In article <[email hidden]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o
r p . c o m said:Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these important factors before they proclaim biofuels
to be the answer to our woes.
Here's a li'l excerpt of a propagandum from those who talk of biofuels:
whybiotech.comindex.aspOpen ↗
"Higher Corn Yields are Making Ethanol More Energy Efficient
A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture study found that ethanol production is becoming more
energy-efficient all the time because corn yields are rising, less energy is required to grow
it, and ethanol conversion technologies are becoming more efficient.1
While the August 2002 study -- The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update -- did not
specifically mention biotechnology, a co-author of the report says an updated version of the
study will likely include references to biotechnology and other innovations that have led to
greater yields, which have made ethanol conversion even more efficient.
My guess is that when we review the new data from 2000 and 2001 we?ll see higher yields, and
maybe some of that is attributable to biotech corn,? said James Duffield, an economist with the
USDA?s Office of the Chief Economist."
Quoted message said:We would have to increase agricultural output and those increases would likely occur in areas
which require additional irrigation which would have significant impacts on our water supplies
which are already running thin in most parts of our nation.
Who says it must be domestically produced? My [unsubstantiated] guess is that it would be quite easy
for certain multinational corporations to "persuade" less well-to-do nations in, say, Africa, to
forego growing their traditional crops, in favour of biofuel-producing biomass -- possibly
genetically engineered to thrive in drier climates, and to produce high yields. The stuff would of
course be licensable as intellectual property, so the growers would have to meet certain commitments
for the priviledge to be exploi-... er ... to grow it. (Okay, I admit I've become a bit of a
Rifkinite.)
So, I'm skeptical of biofuel as an alternative fuel -- not only because of its possible
socio/political implications; I also sense it's too much of a stop-gap measure that distracts from
the quest for a cleaner and more abundant energy source.
But just to play devil's advocate: the existing fossil fuel- powered technology would readily be
adaptable as legacy technology for biofuel. And cleaner, less GHG-emitting[*], or resource-consuming
production methods *might* be discovered. But then, a hog might jump outa my butt one day, too.
cheers, Tom
[*] I understand one of the attractions of biofuel is that biomass, as it grows, is supposed to
"re-consume" GHGs. emitted from previous use. But I believe current production methods actually
contribute more GHGs on top of those produced by just using the fuel. There's stuff on the good ol'
"dependable" ;-) WWWeb to that effect, anyway.
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
