Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdago
Actually it is no myth. Food prices have risen dramatically since we started using our crops to make fuel and will continue to strech our food supplies until we develop a way to make ethanol without using our food crops. It is no coincidence that food prices have risen with the demand of corn for ethonal no matter what the politicians try to tell you. Corn is a basic staple around the world not only for people but for our livestock as well. And while energy costs as well as weather play a part in food prices do not think for one minute that using our food crops and land to grow gas is not effecting your food prices.
|
That simplistic view would make it nice and easy to place blame, but that's not how it is. Energy prices are the problem.
I agree that politicians are full of crap, but they're the ones blaming biofuel for rising food prices. I agree that it's no coincidence -- it is, as I said, that energy prices cause BOTH food price rise AND production of biofuels...so of course biofuel production and food price have risen with a strong correlation.
Ever heard of farm subsidies? The government pays farmers to NOT produce crops. Why not let them farm, which is what they want to do anyway?
I have it straight from the farmer's mouth on a truck forum; he reports that corn prices (that he gets paid) just have not risen much at all (and I'll note that when you go to the grocery store to buy fresh corn on the cob, it's nearly the same price it's always been). The increase is not about the supply of corn, it's about the energy used to process it (and all other foods).
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/20...t-of-food.html says this:
Quote:
Corn prices have little effect on the cost of food. Only 19 cents of every dollar spent on food goes back to the farm, and corn is just a fraction of that 19 cents.
More than 80 cents goes to labor, transportation, energy, etc. Americans who are upset about prices should point their fingers at the effect of a 29-percent increase in energy costs in 2007.
That gobbled up more of the family budget than the 4.8 percent rise in food prices - only slightly above the general inflation rate.
[...]
For example, at current corn prices, the corn to produce a gallon of milk contributes just 13 cents to the price.
|
Anyway,
corn is NOT the best choice for making biofuel, especially when you consider that they don't even use the whole plant. They're just using the kernel, and discarding the rest as waste. They could use more of the waste, or even better, they could use plants that are more efficient at producing fuel. There's loads of them, plants that can grow in each climate/region.
Best yet would be to harvest as much of the waste stream as possible; there's loads of ways to do this and they should all be in use. There's a company making fuel from
algae grown on raw sewage; it doesn't take much energy input at all, they harvest the algae to make into fuel, and what's left is water nearly clean enough to irrigate crops. There's a few companies making biofuel from slaughterhouse waste. It is reasonable to make fuel from discarded tires, even. There's LOADS of places to get material for ethanol/[bio]diesel fuels, and it's not unreasonable to assemble the lot of them into a pretty decent sized supply -- maybe nowhere near enough for everything, but certainly enough to make a big difference.