Time Magazine calls biofuels a scam

geneonlbk,

Try Dark Energy, not fusion.

If the Universe is mostly Dark Energy...can we use it to run our cars?

Y'betch'y.

Fusion energy should be the central reseasrch and development priority for earth. Fusion energy, along with contributions from solar/wind/geo will supply humanity with an almost infinite source of cheap clean energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

http://www.eps.org/about-us/position-papers/fusion-energy/?searchterm=neutron

Colmor, when I got done writing that response, I looked it up and there's a guy who built an electric car that does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds! it costs $2.50 to go 250 miles. he also said that you could leave it running in your garage for months before it will die. It runs off of Lithium batteries like in you're lap to.. I think the name of the video is "Who saved the electric car" rather than the previous "who killed the electric car".

The best biofuel is hemp/marijuana. The oil can be used to run cars (Henry Ford even built one that ran on hemp oil) as well as make plastics and all other functions that petro-oil fills. The exhaust from a car running on hemp oil is far less pollutive than petro-oil.

And interestingly enough... Hemp/marijuana is just amazingly good at converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. If we planted it instead of corn, we would have all the benefits of it as a fuel source, while scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the air.

Yup. Hemp is a very good choice for a biofuel.

wow so many posts here!

I don't know if the wind power on oceanic rafts has been discussed but I think it is ingenious it probably doesn't bother anyone much...as much as what we have now

Oh and in response to stock car racing. The IRL utelizes experimental fuel grade ethanol and previously utelized methanol which is also high octance high efficiency. Had it not been for stock car racing and especialy endurance races like Baja or a 500 mile stock car race like Indy it is estimaed car tech would be 15-30 years behind it's current level. Everything from Rear view mirrors, seatbelts, road safety rails, rubber tires, and killswitches are all results of racing technologies and fuel efficiencies have also been raised as a result. I will admit that much of that innovation has been removed from supercar leagues like F-1 and the IRL but the engineering skill that is cultivated and the research that goes into analyzing performance makes its way into everyday vehicles for those companies with racing divisions.

In the interests of full disclosure my aunt was a drag racer one of the first women to win a racing series which she did twice in the eighties with the corvette racing league, she raced under the name Connie Bell. I have a stepbrother and a cousin who are on moto x teams and have a relative through mairage who owns and operated a professional stock car and drag team, my stepdad was a used car salesman and I curated an arts exhibition called big wheels focusing on automotive art and memorabelia that was sponsered in part by the IRL. So I have some painful biases. I think it would be hard in the midwest to find familes that didn't have some conection to racing or to automotive production, agroscience, or fuel production. In indiana alone more than four hundred companies work in high performance automotive production making everything from modified glass to helmets. There is a racing garage literaly at the end of my street and it is one of the few points of pride within my neighborhood.

Food waste, in the form of cellulosic ethanol, and anerobic methane from animal waste can be a big part of the solution. Collectively the food waste alone has the ability to fuel the entire nation. The problem is that the energy used to create the fuel requires a great deal of water which then puts a strain on areas affected by drought. After all more than a billion people already don't have access to clean running water and the most prevalent diseases are waterborne. I think much of the focus has been on renewability rather than on being carbon neutral or having efficient water usage. However utelizing waste still may help instill a cultural change, with a greater ephasis on conservation rather than overconsumption we may be able to adress more than one issue at once.

This is hard for me to say, my state has benefited from high grain prices and advances in bioengineering and agroscience that have been centered around procuring higher yields for fuel production. Brittish Petroleum has invested four billion dollars alone in a refinery which will come online in the next few months. I love that all of that money is domestic and that it is going to mostly poor agrarian regions of my state which have a reputation for being impossibly backwards (we just started daylight savings time because well if you do it the chickens just wont respond to ye.) I think that research needs to focus on making biofuels into carbon friendly process. If grain yields can be geneticaly modified to produce a higher sugar cotnent or to rely on less water or the plants themselves can do more to be energy efficient and water effiicient. Research at the moment is being put forward which may cut water usage involved by more than a third utelizing new enymes within the processing. Also I see no problems with Ethanol being used as a fuel additive. It is higher octance and combined with other additives can reduce pollutants in the air other than carbon. To call biofuels or biomass production a scam is far too harsh and to move farther in the direction we are currently heading in econic, ecologic, and cultural terms is unnaceptable. Henry Ford originaly wanted the model T to be a biofuled car and later in his life built a car tires, chasis, fender and bumper all out of hemp this car was ten times more dent resistant than one made of steel and had other benefits as well and that was in the 1930's and early teens respectively! Our automotive technology has been artificialy stifled. There was more innovation in the early years than can be found today in my oppinion. It's all profit over better production methods. Growing switchgrass in arid regions for cellulosic ethanol, and algea farms in the sea for biodiesel production seems like a very sustainable fuel production model and I think it could benefit us all. Put simply I am torn but I haven't given up quite yet.

you know what pisses me off? the fact that when people were talking about using biofuels my friends and i were trying to convince people that it was an insane idea to use food to fuel cars. everyone knew that this would INCREASE a carbon footprint by just growing the corn and converting it to fuel.

further, why didn't anyone have a moral issue with this plan? we already waste so much food in the world and yet there are so many people starving around the world, now we want to use it for fuel instead of try and feed these people? it was unethical to begin with.

alright so great we figured out corn works just as well if not better so why do we have to choose one over the other? Why can't we just conclude that we have found two great solutions for fuel and that takes us one step further towards our goal of not having to outsource . Duh quit being such critics the whole goal is to stop sucking on the tits of other countries so much

Of course the touting of ethanol as the cure-all for everything from our dependence on foreign oil to global warming has been a scam - at least in the way it has been adopted by our government thus far. Do you really think that it is merely a coincidence that our politicians have made corn the primary source of ethanol in federal research and development programs for finding alternative fuel sources? Corn, which just happens to be the major cash crop in Iowa, the state which holds one of the first and thereby oe of the most influential of the presidential primaries. This in spite of the fact that sugar cane, soy beans and the dreaded hemp (gasp), have all proven to be less costly, more efficient sources when it comes to biofuel production. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, abort alternative fuels research and development and continue to make Exxon the largest, most profitable and most powerful corporation in the history of mankind.

Marilynn_Murray - I drove from the west coast to the east coast a number of months back. I was flabbergasted by the percentage and number of trucks on the highway. It was staggering.

I spoke to a truck driver who said (I'll paraphrase) 'if you think that was a bunch, you should see it in the middle of the night.'

It strikes me how irresponsible the Busheney administration and our government has been, and still is today. Even if you don't believe in "Global Warming" how could you not realize how incredibly wasteful it is to have so many trucks on the highway when trains could transport the goods so much more efficiently - never mind moving people.

Who, in their right mind could tolerate such a dead end way of life? Must we expend every available resource earth has provide us? Answer: NO!

Federal, state and local governments are very very irresponsible for allowing developers to build to enrich themselves, but ignore increased traffic and congestion additional housing developments produce. While K&B increase the number of billions in their bank account building cheap houses on undersized lots, society and the environment pay for the lack of meaningful planning and mass transit (rail), forcing us to ever increasingly consume more fuel.

There's no doubt - the world is ready for a new religion! One that respects life, one that respects the earth. Where are the native American Indians when you need them? Oh ya, we killed them - rather than learn from them.

Just think how much farther ahead we'd be now if we had integrated with the American Indians. Those that considered their actions based upon it's impact seven generations hence. Does Harvard or Yale teach that kind of wisdom? Not with graduates like these jokers in office!

dirkglitchmann - correct me if I'm wrong, but you are clearly not involved in the field of automotive engine technology or racing engine technology in any way to qualify you to make such "conclusive" statements like you are. And working in a gas station doesn't count.

I said nothing to suggest to you or anyone that I was advocating the continued use of oil as opposed to superior, cleaner alternatives - reread what I wrote.

What are the objectives dirkglitchmann? To make change for the sake of change? Or do we really want to make a positive difference?

What I stated identified two objectives I believe we can all get behind and support: 1) reduce pollution / green house gasses; 2) reduce dependence on oil / monopolistic oil companies.

While you thrash around trying to implement biofuels in a handful of cars for the next ten years, millions upon millions of internal combustion engines are being produced, sold and driven. Why ignore them? Why not take every opportunity to clear the air and reduce consumption any and every way possible?

Nascar? Drag Racing? Remember, if it weren't for all the cattle we raise in this country, we wouldn't even need to bother with car emissions. So, if you really want to be smart? Go after the cattle industry and leave the racers alone. They only represent a tiny percentage of exhaust emissions.

dirklitchmann - FYI, no, you can not use a computer for this sort of development. Not convinced? Try this one: Why have sex? You could just have your friends tell you about it - via email. That'd be the same as experiencing it yourself right?

aridocean-i am in complete concordence with your statement. substitution of biofuels is not the answer. and a simpler cleaner lifestyle is the only way to save what is left of the environment.

and voyagerfilms-whereas it may be true that stockcar racing has lead to a great many improvements in the use of fossil fuels it is still bad for the environment all together. there is not much else to be learned from it and if there is, then im sure there is sufficient data on the matter to do it all on a computer. spare me the garbage about what its done for the automotive industry, all its done is given you a weak argument in which to perpetuate the use of oil and the destruction of our planet for the sake of money and power. entertainment of that kind is unecessary all of it basketball baseball football soccer on and on all a waste of resources...if some kids should want to kick the futbol around go right ahead. but should some meathead oversized jock want to make millions for playing a game all day. well i can tell em where to stick it.
but yea electric cars are definitely the way.

The best thing is that, for the most part, we all agree that these biofuels still have a few kinks yet to be worked out.

Sure will beat oil based fuels, but we won't be able to sustain ourselves long on the ethanol. Farms are dying off.

dirkglitchmann - I'd totally disagree with your assessment of stock car racing. We have those guys and those in other forms of racing to thank for many, if not most of the advancements in engine technology which has resulted in improved fuel mileage and increased engine efficiency.

Along those same lines, having been involved in the automotive racing industry and engine technology, I'd add the fastest way to reducing both exhaust emissions into the atmosphere and our reliance on oil is to increase the level of efficiency of the millions and millions of mass production engines manufactured and sold each year.

I'm all for electric vehicles, but I have little regard for biofuels, particularly corn based. It's a joke. The reality is an enormous amount of corn grown in the US is used in food in one form or another - a bad thing considering it's genetically altered.

Time just stated the obvious

Danitassin, I was reading all these responses and I was thinking: what about electric cars; isn't someone going to say something about electric cars? Thank you. I mean: screw alternative fuels, lets just make an electric car that is afordable for everyone. Its not that far fetched. I said it on another pod recently: In India they;re building a car for about 2 grand. Now if auto manufacturers can design a fuel consuming car for 2 grand, and other cars like the Sanato are available for 10 grand, then why can't they bring down the prices of electric cars. I'd buy one tomorow if they weren't so damn expensive.

Ecological modernization is the trojan horse of a new world order. Bio fuel will not solve our problems, it follows the neoclassical assumptions of substitution. I think solutions will be found in electronic technology, renewable energies, and simpler living.
Please dont lump environmentalist with the majority who support ecological modernization and know nothing other than they are told. .

Solar powered trains! ;)

Worse yet are all the long haul trucks, that could be on trains.

does anyone else see stock car racing as a slap in the face. i mean we know vehicle emissions are bad, very bad, so can we stop with the unecessary use of fuels and unecessary sports and all of these things.
this is all remnant of roman decadence.
this will be the fall of the great empire america.
this is a tangent. so i'll stop talking now.

Congratulations Time Magazine its about time. Cars using ethanol get less mpg while wasting valuable food product. Earlier fuel additives like MTBE were the right choice. The only harm they caused was when they leaked from storage tanks to groundwater. One would think the most profitable companies in the world could put in place a leakproof storage methodology.

Solar and wind.

There is such thing as the electric car. They made them in the eighties, but the oil companies complained to the government, saying it would kiil their sales. We all know where the gonverment's money comes from.....the oil companies. The government then order all electric cars demolished. See "Who killed the electric car?" It explains everything.

This then brings up the next topic: Where does the power come from? Solar

Life is hard when you're stupid. D

You don't have to use corn to make ethanol. Time Mag is turning tabloid on us by printing the double talk about ethanol taking food from starving people. Only reason we started using corn for ethanol in the US is cause, at the time, we kept having surpluses in corn. The best ethanol producers don't use corn at all.

Brazil uses NO corn. They use sugar cane. You know those two products that are being scarfed down by obese kids, corn and sugar cane? Thats what is going to cause starvation if we use them for ethanol instead of candy and cake?

Before I retired, I worked at building industrial plants like ethanol plants. My first ethanol job was in 1981. Heck, I don't know anything about ethanol! And neither does that guy who wrote the Time article. He gets paid for writing words. Doesn't matter if they are obfuscation. He still gets paid for it. If I was an oil company or a OPEC member I would probably buy him a new type writer!

I agree with all of your statements... but I did a project back early last year in undergrad and I exposed the bad side of ethanol or biofuel.

Here's the article I had used

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070204/12ethanol_3.htm

The sad thing is that this has caused more harm than happiness. The car manufacturer has been producing cars that uses the biofuel but not in every state you can get a gas station that offers e-85.

To me it seems kinda like a waste of time and it's making the rich, richer and the poor, more poor and having less food each day.

different region of the country hold different advantages... but overall I think wind energy is where its at.

2 words : "soylent green " .

Wow! What a great discussion this pod is. There are many very smart people who can really contribute to by greatly expanding one's ability to look more deeply at important issues.

Well, I think the the 400 lb gorilla in the room is being ignored... and that is a discussion on population. Set to reach 9 billion with less resources. We are overextending ourselves regardless of the energy sources we use. That is why I think any global climate treaty must discuss family planning and contraception in the developing world, as the poor will and are feeling the effects of the climate crisis more than others. It won't matter how much we conserve in the longrun if population continues to increase at the pace it is. We need education as well as conservation.

continued: I believe making cellulosic ethanol as a biofuel is a much better way because the cellulose contained in the stalks of corn for example, would not deplete the food supply (which is important with the world population set to reach 9 billion.) I also think switchgrass (because it is a very low water intensive plant, drought resistant, and can be grown in warm climates) hemp, and other second generation biofuels are more viable because they have much fewer well- to-wheel CO2 emissions, but there is much we need to learn about them, and we must do it in a very short time.

Which brings me to the biggest concern I have in all of this, which is replacing what may be cut down to be used for biofuel. Without replacing trees cut down to make way for biofuel plants, we would essentially be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that defeats the purpose. Therefore, any country devoted to taking on biofuel production must have a sustainable plan where trees will be planted to offset the deforestation that would ensure an energy balance.

The bottom line to all of this then is ensuring a way for new technologies to provide what we need in a world that is also aware of any repercussions to economic markets and the lives of those already being affected by the climate crisis, as well as the ecological impact they will have. Biofuels offer one of the few options to effectively mitigate climate change (especially in areas where solar and other sources may be hard to get) but if not handled correctly it will lead to the exacerbation of other problems in the developing world that would in essence negate the good being done.

And while I agree with this article in regards to food prices, use of land, etc. I really wish it had showcased the advances being made in research with other forms of biofuel and biodiesel. Not all of it is bad. It is as if Time were really doing a nice cover story for the oil industry as well. And sorry for the long response. I guess you can tell where my heart lies. ;-).

In Brazil this is a problem especially because 30% of its people live on less than two dollars a day, and much of the arable land is owned by the rich with a power struggle regarding land rights currently taking place.

The tragic murder of environmentalist and peoples' advocate Sister Dorothy Strang brought this to the forefront, and it is said that the current president of Brazil, Lula, is working to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Of course, I don’t see how signing any pact regarding biofuels with Bush on behalf of companies like Archer Daniels Midland that controls more than half of the grain market business accomplishes that.

There is a risk that the rush in seeking solutions may just wind up giving us more problems than what we started with if not handled correctly with the same status quo controlling our lives. This should not only be an opportunity for people on a global scale to change lifestyles to save this planet, but also an opportunity for the poor of our world to finally have a place in the solutions that will not only benefit the sustainability of our world for us and our children, but also finally bring parity between those who have always controlled our fate at our own detriment.In the case of corn ethanol, we are falling into the same trap of being enslaved by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland and other agribusiness companies as we are now to Exxon, Conoco, etc., and that is why I do not support Obama's nor Clinton's plans regarding corn ethanol.

That is why I also believe it is so important to have Al Gore and others out here speaking as advocates for people and to mobilize smaller companies into taking on the task of becoming involved in the biofuel market in a way that will sustain the environment and the livelihoods of the people indigenous to those areas. What Mr. Gore is doing as a global environmental advocate is now the most important thing he could be doing in standing up to the status quo and in seeking a new way of not only doing business, but living.

A recent UN Biofuel Report Sustainable Bioenergy; A Framework For Decision Makers shares those sentiments as well as it looked at the link between biofuels, deforestation, and food production, and the harm that a rapid change to biofuels could make if communities involved are excluded from ownership without the right ecological balance, especially regarding damage to land and water usage. Again, this all goes back to our moral code that Mr. Gore so correctly speakis about in An Inconvenient Truth.

And in reading the UN Biofuels Report, I too have concerns, even though I do believe that biofuel is a very viable renewable energy source that must be pursued vigorously (along with solar power) especially by developing nations looking to bring themselves out of poverty while providing a way for the global community to lessen its impact upon this world in order to mitigate climate change.

One of my concerns is that companies like Archer Midland Daniels will use its influence to entice farmers in countries with limited agricultural land to switch from food production to biofuel production exclusively. And even though that might lift some out of poverty, if not handled correctly it could lead to higher food prices, water scarcity (which already exists particularly in South America due to glacial melt) and more environmental degradation of the land.

It is also fact that privatization of resources has many times only exacerbated environmental devastation. This is why I do not believe in clearing forests to specifically use land only for biofuel crops, especially in developing countries where water resources are already scarce and available agricultural land limited.

It is irresponsible for local, state and the federal government not to invest in desirable mass transit - rail systems.

Since Scliced Bread Contest. The people voted and this was #49 out of thousands of ideas.

Fast Rail Service
Submitted by Marilynn M. in Texas
America needs a fast rail system. Rail service is almost nonexistent now. We need at least two lines East to West with North South arteries to big cities. People would willingly use fast rail to go cross country. Families would benefit tremendously by being able to live away from cities with a fast commute to city jobs.

This could be accomplished with a WPA type program. Better pay and benefits. No Halliburton contracts. There are thousands of people out of work that would be glad to learn construction jobs. The huge tax cuts could be rescinded to help pay for this.

We need to modernize and have an alternative to air and automobile travel soon.

Organizing is good, but seeking out people who aren't on board and engaging them is what getting organized is ultimately about. So right now, everybody in the choir needs to hit the streets and have lots of face time with doubters and those who just don't know enough to have it as a priority, personally and politically.
Changing behavior, whether it be in consumption or voting, needs education and a trusted friend who one can ask questions of.
Lots of people want to hear from someone who isn't a politician, journalist or salesman, especially on an issue that seems so overwhelming.
As for Time coming out on this issue, this is more of a gauge on the lag time required for good thinking to make it to mainstream media than anything else. It also shows how labels can be confusing. Biomass is still a bio fuel that isn't necessarily burning to generate heat. But watch it get dumped when agribusiness decides to lobby something else to stay at the federal trough.

There are many ways to approach the issue of reducing greenhouse gases and so forth, one of which is to stop eating beef!

For many years I was involved with and performed research and development on high performance and racing engines (and I am also a tree hugger). As a result, I came to the following conclusion: fuel provided us by the oil monopolies places limitations on engine design - LIMITING the potential for and level of efficiency (and horsepower production) of internal combustion engines. As a result, oil companies by the specific formulation have "built-in" a means of maintaining levels of fuel consumption and consequently exhaust emissions from mass produced engines.

To illustrate the variability of fuel formulations on the production of horsepower and efficiency: the fuel used by top fuel drag racing allows the engines to produce twice as much horsepower per combustion cycle (per cubic inch) than more conventional racing fuels. I'm not advocating the use of this fuel, but illustrating the point.

Water injection such as often used on turbo charged engines and air craft offers the potential to bandage the poor fuel formulation. It may turn out to be the best possible means.

WOW! Yes, to everything. People that think like we do should organize for strength. The vast majority of people want these things and don't know what to do about it.

Going off what Stephen said, we also need cleaner ways of getting electricity, so that electric cars are 100% green.

We need MAGLEVS running across the country!
We need electric Smart Cars!
We need more widespread public transportation!

Well said, Marilynn. Speaking of high-speed rail, you should know that John McCain is strongly opposed to funding Amtrak, and his candidacy would be a step in the wrong direction. Our massive interstate system needs to be overhauled, and we should invest billions into making high-speed rail networks a reality for our giant country.

Thank you Time Magazine. Biofuel is not a great idea. Solar and wind power needs to be utilized to generate more power and we need to force our auto makers to produce electric cars. Plus we need fast rail in this country.

Ethanol pretty much releases as much carbon dioxide as its oil counterpart in its conversion from corn to ethanol. Why bother, at that point?

DUDE! Biofuel is an umbrella term, it is used to refer to different types of alternative fuels. SO sick of this propaganda. sigh.

For biofuel, Ethanol is not worth even considering. The ratio of energy in : energy out makes ethanol wasteful to begin with.

Biodiesel is good when waste oil is used. Also, check out the link on Algae biodiesel.

http://current.com/items/88880454_first_algae_biodiesel_plant_goes_online_on_apr...

This is news?

I'm surprised Time was the magazine to come out on this side of the issue. It's about time.

All biofuels have done is raise the price of corn to the point where it's dicey in Mexico and to the staple of corn tortillas.

It's a sham as is the entire Global Warming issue being foisted on a public which seems these days to thrive on self hatred for being American. I've even heard it called "White Guilt".

Whatever.

I just wish people actually made their decisions after looking at both sides of an issue rather than just rely on your party status viewpoints on any given subject.

Oh and by the way? How's that "Global Cooling" that was predicted a number of years ago working out? Same people perpatrating the myths, just a different message.

Think about it people...

Good for Time Magazine to report on this. Biofuels aren't necessarily a scam, but ethanol, and corn ethanol especially seems to be. There have been massive subsidies and investments into corn, without sound science, and without smart planning. It usually takes more energy to create fuel out of corn than it ends up producing.