I have more concerns about biofuels. Tremendous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides are required to grow any monoculture crop and i have seen some reports that this would require as much or more petro products than are saved in the long run, not to mention environmental contamination.
China is indeed actively searching for oil alternatives. It already extensively uses solar power as well.
I think bioconversion of waste using syngas fermentation gives us the best renewable fuel solution. We exploit a feedstock with a negative cost (it doesn't have to be grown with any fertilizer and is not competing as a food) and we clean up the environment (reduction of landfills) making a cleaner, renewable fuel (reduction of greenhouse gases). By embracing waste as a feedstock we greatly expand the volume of biomass considered for conversion at the very locations where we don't otherwise create ethanol - urban centers - creating much needed employment opportunities. Not everywhere has fermentable crops, but virtually everywhere is swimming in waste. An added benefit - decentralizing production reduces the geopolitical pressures and cultural friction that create wars.
I hear a lot of talk about the biofuels and I have to say that I just don't see it as sustainable. There are large farm conglomerates all across the US and other nations as well that are maximizing output of various crops to meet current demands for food around the globe. Is is practical or wise, to believe that we can somehow shift enough of the lands to production of biofuels without a significant impact to food production? I'm not prepared to say that it is.
I still believe that the answer is not biofuels, unless we can create biofuels from waste generated from current crop production. If we produce fuel out of waste, then I'm all for it, but shifting crops is dangerous because those crops are being currently harvested for a reason. They are needed.
I believe hydrogen is the answer. Water is currently the single most abundant resource on this planet. By splitting it up into Hydrogen and Oxygen we're not doing anything devastating by putting them back together again in the process of running our cars. There's zero loss there. The question we do have to ask is how much are we willing to deal with in terms of Hydrogen production? Are we prepared to store spent fuel rods and nuclear waste if we use nuclear power to obtain hydrogen? Are we prepared to continue mining coal to produce energy to create hydrogen? These are difficult questions whose answers affect generations.
Perhaps Jeff is right suggesting the possibility of a downshift. We've grown too many to sustain ourselves. At least it appears that way.
When we talk about biofuels and Asia it is worth talking about the booming palm oil industry in SE Asia, and the trade to China and India. I have written a number of pieces on the double edged sword of devloping biofuels from palm oil. Prime threat being the conversion of peat swamp forest for palm oil cultivation. These scenarios see up to 10,000 years worth of carbon locked in the peat at risk of oxidation when the swamps are drained. The sustainable biofuel planted on top has such a minor carbon impact compared with the loss of a carbon sink that we should be very wary of this sort of development.
Stay up to date with the orangutan and palm oil story at our dedicated website to raise the profile of the issue - www.cockroach.org.uk - home of the Orangutan Film Protection Project
International help on the campaign would be greatly appreciated. The three major importers of palm oil are the European Union, China and India. We are mounting an effective campaign to raise awareness of the issues here in Europe but would welcome help to raise the profile in India and China.
Please drop me an email if you want to help:
nick@cockroach.org.uk
Director, The Orangutan Film Protection Project
Commenting by HaloScan
