With all of the front-running democrats supporting biofuels and the senate bill that recently passed also supporting them in a big way, this article is definitely something to consider. Of course, even without this information, it has been somewhat obvious to me for some time that the subset of biofuels that put food for poor people in direct financial competition with rich people driving were a very bad thing.

Anyway though, here is some more information on why biofuels are a bad idea. I'd probably say that making biodiesel from used fry oil is a good biofuel. Anything that requires growing something specifically to produce the biofuel is likely a bad idea.

Burning biofuels may be worse than coal and oil, say experts

Anyway though, here is some more information on why biofuels are a bad idea. I'd probably say that making biodiesel from used fry oil is a good biofuel. Anything that requires growing something specifically to produce the biofuel is likely a bad idea.

"Scharlemann and Laurance also pointed to "perverse" government initiatives that had resulted in unintended environmental impacts. In the US, for example, farmers have been offered incentives to shift from growing soy to growing corn for biofuels."

I'm sure most people were like me and imagined the crops used for biofuels would be crops grown in addition to current food crops, not instead of current food crops - or even surplus crops, if there really is such a thing in a world where people starve to death.

Trust the big agriculture corporations and their finger puppets in government to figure out a way to make a bigger profit by simply switching crops. I mean, why go to the effort and expense of growing new crops for biofuels when you can just use the existing food crops?

It's so simple, why couldn't I anticipate it? It also has the benefit of raising the prices for the remaining food crops. It's another win/win situation for big business.

It's so simple, why couldn't I anticipate it? It also has the benefit of raising the prices for the remaining food crops. It's another win/win situation for big business.

Now you've got it!! And, just to make it even better, with corn, the best possible scenario and most efficient scenario is to get about a 30% improvement over just burning the fossil fuel. Remember that farming uses energy to grow the corn. So, for a max of 30% increase if done perfectly, we're really just finding a way for the fed to hand money to huge agribusiness for growing corn. Lastly, we're doing this at a time when we are already past peak grain production (corn, rice, and wheat) world-wide and are not yet at peak human population. This can't be good.

Biofuel Review has some decent articles from time to time.  Here's one on fuel from pennyweed.

http://www.biofuelreview.com/content/view/598/

Ummm,
I cant wait for the TRUTH to be told.
Its a PAIN sorting threw the BUNK, and lies, of WHAT IS and IS NOT.

Lastly, we're doing this at a time when we are already past peak grain production (corn, rice, and wheat) world-wide and are not yet at peak human population. This can't be good.

Yeah, I don't want to hijack the Topic but it always comes down to "...not yet at peak human population.". If there were a lot less humans, most of the problems of the world would disappear in a flash. Somehow, we can't seem to figure that out ...but that's another Topic.

Yeah, I don't want to hijack the Topic but it always comes down to "...not yet at peak human population.". If there were a lot less humans, most of the problems of the world would disappear in a flash. Somehow, we can't seem to figure that out ...but that's another Topic.

This is one of my favorite tangents, so let's run with it. I claim the problem starts with a misunderstanding. It was not supposed to be 'be fruitful and multiply'. It was supposed to be 'be useful and multiplex'. How to reverse this now? I don't really know.

This is one of my favorite tangents, so let's run with it. I claim the problem starts with a misunderstanding. It was not supposed to be 'be fruitful and multiply'. It was supposed to be 'be useful and multiplex'. How to reverse this now? I don't really know.

I'm sure you're correct. It's just a matter of the semantics not keeping up with the reality. The Bibble should have a 'Forward' that says, "update language as required".

In all seriousness, having a boatload of kids still makes a lot of sense if you need a lot of free farmhands. To save ourselves, we ought to be upgrading farmers all over the world and automating their tasks as much as possible, so they don't feel they need to have all those children to run the farm and feed Dad and Mom when they get old.

On the other hand, having lots of daughters, just so you can 'sell them off' is just sick.

On the other hand, having lots of daughters, just so you can 'sell them off' is just sick.

No sicker than having a bunch of sons in order to get slave labor while avoiding child labor laws, where applicable.

Back to original topic:

From New Scientist:
From the biomass of grasses harvested, scientists calculated that ethanol derived from prarie grass should yield 5.4 times as much energy as all the energy inputs combined.

Back to original topic:

From New Scientist:
From the biomass of grasses harvested, scientists calculated that ethanol derived from prarie grass should yield 5.4 times as much energy as all the energy inputs combined.

That sounds worthwhile. At least for the short term. Longer term, we're still looking for ways not to put food in competition with fuel. But, this does sound a lot better than corn ethanol, which, if I remember correctly, is predominantly what is subsidized by the energy bill that just passed.

Terraced lands..
Terrace the hill sides of mountains..

Terraced lands..
Terrace the hill sides of mountains..

Would you leave nothing unfarmed in order to have a healthy biosphere? Must everything be a monoculture of a crop to grow fuel or food for humans? How much can we lose and still have a functioning biosphere? Even if you are human-centric in your thinking, don't you want clean air and water? Don't you want rainfall inland that comes from transpiration of trees bringing the moisture farther from the shores of the ocean? The services that are provided by a health biosphere are measured in hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Personally, I love and respect wildlife and want them to have a place to live also, for their own right.