TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

[...] few weeks ago, I posted a story about the use of corn as the plant of choice in the production of ethanol. Scientific American is reporting that several Central U.S. states–Nebraska and the Dakotas, [...]

Using bio-fuels is one the worst ideas we can imagine. To fill the tank of an F-150 with E85 ethanol, It would require enough corn to feed a fully grown man for one year. ONE YEAR. And we will be using this to drive to work, probably wont even last a week with fuel efficiency standards we have at the moment. As with oil, the cost of the fuel AND food will go up as its usage goes up. New research also shows that bio-fuels are not as clean as they were thought to be. They are hydrocarbons after all. A better alternative would be hydrogen.

Well, I think that anything that would have a starter negative impact on all the nations should be throughly thought out before being used. I think a waste product could eventually be turned to a form a fuel. However, the previous history of environmental developments shows that it might take more than 5 years to do that. I think it would be beneficial if maybe something like corn husks or pea pods could be used to develop fuel…we’ll see?

When you consider that over 1 billion men, women and children worldwide die because of malnutrition and poverty, it casts a harsh light upon foward-thinkers trying to use “excess” crops to produce fuel. Most Americans drive themselves anywhere they need to go, .2 miles down the road or a day long road trip. If we were to switch to biofuels, imagine all the crops the industry would consume to support America’s fuel needs alone. I think it’s just wrong that people are dying every single day because they couldn’t even get one meal a day and we’re debating whether to convert life-sustaining crops into fuel for ourselves so that we don’t have to spend as much money hauling our lazy selves around. I completely agree with Mr. Ziegler in that we should wait to promote biofuel until we have found a way to use the waste products of the crops instead of the food crops themselves. It truly is a “crime against humanity”, us flaunting our wealth and prosperity in the hollowed out faces of third world countries who would give anything for the crop cast offs we’re using to make fuel.

If there already are cleaner fuel sources from which cars can run off of, why arent more cars and more engines being built to accompany these new and more environmentally benificial changes? Are there any downfalls to using food waste products as a fuel alternative? Are there any negative effects to the ozone?
Using this new fuel alternative sounds like such a good idea and I can only imagine how much it will help cut down pollution, but I don’t understand why we aren’t using it on a larger scale already.

using bio fuel will be a great advantage to third world countries.this would help third world countries to develop.if this happens our gas price could go down too. also USA will be able to “cultivate” our own fuel. but this also means OPEC nations will loose it is wealth

Why would the Third world countries suffer, the whole idea is about using waste products of the foods, I’ve never heard of any one munching on bannana peels (it really dries out your mouth), so why would they be effected, if anything they get to eat more, so fuel users get more of their unwanted peels etc.

I agree fergy ferg that we may not find a way to solve the world’s problems but i hope we don’t give up trying and as far as the grass clippings go it is a win win situation all we have to do is learn how to utalize it not that hard right? well i think that we need more solar panals, hybirds, and trolleys we also need to stop our water wasting we only have so much water available to us something like less than 5% and half of that is in our ice caps. i wouldn’t go as far as to say that we have bigger problems but i would say that we can’t figure them all out. i wish we could maybe i will who knows

Using plant material to create energy is a great alternative to the fuel energy we get from the ground, but if the world expands on this alternative won’t we eventually clear off land in order to plant more, and more to contemplate the demand for energy? I found an article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55934 (To watch on you tube: http://www.flixxy.com/alternative-fuels-research.htm ) that talks about how a man named, John Kanzius was diagnosed with cancer and tried to find an alternative from the harshness of chemotherapy by using a generator that creates radio waves. While he was trying to desalinate seawater with the generator he realized that the salt water in the test tube would burn like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies. Although there are a few problems with this alternative, how great would it be to create an energy source that uses the most abundant material found on our Earth? But, if this alternative doesn’t work out, the use of Sorghum instead of food materials (like corn) should be used to help relive world hunger.

True we need to find a way to help the third world countries and distribute food to them and the less fortunate but i also think that we must turn our eyes to the big picture and the affect this will have on our enviorment. this is were we live this is our future and although this may not be the correct solultion i believe its a step in the right direction. As far as keeping it green i think we need to conduct experiments to analze the affect this will have on our enviorment and maybe even implemment a similar solution.

Scientists are working towards an even newer fuel made from genetically altered plants which would solve the problem of cutting into the food supply. All I can say is, Go Scientists Go!

using crops for fuel is not a good idea in my opinion. a shortage in the supply food is already present and if companies begin using crops the shortage will raise the prices of food making it difficult for those who are barely getting by be able to purchase food.
if companies can produce fuel using waste products such as banana peels and the cobs of corn then that would be great and i would be all for it.

The want for cleaner air should never get in the way of the distribution of food that might ever lead to a hunger crisis in the world. Although a less polluted world is a hot topic and a great dream, the lives of human beings are absolutely more important.
However, there are possible ways to help both sides prosper. Fuel can be produced off of byproducts of foods such as corn just as some efficient cars can run off of the used corn oil that restaurants use when frying things such as french fries and would otherwise dispose of. If an agricultural country were grow and produce corn, while another country bought and used then used its less desirable byproduct for fuel, both countries would benefit. One would be able to make money off of corn as well as be able to consume it, and the other country would also have a food to consume as well as a cleaner source of fuel.
Mind that it is never economically smart to become so dependent on foreign markets because of the chance that it either fails to provide a product or is ever at arms with our country. So, maybe we should think about becoming a little more agriculturally inclined to produce more food products that can intern be produced into fuel.

Maybe if everyone did use corn oil as a fuel source, the world would smell like a big popcorn bucket. That’s my kind of world.

In my opinion, it is ridiculous to compromise with people’s need for food to purify emissions. To do that, the first step would be to stop driving pick-up trucks and SUVs, not taking away from food sources of third-world countries. In the U.S., we are already using more resources than most other countries. But once third-world countries become self-sufficient and start to produce their own food, then we can start using diesel. To us, food is a basic necessity and literally everyone here gets it, fortunately. However, in many third world countries, food is not available to many people, not because they don’t have money to buy the food, but just because there is no food, because they aren’t able to produce enough food. It’s not like we’re having to compromise with our food to give them food. We just have to use different fuels.

The use of food crops as fuel needs to be rethought. Yes it provides Americans with fuel that burns cleaner but it will also effect the other nations that we export food crops to. Nations that are already staggering under the weigh of starvation. It seems that every rose has its thorns. In the long run America’s cleaner fuel would cause the a major hit to the global economy. As one of the leading nations in the world it is our duty to what’s best for the entire earth, not just what’s best for us. We have a responsibility to the rest of the world. Americans need to seriously consider the pros and cons of this issue and realize that this might not be the answer to the depleting crude oil problems. By helping one problem it worsens an even bigger one.

We certainly have the technology to come up with other sources of fuel other than oil or crops. People are starving in the world, and though in the long run bio-fuels would help ease the onset of global warming, people are dying from hunger as we speak. We can’t solve one problem and cause another. Harnessing solar power and electric sources seems promising, but using food sources as fuel is walking a fine line.

Like many people have already mentioned in some way or another, this article seems to show the U.S. government, once again, in a self-absorbed light of doing what’s good for ‘us’. Though I do think it’s essential to find alternatives for fuel, because we obviously are using that up at dangerous rates, I don’t think that it’s a wise idea to decrease export to third world countries. That’s like stealing the little boy’s food to make the fat man fatter. I think our neglect for caring for and aiding other people among the human race is horrible, and instead of thinking of innovation for ‘us’ and for saving ‘our environment’, we need to find out ways to continue feeding and helping the lifestyles of those living in the worst of poverty.

I can understand how the idea for biofuels can exist. Crops in these first-world countries are bountiful and often exist in surplus. Why not take that surplus and make a quick, inexpensive fuel? That idea took off somewhere, and it’s good that it was caught. Even if we don’t really know what it’s like to live in poverty (and we likely never will), we need to understand how serious it is. Funny how in our convenience comes before others’ survival in multiple ways.

Seriously. People need to ride their bikes. That’ll solve a whole lot more than using crops that could be used to feed countries that need it. Where are we going to put all of those extra crops, hm? Oh wait, we’re going to cut down all of the forests so we can plant some corn to fuel our cars, and add carbon dioxide to our atmosphere, all at once. There goes our environment and a few third world countries.

There won’t be an easy solution for this. We’ll probably have to switch to nuclear power, but that will lead to where will we dispose of waste.

I mean, if you can take garbage out of a dump, compact it into little cubes, stick it into your car, and use that as fuel, that would be great. We’ll be cleaning up after ourselves…for the most part. I don’t think that using food crops will be feasible. We’re a growing population and we’re going to need food.

Seriously, what would you pick? Food or fuel for your car?

The idea of making fuel from other sources is a good one. However, using a food source that the United States exports to nations that seriously need the food is illconceived. The benefits of cleaner air do not outweigh a potential worldwide hunger crisis. Trading a long term problem for a short term one is not the right idea. The technology is currently available to use microwaves to break down waste (most things found in landfills) and convert it to oil. Another potential is burning ’salt water’. High energy radiation (I believe microwaves) can be used to bombard salt water and break apart the water molecules. The hydrogen atoms then combust. If this yields more usable energy than it consumes then we would have an near infinite energy source, the ocean, and no greenhouse gases or other hazardous chemicals would be released.

Why when we have so many people starving are we using food as a fuel source. We have the technology to create other kinds of fuel that burns clean and doesn’t use up food. Even though I would love to have a fuel that doesn’t kill the air quality, I would rather feed the people that don’t have food. In America most people have the luxury of food, and yes I mean luxury. In most third world nations food is just something that the people are lucky to come by. But here we are using something that we take for granted to fuel a car. When we could just take that food and feed the hungry or atleast get a start at feeding the hungry.

The enviorment is going worsen no matter what we do, only thing we are doing by using bio fuels is slowing down the process, and frankly its too late for that. And there are many alternate fuels besides biofuels and fossil fuels, for example hydrogen fuel cells or just using a hybrid car would help the enviorment. But it isn’t too late to solve the problem of world hunger, instead of using a precentage of crops in biofuels we should feed the world.

Strictly speaking, regarding the actual use of crops as fuel, is obviously a terrible idea. I highly doubt that the world could convert so quickly to fuel produced from crops. Even if we could, we would, as is epecially characteristic of human nature in this industrialized world, devour whatever crops were set aside for the production of fuel before we could blink. I just don’t think their are enough crops on which the global industrial machine can run.

What I love about the article is that it’s proposing to move the focus from the actual crops to their by-products- their waste. In this way, can’t the United States still export crops and still do a service to the environment?

Notwithstanding, it’s so demoralizing that we (industrialized nations) have placed ourselves in such a compromising position . That we have driven ourselves to the point where we must choose between the starvation of the poverty stricken and health of our environment. I’m not even going to pretend that I know where the path to the answer might begin – because to me, there really is no answer. I keep hoping that there will be a “click!” in someones head that will show the way to fix this mess we’ve created.

But even in that meager hope, there is a heavier, more persistent feeling of impeding disaster- that we’ve gone too far to reverse the effects of heedless industrialism. That whatever we might try to employ now to heal this environment will be entirely to no avail. Y

es, it’s a very pessimistic way to think, but I’d like to believe that I’m not the only one with apprehension regarding our precarious future.

But strictly speaking, regarding the actual use of crops as fuel, is clearly a terrible idea. I highly doubt that the world could convert so quickly to fuel produced from crops. Even if we could, we would, as is epecially characteristic of human nature in this industrialized world, devour whatever crops were set aside for the production of fuel before we could blink. I just don’t think their are enough crops on which the global industrial machine can run.

first of all we do not produce the maximum food that we are capable of producing. sometimes the feilds are just left there for a year not in use. so if a hunger crisis started we could produce more food if needed. it is all about supply and demand the farmers don’t produce all they can becuase if they did the price of their crop would drastically decrease becuase of the oversupply. so if we were to use certain crops as fuel and food then they could produce more then they currently are

Honestly to me these are two very important factors. But if you look at it in the long run…then the cons of one out ways the pros of another.

Air pollution is already a major issue. Would switching to using crop fuels really make much difference with all the damage that has already been undergone? Would we be able to undo the pollution levels that we currently have? I doubt it. So would it be worth causing people to starve over for maybe a little bit cleaner air. I am for conserving our environment, however the lives of humans is more important.

The word “starving” is missuesd everyday. I ssay oh i am starving all the time, but honeslty i have no idea what its like to be starving. I have a pantry FULL of food. But other people do not. To take away the crops they rely on would be taking a small part in the death of millions of poverty stricken people.

A person dies every 3.5 seconds from hunger. 2.8 billion people in our world are living in extreme poverty. Having food crops for fuel could possibly increase this staggering number even more. Food supply being one of the most concerning issues for third world nations affects us as well, with our large network of trade with other nations. Although, I’m pro-green and love the idea of using something natural for for fuel, we need to look at what we’re using and how that impacts people all around the globe… not just in our own backyard.

A decrease in U.S. food crop exports would affect not only Third World Nations, but within years, could also affect First World countries as well. In the long term (200+ years), perhaps the benefits of cleaner air would outweigh a potential worldwide hunger crisis now, since at our current pace, the earth may no longer be able to stage the human “play”
by that point. For the present, however, the technology does not exist to make this a viable argument against the current social and political unrest worldwide. A nuclear World War III over food crops, anyone?

A major decline of U.S. food crop exports would no doubt have a negative affect not only on third world nations, but within a few years, first world nations as well. In the long-long term (200+ years) (since at our current configuration food will not be the only problem at that point), perhaps the benefits of cleaner air (assuming the technology could be perfected) outweigh a potential worldwide hunger crisis, but for the present, the possible social and political implications are much more severe. A nuclear World War III over food supplies, anyone?

I heard of some people who run their cars with french fry grease. Here’s an article of a McDonald’s owner who does so:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11809771/
If we are trying to to find new ways to produce cleaner fuels why not with something like vegetable oil which is not an extreme necessity to some diets?

Using corn as a fuel probably wasn’t thought out too well because I’m sure if anyone with any intelligence would sit down and seriously think about it for a while, they would realize that although it has it’s short-term advantages and it opens up so many opportunities now, in the long run it would be a complete disaster because all foods will increase in price meaning hunger rates will increase all over the world since the U.S. is a leading exporter of foods for the world. The consequences definitely outweigh the advantages in this case. I’d choose to eat any day over having less exhaust come out of my car.

The thied world countries of today have no cars so a shortened supply of foods that they are dependent on to fuel cars would not benefit them in any way. If anything it would only raise the death rate in their countries. The air we breath today is affected by alof more factors than the gas produced by cars today if we really want to wipe out air pollution the other factors involved need to be looked at as well before we make the decision to deprive a country of food for it. This could cause an uproar for civil rights and despute over unfair treatment of third worldcountries that have little political influence.

I think that finding an alternative to using crops that people consume on a regular basis is a good idea however it may take alot longer than five years to do so. It didnt take long for people to realize the potentials of oil, it was also abundant and they were unaware of its effects on the environment. Corn and sugar are two substances that many people are heavily dependent on for sustanance in time if we were to use those for food and energy one of those options would have to be given up for the other and if not we would have to find ANOTHER alternative to that eventually.

With the amount of fuel that Americans alone consume, the use of food crops for fuel would probably wipe out our supplies. Not only would this not be fair to the third world nations that depend on us, but just as with the honey bees and honey, prices could shoot up.
When I was at A&M recently the Agricultural Department approached me and told me about Sorghum, a crop that has heat and drought tolerance. Here is an article about it: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070502_ap_sorghum_fuel.html
Sorghum is mainly used for livestock feed and “researchers said energy yields could top those from corn and at a more reasonable cost.” This is just one option that I have heard about, but it seems more reasonable than corn because it is not used as a human food source and grows better in the warmer areas of the United States than corn.

the decrease in food productivity due to overused land is causing farmers to look for new land. They can’t use land that is dry, rocky, or weed-abundent. the soil has to be rich in nutrients and other organisms need this too. so when they take over new land for food production they are ruining ecosystems. deceasing food supply for organisms, harming them with pesticides, and destroying their homes.
global warming, a future factor of food scarcity, is another issue. the world will get over heated and crops will dry out.
analysists say decreasing a third of grain out of live stock food will increase the world’s food supply.
i think countries should donate money to go towards underground sprinkler systems in Africa to decrease death rates cause by hunger and the world will have a greater food supply.