Talk:Biofuel

Genetic engineering and biofuels

Obviously genetic engineering could make more efficient bioproducts for conversion into energy. I am fairly certain such work is being done, but such information is missing from the article. It would be good to expand it in this direction.--Molobo (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I added a discussion of genetic engineering to Bioalcohols for you Escientist (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag "Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate" section

I've added a POV tag to the "Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate" section as it is too negative. I think terms such as "absolutely catastrophic," and "crime against humanity" have no place in a balanced encyclopedia article. I also think the highly-opinionated "Comment" piece from the Guardian should be avoided. We should draw more on the many recent reports which are available, which are more balanced and comprehensive.

Benefits, such as the importance of higher returns to farmers, have been overlooked:

However, such increases in the demand for, and price of, crops can provide higher returns to farmers. Moreover, higher prices for agricultural crops are one possible answer to the “paradox of agriculture”. Under this paradox, during periods of high yield, farmers have had to sell their output at low prices because supply outstripped demand. Now that there are potentially alternative uses for food crops, supply and demand could become more balanced, resulting in higher prices for agricultural produce.[1]

And there is too much unsourced/citation needed material, making the whole presentation quite dubious... Johnfos (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• let's address the issues:

1. read up on NPOV policies: it requires representation of all views, if the overall picture turns out to be negative then that is it. (just an example: is there anything nice to report on Droughts?)
2. the catastrophic and crime quotes are from a United Nations expert see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm and very credible. You intent to censor him because of his choice of words? The article neglects to mention that Ziegler assumes that after these 5 years:

Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel.

1. Monbiot is not just a campaigner but also a columnist for the Guardian. He basically repeats the UN report so we do not really need this statement His statements though are referenced but his critics statements are not. These should go for certain.
2. Two main counterpoints are already represented in the article: increased profits for farmers (opening sentence) and switch to non-food ethanol sources. Both benefits are also covered in the NGM article.
3. the reference you give above, a UN newsletter I find not credible, the quote you give above I have been unable to find in that newsletter.
4. as in any article, uncited material should be delt with: add a tag and add the date tagged as well. And after lets say 6 months remove the statement when still untagged.

V8rik (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference UN independent rights expert calls for five-year freeze on biofuel production http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24434&Cr=food&Cr1= provided in the Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate section could not be verified because the URL would not open. To be fair, the general "NEWS" section at the UN website would also not open, so I have left it in, but it still needs to be verfied. Fireproeng (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See above: I have already provided an alternative link (BBC news) with relevant information that verified see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm V8rik (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So the UN.org link should be removed? Fireproeng (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say replace it with the BBC reference V8rik (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Fireproeng (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can we please have focussed talk topics, if we pile everything up into just one section it will be inpossible to sort things out. V8rik (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are two issues being discussed here - One is that of Wikipedia style - The other is that of balanced content.

• The issue of biofuel is clearly a controversial "debate" with strong emotions on both sides of the fence. Most of the article is pro-biofuel. This section merely tries to add some much-needed practical reality balance to the topic. The new 2007-12-19 U.S. energy legislation provides $7 billion in subsidies for producing 35 billion gallons by 2022. Some Presidential candidates are calling for 60 billion gallons by 2030. Some scientists are suggesting that the impact on agricultural effort, land and water are unsustainable. Biofuels are most certainly non-scalable. (See final citation)

• Farmers need subsidies, but not ones that diminish food production and starve 2 billion people. Diverting any resources from food production, when nearly a billion earthlings are starving worldwide, should indeed be considered internationally illegal. We have an abundant set of clean energy resources, with fuel that is free. We must learn to live in harmony with nature, and not contiue the thought process that lead us down the non-scalable, unsustainable path to petroleum. Biofuel is a non-scalable detour toward our clean, free energy future. IMHO

• I did not say it in the article, but solar and wind energy have none of these negative impacts on humanity. We need a realistic view of all alternatives, including limited use of biofuels from otherwise-useless waste, but only if the net energy gain + reduction of disposal problems (like citrus peels) is worth the effort.

• The solid citations in this section should remain - They are merely facts, without Wikipedia editorial content. Uncited speculation should be removed, or citations added, to conform to proper Wikipedia style, but Wikipedia invites both-sides of controversial issues, and the 5-pillars Welcome invites bold contributions, which editors can then clean up (not indiscriminately block delete if they do not agree with the cited position).

• Let's come to agreement, and remove the POV.

• I invite and appreciate constructive criticism. Escientist (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I have added the missing citations, and tried to make it more balanced with a discussion of collocation. Can we now remove the POV, or would someone please be very specific about what remains to be changed. Please propose specific rewording that preserves both sides of this reasonable international debate. Escientist (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We have made progress, the fact tags have been covered so I agree that the POV tag should go. Ideally Johnfos should join the discussion (he put up the fact tag) and hopefully agree and remove the tag himself. A general remarks for editors: try to use edit summary especially when deleting content V8rik (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the POV tag now. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall article refrences

Have added tags to many unreferenced statements, and reworded obvious POV. Fireproeng (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bioenergy from waste section refrences

The reference [2] provided in the Bioenergy from waste section should not be considered as an adequate primary or secondary reference. It is unclear from what source this website derives it's statements, and the owner or author is unclear. It may be a nice looking blog. I have removed it, added a tag. Fireproeng (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty reduction

Please include in the poverty reduction-section following information:

In the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer argue that a large-scale biofuels industry will harm developing nations, not help them (How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor). The authors flatly state that "if oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum." Just as with palm oil, the article argues that the sky's the limit for biofuel crops that compete with food. One of their examples is casava, which is an excellent ethanol source due to its high-starch content. If the developing world turns to biofuels to replace oil, it seems like a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

A rewrite of the information is offcourse necessairy. Also include the link to the report.

original text/article —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate

I would like to urge editors to keep the Biofuel#Rising_food_prices.2Fthe_.22food_vs._fuel.22_debate focused on food vs fuel, other issues (soil erosion, deforestation) should be placed elsewhere. Also when editing try to avoid big rewrites: it is difficult to tract changes this way, especially in disputed sections try to go for more smaller edits with extended edit summary. Also: many fact tags still to tackle. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8rik (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• forgot to sign! V8rik (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spin off "Current issues in biofuel production and use" into a seperate article

• I think "Current issues in biofuel production and use" (or food vs. fuel debate, same thing, or named better) should be spun off as another article and just summarized and linked from here. My reasoning is that the debate is valid and applies to all biofuels, and would be worthwhile as a mention in all biofuel related articles, ie: biodiesel, etc. Another benefit is that the information is somewhat controversial, and centralizing the info into a single article that can be 'borrowed' from in other articles may make citations and management easier, while actually providing a better environment to expand the article, providing citations for both sides of the debate. I would like some input on this from others. Pharmboy (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• the information in the issues section is not controversial. This section is also central to the biofuel theme. No need to create a new article. V8rik (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to spin off "food vs fuel debate" as this issue is common to all biofuels. Other issues are not though so I would not use the word "issues". Vincecate (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to create a separate, expanded article on the food vs fuel issue, using it as a {{main}} source in this and some of the other biofuel related articles.--Paleorthid (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Currently there is something here in biofuel, and also in biodiesel, ethanol economy, and in vegetable oil economy and probably others. Vincecate (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a start on a food vs fuel article. Most of the stuff there came from here. Any help appreciated. I will probably fix it up some more then reduce what is here to a summary and pointer to the new article. Any objections or encouragement please note here. Vincecate (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Net energy gain

I added a ref in support of a 3.2X net energy gain for biofuel. However, it is the primary source, and I am hoping somebody can help me dig up a reliable, published secondary source. That's especially important because the 3.2X value is forcefully disputed (Pimentel, 2005, (pdf), ([3] ) and the basis of the dispute is itself widely disputed (Journeytoforever, html), (Gerpen, pdf). A secondary source is needed that reconciles these perspectives. -- Paleorthid (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are different biofuels and they have different net energy gains. I think I have seen 3.2 for biodiesel, but ethanol or vegetable oil will have different numbers. And even one type can have different numbers depending on many details. Vincecate (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunlight-to-Wheels Efficiency

New section called Sunlight-to-Wheels Efficiency but without any references, also google score 2 for this phrase, are there any citations forthcoming? V8rik (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Guess not, section removed. V8rik (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Too bad to lose that section; those were some interesting facts. Would be good for that information to return with references that faciliate transparency in following the calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyga (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"The black soot that is being carried from Asia to polar ice caps is causing them to melt faster in the summer." This is in the second paragraph, and seems to add little to the article, and does not seem to be grounded in fact. Additionally, it seems to be suggesting that the increase in polar ice cap melting is due to the actions of the inhabitants of Asia, which is untrue. Comment should be removed. 58.172.169.141 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon emissions

I added a specific example to this section, because it makes the section better. Here is what I added:

To explain one specific example of how biofuels cause more harm than good, a June 17, 2006 editorial in the Wall. St. Journal stated, "The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more. That's because it takes enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy to grow corn (using fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops and then to turn that corn into ethanol."

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the Pimental/Patzek work is widely disputed, it is even more widely accepted, and on that basis it should be included in the article. We probably need a balancing note about the disputed nature of the P&P work. For those not aware of the dispute, the problem is mainly what looks to be biased figuring. A case in point is the incorrect allocation of the energy used to manufacture agricultural lime (see Gerpen, pdf) in the dismissal of the positive energy balance reported in a previous (and far more rigorous) study on biodiesel. Peer review of Pimental's work apparently doesn't extend to strict intellectual rigor. Second problem: the type of conflict of interest that can lead to biased figuring: "Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company as a researcher, consultant, and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of US$60,000-120,000 per company per year" source: (Journeytoforever, html). Informing the reader as to the importance of achieving a truly positive energy balance belongs in the article, it is a shame that we have to rely on such a weak work to support this critical point. Rock stars in science: what can you do?--Paleorthid (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PNAS source assistance needed

The following fact needs to be added to the article, but I can't locate the source: "...a recent five-year, three-state study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln shows that switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than that needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol. The study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also shows that along with the energy advances, switchgrass also offers significant environmental benefits, including many conservation uses ‑ the deep fibrous roots of the plant help to keep soil intact and virtually stop runoff. It puts organic material back into the ground, improving soil, and requires no pesticides or fertilizers." (source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleorthid (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unmitigated disaster

Biofuels are now being touted as the new "green" alternative to petrol and oil. However I am of the opinion that they are going to lead to disaster, the beginning of which we are already seeing. Firstly land that was previously used to feed people will be turned over to biofuel production, food prices will soar, and then people will starve. The next step will be to convert the few remaining habitats for wildlife and surviving natural ecosystems into biofuel and food production zones. This will for example, decimate the Amazon rainforest completely (in fact it already is). All this is completely unnecessary as we can run cars on a variety of fuels such as hydrogen, air or even water. Although Electricity may be needed to produce some of these fuels this can be done using wind, solar etc (there is for example a new running prototype of a wind generator which can produce 5 times as much electricity as a nuclear power station) . So why are Govts supporting biofuels if they are such a potential nightmare ? I believe govts are supporting Biofuels for two main reasons - one - they can use current infrastructure - they can more or less swap from oil to biofuels. Secondly it will allow large companies such as Shelll and Exon to maintain their economic grip on the fuel industry - they will simply start selling Biofuels instead of Gas/petrol. Once again we are being led by the nose down the path of disaster by those who seek to serve their own financial interests at the expense of millions and the planet - once again we are behaving like docile cattle being led to the slaughter - sometimes even supporting our own worst interests (like those who adhere to Exon Mobils semi - fraudulent studies on global warming - even though they are not being paid !) I cant help feeling that human apathy and tendency towards blind obedience (see Millgrams experiments in obedience) is something that needs to change fundamentally if we are to survive as a species.

Biofuel Special

Take a look at this biofuel resource. Might be added to the sources: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/special/biofuels.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.89.139 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jargon

"Biofuel may be jargon but you can be sure it is derived from biomass jargon". Biomass is equally jargonous as biofuel.
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact on water resources

Great contribution but with two remarks:

• Some of the issues raised are only relevant to parts of the US where water is scarce and therefore some of the content is better placed in Ethanol fuel in the United States.
• Some of the statistics and calculation can also be placed as a footnote.

V8rik (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure, I believe that irrigation of crops used as feedstocks for biofuel does occur outside the US, although it is true that Jatropha is rainfed. For example, sugarcane is irrigated in many countries (e.g. in Morocco), although in Brazil much of it seems to be rainfed. I would thus keep the section here, and perhaps someone could also include it in the article on Ethanol in the US. Concerning the calculations, I will move them in a footnote.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GM ethanol production for E85 fuel

The way the article is written cellulose and old tires are both need. This is not true. Old tires can be used but are not required. Wood chips would be used and any plant material that would normally go into a landfill can be used. Some cellulose can be recycled so it will not be used to make ethanol. All cars in the USA can use E20 fuel since 1988. Michigan has used E10 fuel only for several years now. Cars that can use E85 should get credit for 85% less CO₂ emissions.

Dsmith7707 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

The purpose of this article is to explain biofuels. Please take out all the stuff that belongs in a debating forum.Landroo (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article editing

Could somebody please change the heading 'Columbia' to 'Colombia'. The name of the nation in South America is always spelt with an O (yes in English as well as Spanish), unlike the various cities, provences and districts of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.204.65 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)