Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power

Are Biofuels Still Economically Feasible? 186

thefickler writes "With falling gas prices, and the end of capitalism as we know it (otherwise known as the credit crisis), the biofuels industry is not looking as viable as it once was. Indeed biofuel production has fallen well short of expectations, with biofuel companies closing down or reducing production capacity. It appears that the industry's only hope is government support."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Biofuels Still Economically Feasible?

Comments Filter:
  • They never were (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:36AM (#26156135)

    The biofuels of which you speak have always produced more pollution through their manufacture than they have saved through reduced car emissions, so their future is largely political, not economical.

    Oh and holy crap what an inflammatory summary. Yes the banks are temporarily not lending at the lower interest rates, no this does not have any effect on capitalism.

  • Algae is the future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by russbutton ( 675993 ) <(moc.nottubssur) (ta) (ssur)> on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:38AM (#26156139) Homepage
    The future of biofuel and food production is algae. It's the most primitive plant form there is and is therefore the most efficient at converting solar energy into an energy store (oil) or edible substances. A lot of work is going to have to be done to develop methods of growing and harvesting algae, but that's just engineering. Better get used to the idea of algae steaks as an alternative to soy burgers... Yum!
  • by Veovis ( 612685 ) * <cyrellia@gmail.com> on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:39AM (#26156149) Homepage
    Perhaps support of bio fuels will at least reduce our dependence on foreign oil... hasn't this been a concern for quite awhile?
  • by russbutton ( 675993 ) <(moc.nottubssur) (ta) (ssur)> on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:48AM (#26156213) Homepage
    You are correct if you assume that you're talking about food crops like corn, or even switchgrass as the biofuel source. They require traditional farming resources such as fertile land, good weather, water and fertilizer. But with algae, grown in carefully controlled environments like the Vertigro system, which is happier in the desert and consumes CO2 and inorganic materials, and is at least one or two orders of magnitude more efficient at producing oil and/or edible food stuffs, and the prospects change a great deal.
  • by OpenGLFan ( 56206 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:51AM (#26156237) Homepage

    Biofuels from macrocrops are generally infeasible, especially corn.

    Biofuels from algae are energy-positive, consume much smaller areas, and are currently our best hope of weaning ourselves from foreign oil. If we had invested in bioprocessing techniques for algae the way we invested in securing our oil supply halfway around the world, we would be an oil-producing country by now.

  • by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:53AM (#26156261)

    Back during the 1970's there was a fuel shortage and the bio-fuels industry picked up. Then we saw $30 a barrel and lower oil that drove all the producers out of business. Some say it was a calculated move on the part of OPEC to make sure that no competition arises. I'm not sure I'd go that far as OPEC nearly destroyed itself due to cheating in that period...

    It's not much of a surprise that it's happened again. (Gee what happened to that $200 a barrel mark the media was predicting by the end of the year). Bio-fuels were another way for the agriculture lobby to get more money for corn. So with cheap oil, everyone will go back to worrying about other things and in 10 -15 years when there is another disrupution and the prices sky rocket, people will once again start up bio fuel projects.

    You'd think we'd learn, but to quote Mark Twain: History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

  • by Sooner Boomer ( 96864 ) <sooner.boomr@gmail.cTIGERom minus cat> on Thursday December 18, 2008 @03:32AM (#26156841) Journal
    Research into biofuels is still going full speed. I'm involved in a project using switchgrass to produce diesel (and other products) directly through pyrolysis and the Fisher Tropsch [wikipedia.org] process. Other projects [okbioenergycenter.org] are looking at using switchgrass as a feedstock for conversion to ethanol, or as a "lignocellulosic material" that can be co-fired with coal, reducing costs and pollutants.
  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @03:38AM (#26156879)

    Actually, why aren't we considering this ... making gasoline from dead human bodies? If I could squeeze a gallon of high-octane out of granny and grandpa, why not?

    Although, it might be a bit creepy, tanking up with your grandparents.

    Of course, this would kill the zombie film industry: "There ain't no dead bodies in the graveyard, I done burned them up in my nitro-burning funny car!"

  • Vertical farms (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kupfernigk ( 1190345 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @05:19AM (#26157425)
    You may have noticed that there is growing interest in vertical farms - i.e. using the sides of tall buildings as farmland, based around hydroponics. Because vertical farms are enclosed, water management is easier. One obvious use is for growing transport-intensive crops like fruit, cutting the delivered cost by producing very close to point of consumption. But another would be to produce oil from algae. In either case, sun-receiving surfaces which currently have little function are being utilised effectively.

    A lot of people posting so far seem to confuse corn subsidy biofuel with biofuels in general. But there are other biofuels already which are not energy-negative such as alcohol made from sugar cane waste in Brazil, where the nonconvertible cellulose is burned to provide the heat input to the process. Here in the UK we have limited production of alcohol and charcoal from coppiced shrubs and timber processing waste; there are several other initiatives. Given that the price of oil is controlled more by speculation than demand, and given financial instability, we can expect it to change wildly over the next few years. Industries needing long term investment should be protected to some degree from the fluctuations. A working biofuel industry would help to stabilise the oil price, because it would introduce an element of competition into the fuels market. Speculators do not like competitive industries because it is harder to manipulate them.

  • by Genda ( 560240 ) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Thursday December 18, 2008 @06:37AM (#26157823) Journal

    There are fundamental fallacies to our existing economy. They assume a workable environment in which to do business, and that the environment is infinite and free. If you look at the economic cost of global warming over the next hundred years, the global price rises to hundreds of trillions of dollars. A few of the costs include;
    A) Land lost by sea level rise
    B) Damage caused by increase flood and drought
    C) Loss of critical biostocks (crash in fish populations, ocean acidification, key land ocean and air species)
    D) Storm damage
    E) Increased spread of tropical diseases
    F) Wars caused by loss of water, food, and habitable land
    G) Loss of land for agriculture
    H) Failure of environmental systems supporting a minimum quality of life

    Algae based oil is an excellent fuel alternative. Another is bioengineering new fungii discovered to produce diesel fuel directly from cellulose. Both of these technologies are utterly plug and play in our current petroleum base infrastructure. Both sequester carbon from the atmosphere, so their burning adds no new carbon and using them for other purposes like petrochemical feed-stocks actually removes carbon from the atmosphere. Both create tremendous new economic opportunities, and if supported by the government and the current petroleum business point us to a workable gap stop solution until helium cooled pebble bed fission and fusion are perfected.

  • by Yoozer ( 1055188 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @07:19AM (#26158129) Homepage
    You don't even have to invoke the spectre of global warming for this (of which /. has many doubters anyway); to avoid being raped by ludicrous oil prices ever again, it's in our best interest to get personal transport with great MPG numbers (so even if it rises, you'll still be laughing - and what's now spent on hauling 1 pair of buttocks from A to B is simply gross inefficiency) and independence of oil since there's so many ways to generate electricity - but none to generate oil.
  • by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @11:59AM (#26160633) Homepage Journal

    While I'm not a fan of corn based ethanol, I am a fan of having a heavily subsidized and regulated agricultural industry in the US combined with import tarrifs and controls in imported food stuffs.

    The combination of those factors ensures that farming in the US remains profitable to most farmers and guarantees that even in a global economic melt down, getting food to the plates of Americans will not be an impossible problem.

    It does screw with the global economy something fierce though and pisses on all of the non-developed countries that would typically be able to compete on the global market through agricultural exports. But personally, I'm a bit more worried about health and stability in my own country.

    -Rick

  • by jrvz ( 734655 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @01:46PM (#26162141) Homepage
    Energy storage is indeed the biggest issue. However, note that gasoline is one of the most efficient forms of energy storage around. So, how about synthesizing the gasoline (and diesel) via thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization [wikipedia.org]) of agricultural waste, garbage, sewer sludge, etc., using a nuclear power plant for the process heat (i.e. cogeneration)? Eventually we can use a fourth generation nuclear reactor that can burn the U235 and actinides in "spent" fuel from current reactors, and solve several problems at once (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nucleargen4.aspx [americanen...ndence.com]).
  • by Garrett Fox ( 970174 ) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @02:06PM (#26162503) Homepage
    I'm interested in the concept of "seasteading," the idea of colonizing the ocean surface. It's been proposed that a sea-farm can produce a profitable crop by using the huge "land" area available to grow algae and/or seaweed/kelp. Seaweed has many industrial uses as well as being edible, while simpler algae might be used for biofuels. Does this concept seem plausible to you -- doing it at sea? On one hand there's free "land" with solar energy, and less regulation and taxation, but on the other there're probably high maintenance costs and no subsidies. It seems as though the key to doing this profitably would be volume, which means developing dead-simple algae buoys of some kind plus a way to get the stuff to market.

    Even the authors of a book on seasteading, who emphasize the need for practicality, seem to assume that you need a multi-million-dollar giant techno-platform to get started. What do you think of a homestead-style biofuel farm consisting mainly of a boat and a raft?

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Working...