Food prices increased by 75% due to biofuel says World Bank

[Threegoofs]

Thanks, that was informative. It appears you are correct about food shortages. My original comment was incorrect.

However, I do foresee that climate change will have impacts.

Also... I read an interesting article yesterday about how using hemp to create biofuel would be 5-6 times more efficient than using corn. But first the government has to legalize the hemp industry, which it won't do because it could undercut many industries.

Doubt it. That’s cellulosic ethanol. Much more costly than simply converting starch or sugar to ethanol.

And hemp isn’t anything special when you have the process down. It would work for wood chips, sawdust, corn stalks, or the infamous switchgrass.

 

[Northern Light]

Doubt it. That’s cellulosic ethanol. Much more costly than simply converting starch or sugar to ethanol.

And hemp isn’t anything special when you have the process down. It would work for wood chips, sawdust, corn stalks, or the infamous switchgrass.

I think ultimately we just have to ditch biological fuels anyway. Creating biofuel requires energy which doesn't make much sense.

 

[Deuce]

I think ultimately we just have to ditch biological fuels anyway. Creating biofuel requires energy which doesn't make much sense.

Hypothetically there are possible avenues to create biofuels that are energy positive. Ethanol is definitely not one of them.

 

[Tim the plumber]

This World Bank paper explains that point in quite a bit of detail.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/175431468189237687/pdf/WPS7424.pdf

Do all those question marks mean that you no longer believe that the World Bank understands economics?

I beleive that it is utterly obvious that removing vast amounts of food from the market drives up prices.

I believe that it is probably possible for the very powerful farming lobby to get a world bank report made that says it does not.

I believe that everybody who is not mad understands that this practice of using vast amounts of food to make fuel at no real benefit even in terms of less CO2 output is simply a way for rich landowners to squeeze money out of the world.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Just to reorient everyone... food prices are not increasing tremendously. They spiked in 2007, crashed with the crash, recovered in 2011 and have been stable or declining ever since.

Hey after we made the price more than double it has come down a bit!!! Arn't we good!!!

The price was already inflated in 2010.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Literally one country has a life expectancy of 49 and it's not even 1% of the world's population, which is one of several reasons the "calculation" you always do regarding alleged biofuel deaths is horse****.

Every country has it's rich.

They live longer.

They are easy to count in the census.

The people living under a road bridge in India don't do so well.

Nor those living on a rubbish tip in Nigeria.

 

[longview]

I think ultimately we just have to ditch biological fuels anyway. Creating biofuel requires energy which doesn't make much sense.

Even though synthetic fuels take more energy to create than they carry, they still make sense, it is the energy density and portability that they provide.
The actual energy is not the issue, but rather is that energy in a usable form.
Solar power is great, but is low density, and has a poor duty cycle. The energy produced must have a demand within seconds, or it is wasted.
Storing the energy that would be wasted anyway as liquid transport fuels, allows that energy to be accumulated in a form compatible with existing demands.
I think the inorganic approach is better than the biofuel approach, and will not place fueling our machines in competition with our food supply.