Energy Crisis

Gauracandra · May 22, 2001

There has been a lot of talk in the U.S. lately of an “energy crisis”. Gas and energy prices have steadily been creeping up over the last few years. So I thought it might be interesting to discuss what are some possible solutions to this problem.

There are two general ways I see for the U.S. to fix this energy problem. First, we can use less energy. This can take many forms: more fuel efficient cars (perhaps smaller vehicles instead of monster SUVs), better city transportation (buses, commuter trains), better insulation for homes, more efficient light bulbs, and just less use of electricity (like turning off the TV once in a while) etc… The second approach would be to find and utilize other sources of energy. These can be solar, wind driven, water dams etc… I have always thought that dams were an effective source of cheap, pollution free energy. But there is an environmental cost to dams because many fish can no longer swim upstream to spawn. Personally I have never thought that wind power would be very reliable and have much impact. Solar seems good to me, though I don’t have any practical experience with it. Does anyone here have practical experience with Solar panels? For instance, suppose the roof of a house is covered in solar panels, will that be enough to take care of the energy requirements of that home? And how much would solar panel siding cost to install and maintain on a home? Is this cost effective relative to a general home electric bill?

One source of energy that I do believe in is Ethanol. Several years ago I put together a 25-30 page report on ethanol: its historic use, production, capabilities etc… I have since misplaced that report but do remember a few things from it. For instance, in WWI almost all of the German vehicles ran off of potato alcohol. Once alcohol reaches 150-200 proof (75-100% alcohol) it becomes good as fuel. Also, I believe Brazil utilizes ethanol or gasohol (ethanol mixed with gasoline) as a way of combating its dependence on outside energy sources. Perhaps Satya could fill us in on this. There are several benefits to ethanol. First, it is pollution free. Once it is burned all you get is water vapor. Second, it can be a good way to maintain agricultural prices. Right now in the U.S. the government purchases thousands of tons of agricultural products to KEEP OFF the market. This is a way to keep prices of corn etc… high so that farmers can make a living. The economics of agriculture are such that because they are a commodity product the prices and profit margins often get razor thin. What does the U.S. do with all this excess food? Do we give it to poor countries? No. We dump it in the ocean so as to maintain the world price of grain etc… at high levels. Its completely stupid, I know. Anyways, we could just as easily take that excess grain and develop ethanol to fuel our cars. Another idea I thought of a long time ago that I have read is under development is the use of human waste as a source of ethanol fuel. My idea was since there are 300 million Americans, each one produces biological waste every day. We have transportation for this waste to common sites for processing. Right now there is sewage treatment, but there is no other benefit. Recently I have read that some scientists have been developing bacteria that will eat these waste products, and as their waste product, will release alcohol (that’s all brewers yeast does with grain). So we could utilize the waste products of millions of Americans as a way of fueling our vehicles.

These are some ideas. Please chime in with any thoughts you may have or practical experience with alternative sources of energy.

Gauracandra

suchandra · July 5, 2008

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive

A handful of corn before it is processed. Photograph: Charlie Neibergall/AP

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.

"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."

Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".

President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.

Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.

"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.

Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply.

The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.

Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.

"It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change."