UN urges biofuel investment halt

[K. A. Pital]

Shifting from transportation of one kind to another is necessary.

But what kind of "shift" are you proposing? You propose to keep the car madness at the expense of dying people instead of, you know, actually raising the price of personal transport to be reasonably beyond people - but not beyond the government facilities - and thus ending the mass use of cars.

The reduction of CAR usage will mean the rise of other transport modes. Ambulances can use gas instead of bensin so far which is more economic, and ultimately the ambulances should be the LAST things taht are slashed due to oil prices rising.

The FIRST thing should be Mr. Jonny's useless, hulking car.

However, rising food prices don't mean a "shift". People can't shift from food to anything else. It's biology, not technology.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ditching food-based biofuels right now is not a bad thing.

I agree with ending the use of food crops for biofuels. I do not agree with the ending of investment in biofuel research and production, as the UN official in the OP demanded. Before you claim that I'm putting my car over the lives of starving people, remember that emergency services, i.e., ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars, also use internal combustion engines.

Look, if you read the gist of the article, the UN official was obviously taking aim at food crops used for biofuels. I seriously doubt he will fret about biofuels using algae, but as the article repeatedly mentioned, he was taking aim at the issue of food crops being used, and that speculation of food prices were killing people. As it stands, a huge percentage of new biofuels use food crops, and even if he were overgeneralising, he is not statistically incorrect.

That trains, trucks, and ships transporting food from where it's grown to where people need it, need fuel, either for their internal combustion engines or for the powerplants generating the electricity their motors need. That refrigerators, which allow food to be stored without spoiling in hot environments, need electricity to run. That a shortage of heating oil can lead to people freezing to death. That the inavailability of air conditioning can lead to people dying of heat strokes.

Trains can use electricity from power stations using either coal, or nuclear power. If you are going start fretting about cost, the same arguments can be hurled at biofuels. Trucks be damned except for short range use.

Before you accuse me of selfishness for my support of biofuel research, please provide a practical replacement for the kerosene that people burn in heaters to avoid freezing to death in northern areas; that powers the trucks, trains, and ships that transport food to where hungry people need it; that powers the refrigerators that store the food so it won't spoil; that powers the air conditioners to prevent people from dying of heat strokes; that fuels the ambulances that take people to hospitals, the firetrucks that firefighters drive to burning buildings, the police cars that police officers drive to arrest suspects and criminals.

Seriously, no one here is against biofuel research. You however are fretting that someone just condemned the industry for good reasons and you are peeved by it, tossing one bloody red herring after another, while missing the big picture. Right now, oil and natural gas is more than bloody enough to do the job of running what you are speaking of, and biofuels require more research into more energy productive types before embarking on a huge biofuel drive at the expense of food crops.

[Sidewinder]

But what kind of "shift" are you proposing? You propose to keep the car madness at the expense of dying people instead of, you know, actually raising the price of personal transport to be reasonably beyond people - but not beyond the government facilities - and thus ending the mass use of cars.

I am NOT proposing to "keep the car madness," I am pointing it out to say there's very little I can do to stop it (and unless you're a government leader, there's very little you can do), and suggesting that SOME method be found to accomodate market demands, e.g., using biofuels for the cars (that we can't stop people from buying) instead of fossil fuels. As for raising the price of cars, that may work in nations where the fuel costs are prohibitively high, but can you imagine the outrage that'll cause in the US? If you're an American politician and you suggest doing that, you can say goodbye to your job.

Ambulances can use gas instead of bensin so far which is more economic, and ultimately the ambulances should be the LAST things taht are slashed due to oil prices rising.

Natural gas is also a fossil fuel, one that is running out.

The FIRST thing should be Mr. Jonny's useless, hulking car.

I walk whenever possible; I drive mainly to a clinic in Los Angeles, where I receive treatments for injuries I suffered in the Army. It may be possible for me to take the bus or train instead, but Los Angeles' public transportation infrastructure is poor, and it'll take some time (and money) to build it up to the point where it's practical for me to use public transportation instead of driving. This problem is shared by my mother (going to work), the friends I met at the clinic (going to work and to the clinic), and others.

[Sidewinder]

Trucks be damned except for short range use.

Don't forget rural and secluded areas, e.g., Barrow, Alaska.

Seriously, no one here is against biofuel research. You however are fretting that someone just condemned the industry for good reasons and you are peeved by it, tossing one bloody red herring after another, while missing the big picture. Right now, oil and natural gas is more than bloody enough to do the job of running what you are speaking of, and biofuels require more research into more energy productive types before embarking on a huge biofuel drive at the expense of food crops.

I admit to overreacting to de Schutter's statement. But don't forget, coal, oil, and natural gas are all fossil fuels, and they'll eventually run out. I was supporting biofuel production (WITHOUT using food crops) for that reason.

[K. A. Pital]

Los Angeles' public transportation infrastructure is poor, and it'll take some time (and money) to build it up to the point where it's practical for me to use public transportation instead of driving

I understand that. In fact, that is a huge problem and infrastructure needs to be developed. However, if you vie to conserve things as they are, hopelessly trying to maintan the car culture instead of gettng more emphasis on good public transport, and actually driving food prices up in the process, what is good about that?

If your personal car becomes unacceptable, I doubt you'll starve or freeze. You'll cope. If a person can't buy a bag of rice in Tajikistan, he starves right there and then. Is that difference clear enough? I hope it is, because I really can't understand how the First World people can even dare to whine about anything which makes their life uncomfortable... really.

Don't forget rural and secluded areas

Russia has a lot of them. You can always find a transport reserve for that. It's not the kind of transport that will be cut first, the transport that is necessary. The unneessary transport will be the first to go under the knife.

but can you imagine the outrage that'll cause in the US?

Wow. Well, I can. But so? I can't really understand First World "outrage" - your lifes are so rich and comfortable, you're such a long way from poverty and malnutrition, so much financial and economic slack in your industrialized nations, that I really don't hold First World whining in high regard.

I know there's not much that can be done, especially because people remain uncaring dicks about it, but so? Should I support them? Personally, I don't.

I demostrated against Gazprom's blockade of Ukraine and Belorussia during the gas rows because of the smarmy, hateful comments of it's CEO ("Let's see how their pensioneers freeze in the winter!"). I never support assholes. Whatever "economic" reasons they, and their paid economis lapdogs produce to defend and exalt their pathetic status quo of human suffering.

[Darth Wong]

I was supporting biofuel production (WITHOUT using food crops) for that reason.

Well yes, having your cake and eating it too is a wonderful solution, isn't it? Too bad it doesn't actually work, at least not yet. Until somebody can perfect a solution for making garbage bad-soil crops into biofuel rather than infringing upon food crops or using land that would otherwise be good for food crops, all biofuels do is reduce the food supply in order to prolong the automotive lifestyle.

[ray245]

We can talk about using biofuel when we can somehow easily produce so much food until starvation is a strange concept to every single person on earth.

When that happens, we can talk about using biofuel. And correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the electric cars just get the energy needed from a nuclear powerplant for instance?

If that is possible, people really should not complaint about the car not being able to go fast enough and etc. Come on, how fast do you need to go on the streets?

[Sidewinder]

When that happens, we can talk about using biofuel. And correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the electric cars just get the energy needed from a nuclear powerplant for instance?

You forget certain difficulties with nuclear powerplants, of which the disposal of radioactive wastes is only ONE.

Waste is classified as either Low level waste (LLW), Intermediate level waste (ILW) or High level waste (HLW).

Low Level Waste
Waste other than those suitable for disposal with ordinary refuse, but not exceeding certain concentrations of radioactivity. LLW consists of equipment, protective clothing and building material (soil, concrete, cement and rubble) most of which can be directly handled by people. It is not particularly hazardous and is generally disposed of within a short period of being produced.

Intermediate Level Waste
Waste which is more radioactive than Low Level Waste but heat doesn't need to be taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities.

High Level Waste
Waste in which the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their radioactivity, so this factor has to be taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities.

Low level waste and Intermediate level waste account for about 97% of the waste produced.

HLW and spent fuel is kept in secure nuclear facilities with appropriate protection measures. Most high level wastes produced are held as stable ceramic solids or in vitrified form (glass), designed to ensure that radioactive isotopes resulting from the nuclear reaction are retained securely in the glass or ceramic.

Because of radioactive decay, waste can move from one category to a lower one, e.g. from HLW to ILW, or from ILW to LLW).

The storage or nuclear waste is a political issue, not a technical issue. Disposal solutions are currently being developed for HLW that are safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable. The most widely accepted solution is deep geological disposal, and repository projects are well advanced in countries such as Finland, Sweden and the USA.

A deep geological waste repository (WIPP) is already in operation in the US for the storage of transuranic waste - long-lived ILW contaminated with military materials such as plutonium. These countries have demonstrated that political and public acceptance issues at a community and national level can be met.

Today, safe management practices are implemented or planned for all categories of radioactive waste. LLW and most ILW are being disposed of securely in near-surface repositories in many countries so as to cause no harm or risk in the long-term. This practice has been carried out for many years in many countries as a matter of routine.

HLW is currently safely contained and managed in interim storage facilities. The amount of HLW produced (including spent fuel when this is considered a waste) is in fact small in relation to other industry sectors.

HLW is currently increasing by about 12,000 tonnes worldwide every year, which is the equivalent of a two-storey structure built on a basketball court or about 100 double-decker buses and is modest compared with other industrial wastes.

Expect this figure to skyrocket as we attempt to replace fossil fuel-using powerplants with nuclear ones.

Also, note that nuclear fuels are not magically shielded from the same supply and demand issues that plague fossil fuels.

Uranium prices have doubled over the past year and are forecast to continue rising on the back of this strong growth in nuclear reactors and lack of supply.