Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

There is the issue about converting agricultural land used to produce food to fuel production. We are already seeing costs increases in corn and corn products as the U.S. demand for ethanol increases. This fuels the trend of farmers shifting their crops (including non-corn crops) to corn for ethanol production. This does not bode well for food production in the U.S. though the up side is that farmers have a crop for which they receive better compensation. However, as food production in the U.S. decreases, then importing food will increase. But then how long will it take the farmers of the world to realize that they too can make more money from ethanol crop production than for food production?

Brazil is an example, though it is difficult to determine what kind. Brazil is one of the major sugar, and sugar product producers and exporters in the world (Bolling & Suarez). According to UNICA, sugarcane production in Brazil increased by roughly 25% between 1994 and 2003 (240.944.002 metric tonnes to 317.865.290 in 2003). The is remarkably little information on how much using sugarcane for ethanol is costing Brazil. However, Brazil is heavily subsidizing ethanol production. However one has top wonder about the added 25% of cropland (or rainforest) to sugarcane. One has to ask if they are moving sugarcane from export to ethanol. One has to ask how they make up for the export income lost in this conversion to ethanol as a fuel source.

We of course have the ongoing issue that producing ethanol (and most biodiesel) takes more energy than those fuels provide. According to some research from Cornell University :

" In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;

switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and

wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and

sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. "

Reportedly Brazil is increasing the efficiency of ethanol production, but I know they are using industrial farming methods (mass agriculture using petrochemical-based fertilizers and pesticides and large farm equipment).

Biofuels are very likely going to drive us deeper into the energy crisis than save us - at least in the short run. Reducing food production in a hungry world also doesn't seem the best path to take.

I know that a lot of peakers are hot on biofuels and this plays nicely into corporate interest - particularly oil interests. We really need to add a "grain of salt" and some common sense into this rush to Biofuels.