies, and
many families who use to contribute to food banks are now in need of
help themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on
artificially high corn prices created by political biofuel mandates,
they plant less wheat and fewer vegetables and other crops, and thus
food prices rise across the board. We use corn to feed chickens and
cattle, so the price of poultry, beef, and dairy products have risen
substantially and will continue to rise with no end in sight.
The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest political
hoaxes in American history. The ideology of biofuel production sounds
wholesome superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of
producing energy. The problem is that the entire biofuel scheme is
based on lies and political selfishness, without any legitimate
science based ecological justification.
1) Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need
just to survive. Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled,
and those living on Social Security and other fixed incomes are the
hardest hit.
2) Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because it
demands large subsidies to exist. Without massive Federal subsidies
and political mandates, there would be no significant free market
demand for biofuels at all. Biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone
wrong.
3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are
desperately needed as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that
causes global warming. Do we really want to cut down forests all over
the world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to
grow corn, soybeans, palm oil, sugarcane, and other crops to burn as
fuel in our SUVs? Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the
entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases
huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while destroying
native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we
breathe.
Biofuel production will aggravate water shortages world wide
because water is diverted to grow biofuel crops and thus taken away
from our ever shrinking supplies of safe drinking water. Biofuel use
also demands a dramatic increase in the production of fertilizers made
from natural gas, coal and mined minerals in a messy industrial
process which unleashes even more greenhouse gases. Biofuels are a
losing proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing them.
4) Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud
because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form
of the biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
just to produce biofuels. The economic numbers for biofuel production
do not add up any way you look at them, and at the recent United
Nations conference on strategic environmental issues held in Bali,
Indonesia, several studies were presented detailing the dangers of
making automobile fuels from crops. Respected scientists warned that
biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim. Just a few days
after the Bali conference ended, America's political leaders enacted a
new law mandating massive increases in biofuel production, the science
and the facts be damned.
5) The biofuel hoax in the United States is fueled to a large degree
by domestic American politics and corporate greed. Both the
Republican and Democratic political parties want to get the "farm
vote" in politically strategic farming states like Iowa, Ohio, and
Nebraska. Our politicians have put political gain ahead of the
world's starving poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and the welfare
of the American middle class. Rich politicians can afford to pay the
dramatically higher food bills that biofuel production creates, and
they have decided to throw science to the wind and charge blindly into
what will inevitably be branded as one of the most destructive
political fiascoes of the 21st century.
6) Making cellulosic ethanol from lignocellulose, a structural
material that comprises much of the mass of plants, is better than
making ethanol from corn, but it still has most of the drawbacks
listed for ethanol made from food crops. Growing lignocellulose
yielding grasses on land we currently use to graze cattle will
increase the price of beef and milk. We will still have to use
fertilizers made from natural gas and coal to make inedible crops
grow, and the entire process will erode topsoil and increase the price
of food. If we grow switchgrass for biofuel on "marginal" prairie
land, we will soon turn that marginal land into a desert and a dust
bowl, which it may turn into anyway due to global warming, which
biofuel use will not stop.
Computer models for the progression of global warming show the
America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of
our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel
use will do nothing to stop this progression, so why are we pinning so
much hope on an energy and environmental battle plan that any fool can
see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce
enough biofuels to run our cars, or enough food to fill our bellies!
The biofuel scheme is another example of a basic lack of intelligence
of our politicians, many of whom also voted for the disastrous Iraq
war despite the warnings of more thoughtful advisers. If you cannot
plan ahead and anticipate future trends, then you will lead this
nation into one disaster after another, which is exactly what is
occurring in Washington DC at this very moment. Our Congress has
become a chorus of stupidity, and our politicians are leading us to
national suicide, not to the nirvana of energy independence.
Even the very process of making cellulosic ethanol from
switchgrass and other plants has not been proven to be economically
viable, and the Bush energy bill assumes new scientific breakthroughs
that have not yet occurred. Many of the plants being proposed as
lignocellulose yielding crops are weeds which will have a destructive
impact on wildlife and biodiversity around the world. In practical
terms, there is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient
quantity of biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands.
The prospect of growing algae to make biodiesel has more positive
potential than making ethanol from switchgrass, but open algae sewage
ponds are difficult to manage due to contamination from invasive algae
and bacteria, and the inherent problem of finding an algae that will
survive wide swings in temperature and pH. If a system can be
developed that produces biodiesel from algae that requires only a
small amount of land and that produces much more energy than it takes
to manufacture, then algae based biodiesel might be a positive
venture. To date there has been no proof that such a system is viable
or truly carbon neutral. If you have to run algae farms off the waste
of coal fired power plants, as has been proposed, then you have a band-
aid solution that will not stop global warming in its tracks, which is
what we need to do if we want our children and grandchildren to
survive on this planet.
Dramatic increases in food prices created by biofuel production
will cause political instability around the globe, because food
products are sold in a world wide marketplace just like oil. There
have already been mass public protests in Mexico over the high price
of corn, which makes tortillas and other basic Mexican foods. Imagine
the political instability in Mexico, Central and South America,
Africa, India, and Pakistan that skyrocketing food prices and mass
starvation will cause. Will a starving Pakistan, armed with nuclear
weapons, make the world a safer place? If American politicians lead
us down a path to global use of biofuels, we will be leading the world
into a historic disaster that can easily kill more people due to
starvation than have been killed in the Iraq war by bullets and
bombs.
If we truly wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not just
waste time on destructive political scams, then we will have to create
an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved battery
technology, and hydrogen fuel, not on ethanol and biofuels. Hydrogen
releases water vapor when burned and is the cleanest burning fuel
known to man. Hydrogen can be used in both internal combustion
engines and in fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel can be made through the
electrolysis of water via electricity generated from zero emissions
nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 19.4% of our
nation's electricity. We need to build large numbers of nuclear power
plants now using mass production techniques if we want to end global
warming rather than just continue talking about the subject endlessly
with no positive effect.
Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gases at all. You do not need much land to
build a nuclear power plant, and you do not need to make fertilizer to
make nuclear energy grow. Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to
attack by insects, viruses, bacteria, or fungi as are biofuel crops.
We need to get off the organic carbon cycle for energy production and
use inorganic nuclear power to produce the highly concentrated energy
supply that solar and wind power can never hope to provide. Even by
the most optimistic estimates, solar and wind power can only hope to
satisfy perhaps 20% of our future energy needs. Solar and wind power
tap into natural energy sources that are far too diffuse to be
collected on a large enough scale to power an advanced, industrialized
nation. Solar and wind power currently produce only about 2.4% of our
nation's electricity, so even an increase to 20% would be a major
undertaking.
One of the added benefits of nuclear power is that we already own
huge amounts of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear weapons materials,
which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian power production.
The United States Government has hundreds of years worth of nuclear
fuel in storage thanks to the cold war nuclear arms race of the 1950s
and 1960s. We can turn our swords into plowshares while paying only
the modest costs of converting high level weapons grade nuclear
materials into low level nuclear fuel rods suitable for civilian power
production. Unlike oil, we do not have to import nuclear fuel from
foreign countries or fight endless foreign wars to protect our
supplies.
Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored. The nuclear "waste"
is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and that is part of the reason why
France's nuclear power program has been so successful. France relies
heavily on nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and
thus France has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in
Europe.
The fears many Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants
are largely unfounded. Our latest nuclear reactor designs are
carefully engineered with many layers of redundant safety and security
features built-in. One single disaster that occurred in 1986 at an
obsolete Ukrainian reactor is no reason to be eternally afraid of all
civilian nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl
reactor used a dangerous design that has never been used in the West,
and which did not even have a containment vessel. The infamous
Chernobyl accident was caused by Soviet engineers conducting wildly
irresponsible experiments that were totally unrelated to normal
civilian power production, and which would never be allowed in the
USA. The Chernobyl nuclear accident killed a total of 56 people, a
great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster. Far fewer people
died at Chernobyl than on Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985, when a
lone 747 jetliner crashed and killed all 520 passengers. Americans
suffer over 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year, but
there is no great human cry to ban automobiles.
Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and for clean, pollution free operation. By contrast, the over
600 coal burning power plants in the United States which produce
approximately 49% of our nation's electricity emit sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which combine with moisture in the
atmosphere to create destructive acid rain. Coal burning power plants
also release microscopic particulate matter which clog the lungs and
which are attributed to causing approximately 24,000 unnatural
premature deaths in America every year, which is 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.
Coal fired power plants in the USA release approximately 200,000
pounds of toxic mercury each year, and nearly 10% of global carbon
dioxide emissions, which represents an enormous river of skyward bound
greenhouse gas. On top of all of that, coal burning power plants
release radioactive materials into the atmosphere due to the natural
thorium and uranium content of coal. A single 1,000 megawatt coal-
burning power plant can release as much as 12.8 tons of radioactive
thorium every year, and 5.2 tons of uranium each year. The uranium
figure includes 74 pounds of uranium-235, which is the highly
fissionable form of uranium that was used to construct the "Little
Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Why is there so little fear in the United States of coal burning
power plants, but so much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier
nuclear power? The answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly
demonized by a Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick
buck (The China Syndrome, The Simpsons, etc.), and by scientifically
undereducated politicians and environmental activists. The fact is
there has never been a single human death attributable to the daily
activity of nuclear power plants in the USA, and American nuclear
power plants produce electricity at an average cost of less than two
cents per kilowatt-hour (2004 figure), which is comparable with coal
and hydroelectric power. Newer, more efficient power plant designs
and the mass production of major structural and control components can
bring the cost down even further.
Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an
extremely high volume of energy using only a tiny amount of land and
at reasonable cost, all without emitting any greenhouse gases. That
is why the father of Gaia theory, British atmospheric scientist James
Lovelock, stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large
human population on planet earth without causing global warming and
destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public
statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green
solution.
We must remember that biofuels are made from food or from
inedible crops which displace current levels of food production. With
a world wide human population of over 6.6 billion people and growing,
we cannot afford to feed our families and at the same time use
precious farm and grazing land to produce food products and/or
lignocellulose yielding crops to burn in our automobile engines. Food
belongs in the stomachs of hungry men, women, and children, not in the
gas tanks of our Fords, Hondas, and Mercedes Benz automobiles.
If you do not want food prices to double, triple, or even
quadruple in the next ten years, then write your Congressman, Senator,
Governor, and President and tell them that you do not want to waste
food production resources on biofuels. Furthermore, state the obvious
fact that food prices are already too high and that you want all
biofuel mandates repealed and all biofuel manufacturing subsidies
ended. If this is done you will soon see food prices declining
instead of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and
the United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to
meet their moral obligations to help feed the world's starving
masses. Biofuel production for use in automobiles represents a
needless man made disaster, not a blessing, and biofuels are
effectively agricultural products no matter how you make them. We
should not waste or displace food production capacity if we wish to
feed a hungry world.
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
.
Rod Speed
> see: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
No thanks.
> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
There is no 'world food crisis'
Don Klipstein
calde...@yahoo.com wrote:
>3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
>topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are
>desperately needed as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from
>the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that
>causes global warming. Do we really want to cut down forests all over
>the world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to
>grow corn, soybeans, palm oil, sugarcane, and other crops to burn as
>fuel in our SUVs?
Forests do not change CO2 content of the atmosphere as long as their
biomass content is constant. However, it is true that burning one adds
CO2 and replacing one removes CO2 from the atmosphere due to the change of
biomass.
Meanwhile, I would compare this to taking carbon out of the lithosphere
and burning it.
> Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the
>entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases
>huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while destroying
>native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we
>breathe.
Growing the biofuel crop, like growing any other biomass, removes CO2
from the atmosphere. Where does the carbon in the biofuel come from?
>4) Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud
>because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form
>of the biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
>just to produce biofuels.
http://www.metafilter.com/22077/Is-That-an-Ethanol-SUV says otherwise.
Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel - sugar
cane scrap.
However, your other points appear to have some validity.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
George
>
>> 4) Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud
>> because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form
>> of the biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
>> just to produce biofuels.
>
> http://www.metafilter.com/22077/Is-That-an-Ethanol-SUV says otherwise.
>
> Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel - sugar
> cane scrap.
>
> However, your other points appear to have some validity.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
I think so too. The current ethanol scheme is mainly a subsidy for
corporations and SUVs.
For example some company wants to build an ethanol plant in my general
area. My buddy is on the planning board for that community and they
first have to approve it before the Federal government can pull the
money out of our pockets.
If approved the government will pull $110 million out of the taxpayers
pockets to build the plant. Then when in production the government will
pull more money out of the taxpayers pockets as an operating subsidy
plus waive liquid fuels taxes so that the ethanol can be sold at a
"competitive" price which is way below its market value.
calde...@yahoo.com
>> >
" Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel -
sugar cane scrap."
No. Brazil is using full SUGAR CANE, which is food that people can
eat, not scrap or waste. They are not using scrap, which takes a much
higher technology than they have, and which has not been proven to be
economically viable as yet. Brazil is cutting more and more forests
to grow biofuels and the earth's C02 sponge is shrinking daily. It is
true that if you have to make ethanol, sugar cane is allot better than
corn, but this is still a band-aid fix on a gaping wound. Biofuels
will not stop or slow global warming, just speed up the destruction of
the rain forests which absorb C02. Not a good deal at all! One person
can live for a year on the corn it takes to fill up your gas tank just
once! Biofuels = food crisis!
Brazil has just discovered a large oil deposit off their coast, so
they are still going to be using and selling lots of oil. For the
USA, biofuels are not the answer. We need to go the high-tech route
that uses little land and does not cut down forests. We can do
nuclear energy better than anyone, and it is clean and safe and we
have all the fuel we need, already paid for. If we start early, we
can stop global warming in time to save the Midwest breadbasket from
becoming a desert. But time is short, and biofuels are just a tactic
to reduce foreign oil consumption, not a device to end global warming.
Christopher
see: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html - The biofuel
Rod Speed
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Meanwhile, Brazil largely runs their ethanol plants on biofuel - sugar cane scrap.
> No.
You're both mangling the story.
> Brazil is using full SUGAR CANE, which is food that people
> can eat, not scrap or waste. They are not using scrap,
Yes they are, as the energy source for the distillation process.
They are ALSO using the sugar cane as the source
of sugar for the fermentation process into ethanol.
> which takes a much higher technology than they have,
Wrong again, its just worth doing when you have the sugar cane available.
> and which has not been proven to be economically viable as yet.
Sugar cane isnt reallly economically viable either.
> Brazil is cutting more and more forests to grow biofuels
Nope, those arent generally grown on newly cleared forests.
> and the earth's C02 sponge is shrinking daily.
Wrong again, the primary CO2 sponge is the oceans.
> It is true that if you have to make ethanol, sugar cane is allot better
> than corn, but this is still a band-aid fix on a gaping wound.
Nope.
> Biofuels will not stop or slow global warming,
Thats isnt the reason for biofuels, its to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
> just speed up the destruction of the rain forests which absorb C02.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Not a good deal at all!
It is for a country like Brazil that has no oil of its own.
> One person can live for a year on the corn it takes to
> fill up your gas tank just once! Biofuels = food crisis!
There is no food crisis. The world has a surplus of food.
> Brazil has just discovered a large oil deposit off their coast,
Its peanuts compared with the world supply.
> so they are still going to be using and selling lots of oil.
Depends on how you define lots.
> For the USA, biofuels are not the answer.
No one ever said it was.
> We need to go the high-tech route that uses
> little land and does not cut down forests.
> We can do nuclear energy better than anyone,
Wrong again.
> and it is clean and safe and we have all the fuel we need, already paid for.
The nuke plants havent been paid for and thats a much higher cost than the fuel.
> If we start early, we can stop global warming in time to
> save the Midwest breadbasket from becoming a desert.
Its never going to become a desert.
> But time is short,
Nope.
> and biofuels are just a tactic to reduce foreign oil
> consumption, not a device to end global warming.
They were never intended to end global warming.
> Christopher
> see: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html -
> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
There is no world food crisis.
Nicik Name
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5t9a2aF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> calde...@yahoo.com wrote
>>> see: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>> No thanks.
>>> The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
>> There is no 'world food crisis'
> very true.......and their is no shortage of crude oil also
Some countrys like Brazil do however choose to reduce their dependency on foreign oil.
calde...@yahoo.com
***allot of fluff***
You are correct, Brazil burns scap to heat the fermenters. I was
talking about the fermentation process itself.
Brazil is chopping down its rain forests at an alarming rate, as are
almost all the other tropical countries that have rain forests.
Brazil is currently chopping down forests to grow biofuels of several
kinds, including biodiesel. Of course the bulk is currently produced
on older cleared land parcels, but new biofuel farms are being created
every day on newly cleared land as well.
Yes, the oceans are the main sponge for C02 absorption, but the rain
forests are a major sponge as well. The oceans are losing their
ability to absorb CO2 as they become more acidic and filled to the
brim with C02.
There is no food crisis in your mind because you have enough food to
feed yourself. If you lived in Africa or India or a poor neighborhood
in the USA, you might be a little more thoughtful about sky high food
prices. Just last year you could buy chicken thighs for 50 cents a
pound in 10 pound bags. Now the cheapest discount consumer price is
about 99 cents a pound in 10 pound bags. That is a huge increase in
one year, and milk and beef have also risen spectacularly. Wheat just
hit a record high, and baked good prices are in double digit
inflation. People are starving and going hungry, but you glibly claim
there is no crisis because you have enough food to feed your own
belly.
You seem to make your arguments by distorting what I have said, and
reading into what I say ideas that I never intended. You also are not
up on the projections of what is going to happen to the Midwest as
temperatures climb. It is a disaster headed our way.
Two new paragraphs have been added to "The biofuel hoax is causing a
world food crisis!", explaining how a nuclear based, hydrogen fuel
economy will make the USA both richer and safer. The more you
carefully consider nuclear-hydrogen technology, the more positive
benefits you will find. The more you consider biofuel production, the
more devastating the prospects become. It is a choice between sanity
and insanity, and our politicians have unfortunately chosen the
politically expedient, shortsighted insane course of action.
at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
"The economic benefits of a nuclear based, hydrogen fueled
economy are spectacular. The United States balance of trade deficit
and Federal budget deficit will be greatly reduced by a nuclear
powered economy. All of the nuclear reactors will be built and run by
Americans in America, who will make high wages and pay taxes to
Federal, state, and local governments, and spend their income at local
American stores. As the USA currently imports 60% of its oil supply,
all of the dollars we now ship off to Canada (18%), Mexico (15%),
Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (12%), Venezuela (10%), and Angola (6%)
will stay right here in the USA. In the year 2007, the USA is
estimated to have imported a total of about 3.8 billion barrels of
crude oil, in addition to a tremendous amount of natural gas and other
hydrocarbon products which can largely be replaced by nuclear power.
At $93. a barrel (12/24/07 price), 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil is
worth over 353. billion dollars. The current Iraq war, which was
fought both for the State of Israel and for oil, will cost United
States taxpayers over 2,000. billion dollars (2 trillion dollars) by
the time all of the long term war costs are paid. Obviously, a
nuclear based hydrogen economy will make the United States richer in
addition to saving us from desertification of our heartland, coastal
flooding, increased storm damage, and starvation caused by the deadly
combination of global warming and the biofuel hoax.
Hydrogen fuel produced from nuclear generation will be expensive
at first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
grows and economies of scale lower production costs. Hydrogen fuel
manufacture and distribution techniques will become more efficient,
and electric car battery technology will also improve, allowing
Americans to drive our highways without guilt that they are burning up
precious natural resources or polluting the environment. Cars will
pass by leaving behind only a small amount of water vapor if hydrogen
powered, or just a near silent wind if electric battery powered.
Hybrid vehicles that run on both batteries and hydrogen fuel will be
common. The nuclear based hydrogen economy is a long term investment
in America's future that will pay more benefits every year as opposed
to the biofuel hoax, which will lead to destruction of our
environment, our economy, and our nation."
Merry Christmas, Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> ***allot of fluff***
Yours wasnt even that.
> You are correct, Brazil burns scap to heat the fermenters.
Wrong again. The heat is used for the DISTILLATION, not the fermenting.
> I was talking about the fermentation process itself.
And he was talking about the entire process. You cant
ignore the distillation process thats essential to produce
the ethanol in a form that its usable as a transport fuel.
> Brazil is chopping down its rain forests at an alarming rate, as
> are almost all the other tropical countries that have rain forests.
Pity they aint doing that to produce sugar cane for ethanol production.
> Brazil is currently chopping down forests to grow
> biofuels of several kinds, including biodiesel.
Nope, what is chopped down isnt primarily used to grow biofuels.
> Of course the bulk is currently produced on older cleared land parcels,
Yep, so your original mindless rant got it completely wrong, like I said.
> but new biofuel farms are being created
> every day on newly cleared land as well.
In fact fuck all of the newly cleared land is used for growing biofuels.
> Yes, the oceans are the main sponge for C02 absorption,
> but the rain forests are a major sponge as well.
Nope, a relatively minor one, actually.
The main problem with forest clearing is the RELEASE
of CO2 that that involves with the burning of those forests.
> The oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2 as they become more acidic
Pig ignorant drivel.
> and filled to the brim with C02.
More pig ignorant drivel.
> There is no food crisis in your mind because
> you have enough food to feed yourself.
Nope, because I have noticed that we just dont get the famines we used
to see in my lifetime except when the country has degenerated into civil
chaos and civil war anymore now. Nothing to do with biofuels at all.
> If you lived in Africa or India or a poor neighborhood in the USA,
> you might be a little more thoughtful about sky high food prices.
No such animal. The modern reality is that food prices are the lowest
they have ever been, essentially because of modern industrialised farming
in the first world on a huge scale that has replaced subsistence farming.
> Just last year you could buy chicken thighs for 50 cents a pound
> in 10 pound bags. Now the cheapest discount consumer price is
> about 99 cents a pound in 10 pound bags.
Pity that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the vast bulk of the world eats.
And even in the US, the problem is that most shovel MANY more calories
into their mouths than they burn, and thats why they are so obscenely obese.
> That is a huge increase in one year,
And wont keep happening like that. And that is nothing like a WORLD FOOD CRISIS anyway.
> and milk and beef have also risen spectacularly.
Another bare faced lie.
> Wheat just hit a record high,
Just because of drought where much of the world's wheat is grown.
> and baked good prices are in double digit inflation.
Still nothing even remotely resembling anything like a WORLD FOOD CRISIS.
> People are starving and going hungry,
Only where the country has decended into civil chaos and civil war.
Nothing to with biofuels at all.
> but you glibly claim there is no crisis because
> you have enough food to feed your own belly.
Nope, because I have been watching the elimination of famine
world wide due to weather since before you were even born thanks.
> You seem to make your arguments by distorting what I have said,
Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
> and reading into what I say ideas that I never intended.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> You also are not up on the projections of what is going
> to happen to the Midwest as temperatures climb.
You're lying when you imply that there is general agreement
amoungst the scientific community that deserts are inevitable there.
> It is a disaster headed our way.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed hysterical fantasyland.
> Two new paragraphs have been added to
> "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!",
Repeating that bare faced lie changes absolutely nothing.
> explaining how a nuclear based, hydrogen fuel
> economy will make the USA both richer and safer.
No news to me, child. You might just find that I have
been saying that since before you were even born too.
> The more you carefully consider nuclear-hydrogen
> technology, the more positive benefits you will find.
Nope, you might just find I have been rubbing people's
noses in that since before you were even born too.
> The more you consider biofuel production,
> the more devastating the prospects become.
Only if you are just another mindless pig ignorant hysteric.
> It is a choice between sanity and insanity,
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed hysterical fantasyland.
> and our politicians have unfortunately chosen the
> politically expedient, shortsighted insane course of action.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
> "The economic benefits of a nuclear based,
> hydrogen fueled economy are spectacular.
Nope, just useful.
There might just be a reason why not one country on
earth has changed over to hydrogen as a transport fuel.
> The United States balance of trade deficit and Federal budget
> deficit will be greatly reduced by a nuclear powered economy.
Pity about the economic problems with doing that in the transport sector.
> All of the nuclear reactors will be built and run by Americans in America,
You dont know that either.
> who will make high wages and pay taxes
> to Federal, state, and local governments,
The transport industry already does that.
> and spend their income at local American stores.
Which will continue to sell mostly imported capital goods.
> As the USA currently imports 60% of its oil supply, all of
> the dollars we now ship off to Canada (18%), Mexico (15%),
> Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (12%), Venezuela (10%), and
> Angola (6%) will stay right here in the USA.
Nope, because no nuke industry can completely replace all of that.
> In the year 2007, the USA is estimated to have imported
> a total of about 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil, in addition
> to a tremendous amount of natural gas and other hydrocarbon
> products which can largely be replaced by nuclear power.
At one hell of a cost.
> At $93. a barrel (12/24/07 price), 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil
> is worth over 353. billion dollars. The current Iraq war, which
> was fought both for the State of Israel and for oil, will cost United
> States taxpayers over 2,000. billion dollars (2 trillion dollars) by
> the time all of the long term war costs are paid.
That money will be pissed against the wall
regardless of what is done with nukes in the future.
> Obviously, a nuclear based hydrogen economy will make the United States richer
How odd that not one country has chosen to go that route.
There might just be a reason why not one has.
> in addition to saving us from desertification of our heartland, coastal
> flooding, increased storm damage, and starvation caused by the
> deadly combination of global warming and the biofuel hoax.
Even if the US did change over to nukes entirely
tomorrow, that would not stop global warming.
> Hydrogen fuel produced from nuclear generation will be expensive
> at first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
> grows and economies of scale lower production costs.
And it will be a lot more expensive than oil for a long time to come.
Which might just be why not one country has actually been stupid
enough to change over to a nuke based hydrogen economy at this time.
> Hydrogen fuel manufacture and distribution techniques will become
> more efficient, and electric car battery technology will also improve,
> allowing Americans to drive our highways without guilt that they are
> burning up precious natural resources or polluting the environment.
They will still be polluting the environment as part of
the process of producing and replacing their cars.
> Cars will pass by leaving behind only a small amount of water vapor if
> hydrogen powered, or just a near silent wind if electric battery powered.
Pity about whats involved in producing those cars in the first place.
In spades with hydrogen powered cars.
> Hybrid vehicles that run on both batteries and hydrogen fuel will be common.
Not any decade soon they wont.
> The nuclear based hydrogen economy is a long term investment
> in America's future that will pay more benefits every year as
> opposed to the biofuel hoax, which will lead to destruction
> of our environment, our economy, and our nation."
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
PaPaPeng
>Two new paragraphs have been added to "The biofuel hoax is causing a
>world food crisis!", explaining how a nuclear based, hydrogen fuel
>economy will make the USA both richer and safer. The more you
>carefully consider nuclear-hydrogen technology, the more positive
>benefits you will find. The more you consider biofuel production, the
>more devastating the prospects become. It is a choice between sanity
>and insanity, and our politicians have unfortunately chosen the
>politically expedient, shortsighted insane course of action.
>
>at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
==================================
I'd like to jump in with some reports out of China on their energy
versus food policies.
1. Food Security Comes First
Ban on use of corn for ethanol lauded
By Le Tian (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-06-22 06:47
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/22/content_899837.htm
China's policy not to use basic food crops, especially corn, to make
biofuel as a substitute for petroleum is a "sound decision", a Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official said yesterday.
"Such a decision by such an important world player as China is likely
to accelerate the second-generation technology for production of
ethanol fuel from non-food crops - through conversion of biomass,"
Abdolreza Abbassian, Commodity Analyst and Secretary of FAO's
Intergovernmental Group for Grains, told China Daily.
The UN food body official's remarks came shortly after China imposed a
moratorium on projects making ethanol fuel from corn and other basic
food crops. The importance of corn in China's food economy has
prompted the government to ask companies to switch to non-basic food
products such as cassava, sweet potato and cellulose to make ethanol
fuel.
"Food-based ethanol fuel will not be the direction for China," said Xu
Dingming, vice-director of the Office of the National Energy Leading
Group, at a seminar on China's ethanol fuel development in Beijing on
Saturday.
China is promoting ethanol fuel to reduce its reliance on imported
oil. But it worries that the rising demand for raw materials for
ethanol could push up food prices and reduce the area of farmland
growing food crops.
Despite a bumper crop in China last year, corn prices have risen
almost 30 percent over the past nine months on the Dalian Commodities
Exchange. The increase in corn prices in turn pushed up the costs of
fodder and meat, particularly pork.
The global supply and demand situation for cereals in 2007-08 is
expected to remain tight and prices will be high, Abbassian said.
"As long as petroleum prices remain as high as they are, and without
any major technological breakthrough in conversion of biomass, this
trend is likely to continue for some years to come," he said.
While forecasts say cereal production across the world is likely to
recover and then climb to a record, world demand for cereals is also
forecast to rise sharply, Abbassian said. "This strong demand is
partly driven by a rapid increase in the use of corn for making
ethanol fuel, most of which is in the US."
In five years from now, almost a third of the US corn crop will be
used to make ethanol fuel to meet the Energy Department's target of
11.2 billion gallons by 2012, a report released by the USGovernment
Accountability Office warned last week.
"Using more corn to produce fuel is likely to push up corn prices
further, potentially influencing livestock feed markets and meat
prices," the report said.
The US is the world's largest producer, consumer and exporter of corn.
For this reason, the US' corn export prices are considered the world's
best price indicator for coarse grains in general and for corn in
particular.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, about 86 million tons
of corns could be used to make ethanol fuel between 2007 and 2008.
"The volume of domestic corn destined for ethanol will exceed the
total corn exports from the US," Abbassian said.
The increase in the use of corn to make ethanol fuel is among the
leading factors that have pushed up its price in the international
market, he said.
Since the US uses more of its domestic corn to make ethanol fuel, the
food and export sectors are left to shoulder the burden of high
prices, Abbassian said.
Beijing abolishes centuries-old agricultural tax
By John Chan
17 January 2006
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/chin-j17.shtml
On January 1, the Chinese government officially abolished its
agricultural land tax in a bid to defuse the growing unrest among the
country's 800 million peasants-the vast bulk of the population.
Beijing hailed the decision as a historic one: the final end to the
2,600-year-old system of "imperial taxation" on Chinese farmers.
The agricultural tax levied on each peasant family according to their
land was the main source of government revenue during the centuries of
imperial rule. Following the 1949 revolution, the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) retained the tax even after its land reforms eliminated
the landlord-gentry class. The roots of the taxation system lay in
China's backward, largely agrarian economy. (.....more)
2. The Tradeoff Between Water Resources and Energy.
Water MUST have priority.
China may halt production of liquefied coal: official
June 10, 2007
http://english.people.com.cn/200706/10/eng20070610_382750.html
China, which is rich in coal but poor in petroleum and gas, may put an
end to projects which are designed to produce petroleum by liquefying
coal, an official with the country's top economic planning agency has
said.
The consideration came after evaluation of the nation's limited energy
resources and its econological environment, a deputy director of the
industry department of the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC) told a seminar on China's fuel ethanol development, held in
Beijing on Saturday.
"Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the
successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the
country's dependence on petroleum," said the official who declined to
be named.
The Chinese government said earlier it would invest more in developing
alternative energy resources including biomass fuel and liquefied coal
to substitute petroleum during the 11th Five-Year Program (2006-2010)
period, amid concerns over the country's growing dependence on
petroleum.
China, the world's second-largest energy consumer, imported 162.87
million tons of oil in 2006, driving the country's reliance on
imported oil up 4.1 percentage points from a year earlier to reach 47
percent, official statistics show.
The country is also confronted with huge capital demand and higher
consumption of water and coal in producing the liquefied coal, the
official said. (.....more)
3. Nuclear Energy Is A Major Component Of China's Energy Strategy.
China embraces the atom
By Frederick W Stakelbeck Jr
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC04Cb05.html
March 04, 2006
With domestic energy demand expected to increase steadily over the
next several decades and with a precipitous decline in domestic
production from existing oil and natural-gas fields, China finds
itself at an unavoidable "energy crossroads" that will define its
growth, influence and prosperity for years to come.
Recognizing the potential consequences associated with any protracted
energy shortage, Beijing has embraced nuclear power as a solution.
According to the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), the government
body responsible for much of the country's nuclear-power program,
China plans to invest US$48 billion to build 30 nuclear reactors by
2020. Currently, the country has nine reactors in operation with
another two under construction at a combined cost of $3.2 billion.
"Nuclear-power development is a must for China, especially in the
coastal areas," said Shen Wenquan, vice chairman of the Committee for
Science and Technology for CNNC.
The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA)
predicts China's annual nuclear-energy consumption could rise to 66
billion kilowatt-hours in 2010, up dramatically from 16 billion kWh in
2000. In addition, EIA predicts the country's nuclear electricity
consumption will rise to 129 billion kWh by 2015 and 142 billion kWh
by 2020, surpassing both Canada and Russia. Striking a balance between
energy demand and supply will be a key objective for Beijing's nuclear
program moving forward.
The country's 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10) supports progress in the
areas of nuclear-power-plant development and construction. As a
result, more than 16 Chinese provinces, regions and municipalities
have already announced plans to participate in nuclear-power-plant
construction. CNNC president Kang Rixin recently noted that this
construction boom could increase the amount of nuclear power generated
from 2% of the country's total energy capacity to 6% by 2010, with as
many as 32 additional reactors built within the next 15 years.
Several factors have encouraged Beijing to pursue nuclear energy.
First, chronic electricity shortages of 35 million kW in 2004 and 25
million kW in 2005 forced Beijing to recognize the country's
deteriorating energy situation. Second, continuing difficulties with
the Chinese coal-mining industry, the country's main energy source,
have become inescapable. Coal produces 74% of China's energy; however,
the industry is beset by dangerous safety issues, with more than 6,000
killed in 2005 in mining-related accidents. In addition, the negative
environmental impact of greenhouse gases makes coal an increasingly
unattractive energy alternative.
Third, China's growing reliance on foreign oil and liquefied natural
gas (LNG) has placed the country in a precarious position. For China,
dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East - a complex and
potentially explosive region that currently provides 60% of the
country's oil imports. Predictions by some industry experts that China
will import more oil than the United States within the next two
decades has raised fears in Beijing that oil could control the
country's destiny, making the identification and development of
alternative energy sources a key priority.
Fourth, the skyrocketing cost of building the country's oil and LNG
infrastructure has raised concerns in Beijing. Intricate
pipeline-construction agreements involving foreign countries; the
construction of a fleet of modern LNG carriers and updated and
expanded railroad systems; and the construction of large transport
terminals capable of handling huge quantities of oil and LNG continue
to place an enormous financial burden on the country.
Zhang Guobao, vice minister in charge of the National Reform and
Development Commission (NRDC), noted recently that China's tight power
squeeze could ease somewhat this year as new nuclear plants come
online. Beijing has also announced that it will continue its
prospecting efforts in the oil-and-gas-bearing basins in Bohai Bay,
Songliao, Tarim and Ordus, while coal exploration will continue in
Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong and Anhui provinces.
A key component of China's energy program is the development of
alternative nuclear power technologies. This year, a $370 million,
190-megawatt nuclear plant using "pebble-bed technology" is expected
to begin construction. Built by China Huaneng Group, parent of Huaneng
Power International Inc, the power plant will use new
high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor technology instead of the
pressurized-water technology.
Pebble-bed technology is intended to address the safety issues of
older reactor technologies; it is theoretically impossible for a
pebble-bed reactor to melt down, since even if all safety devices were
shut off and staff literally left the site, the reactor could not
achieve a high enough temperature to melt its own materials, and
therefore would simply cool slowly while remaining physically
undamaged.
Opponents of the new technology, such as Liu Wei, vice president of
the Beijing Institute of Nuclear Engineering, say it is
cost-prohibitive - $500 a kilowatt more than other commercially
available technologies. Other critics have noted that pebble-bed
technology can only be used in reactors of less than 300MW, making it
incompatible with a majority of China's new reactors, which are
1,000MW or more. However, pebble-bed advocates suggest multiple
reactor units at the same site as a way of circumventing this
shortcoming.
In another move designed to develop alternative energy technologies,
China has partnered with the United States, the European Union,
Russia, South Korea, India and Japan to experiment with nuclear
fusion. Fusion reactions, distinct from the fission reactions that
power all operational nuclear reactors today, produce energy by fusing
lighter atomic nuclei together into heavier ones at extremely high
temperatures and pressures.
"Fusion will be the final way out for the future," said Shen Wenquan
of CNNC. But fusion research has been conducted for decades at
enormous cost, and while technical progress has been made, no
practical prototype of an operational fusion reactor has been produced
so far.
To power its new generation of nuclear power plants, China will need
enormous amounts of uranium from a diverse pool of providers. The
country's known resources of 70,000 tonnes of uranium, from several
domestic uranium mines, is sufficient to meet only short-term needs.
The State Council announced last month that uranium prospecting will
be emphasized, including additional domestic exploration and mining.
Also last month, it was reported that Beijing would consider the joint
development of uranium mines with foreign countries as a possible
solution to its supply problems. Shen said, "If there's a possibility
of developing these resources through [a] joint venture, then we can
discuss that also."
Although China has agreements with Kazakhstan, Russia and Nambia,
further talks have commenced with Australia and Canada to fuel the
country's expected nuclear-reactor base.
China's push toward nuclear power has attracted the attention of the
international nuclear-power industry, with hundreds of well-known
companies such as US-based, UK-owned Westinghouse, France's Areva and
Russia's AtomStroyExport battling for a chance to participate in
reactor construction and design.
For its part, the US has voiced its support of China's efforts to
develop a clean and safe nuclear-power industry. "The US wants to be
part of such a rapidly growing nuclear-power-plant program," said one
US diplomat.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already given its approval
for the export of nuclear equipment and engineering services, as well
as fuel and generating units to China. The US Commerce Department and
the US Embassy in Beijing have approached the Chinese government to
promote a pending bid by Westinghouse for the construction of four
1,000MW nuclear power facilities. Last month, the Export and Import
Bank of the United States approved $5 billion in loans to support the
bid.
Although Beijing's efforts to address its emerging energy needs have
received a positive response from many observers, several questions
remain unanswered concerning the nuclear program. Under even the most
optimistic projections, a 2-4% increase in the country's overall power
capacity over a 15-year period as a result of nuclear-power-plant
construction will not be nearly enough to cover expected increases in
residential and commercial energy demand.
In addition, some members of the scientific community have questioned
the benefits associated with nuclear power, when the risks of
catastrophic failures, waste disposal and terrorism are considered.
"We don't have a good plan for dealing with spent fuel, and we don't
have a very good emergency plan for dealing with [a] catastrophe,"
admitted Wang Yi, a nuclear-energy expert at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences in Beijing.
With energy-consumption levels expected to reach those of the US by
2025 and dependence on foreign energy sources accelerating by the day,
Beijing is in need of a long-term remedy to its energy ills - nuclear
power may or may not provide such a remedy. Whatever the answer to
China's energy needs, it should be pursued with caution, keeping in
mind the delicate balance between the country's future energy needs
and the possible human and environmental costs associated with
achieving energy autonomy.
Frederick W Stakelbeck Jr is an expert on bilateral and trilateral
alliances as they relate to China foreign policy. His writings address
the implications of China's emerging regional and global strategic
influence and relationships upon US national security. Comments can be
forwarded to frederick....@verizon.net.
Read also WIRED Magazine article on China's Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor
Program
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
that reiterates the benefits described below.
>
> Hydrogen fuel produced from nuclear generation will be expensive
>at first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
>grows and economies of scale lower production costs. Hydrogen fuel
>manufacture and distribution techniques will become more efficient,
>and electric car battery technology will also improve, allowing
>Americans to drive our highways without guilt that they are burning up
>precious natural resources or polluting the environment. Cars will
>pass by leaving behind only a small amount of water vapor if hydrogen
>powered, or just a near silent wind if electric battery powered.
>Hybrid vehicles that run on both batteries and hydrogen fuel will be
>common. The nuclear based hydrogen economy is a long term investment
>in America's future that will pay more benefits every year as opposed
>to the biofuel hoax, which will lead to destruction of our
>environment, our economy, and our nation."
>
>Merry Christmas, Christopher Calder
>http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
>.
4. Alternative Energies.
There are already giant wind farms in China's Inner Mongolia. Hot
water solar panels and solar collectors (electricity) are common on
China's apartment rooftops. If interested do a google search. A
far more impressive strategic initiative that is already in progress.
South-to-North Water Diversion Project, China
http://www.water-technology.net/project_printable.asp?ProjectID=2658
Map in
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2000/10/17/world/001017_for_WATERmap.html
With China hosting the Olympic Games and water from the South-to-North
Water Diversion Project – the largest of its kind ever undertaken –
scheduled to begin supplying a thirsty Beijing, 2008 is shaping up to
be a major showcase year for the country. This massive scheme has
already taken 50 years from conception to commencement and is expected
to take almost as long again to construct. Planned for completion in
2050, it will eventually divert 44.8 billion m³ of water annually to
the population centres of the drier north.
When finished, the work will link China’s four main rivers – the
Yangtze, Yellow River, Huaihe and Haihe – and requires the
construction of three diversion routes, stretching south-to-north
across the eastern, central and western parts of the country.
The complete project is expected to cost $62bn – more than twice as
much as the country’s controversial Three Gorges Dam. (....more)