Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Last week, NexGen kicked off with a lively discussion about second-generation biofuels, which Sheril chose as one of the most promising energy alternatives in our post-oil future.
However, a lot of our readers—and other guest bloggers—pointed out the considerable downside of these biofuels.
Earlier this month, a World Bank report was leaked to the Guardian stating that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated. With an anticipated global population of 8 to 9 billion people by mid century, can we balance the production of biofuels with food production? Should we? Moreover, what will our transportation needs look like in 2050, and how, if at all, will biofuels be a part of that equation?
There's also the issue of sustainability: are biofuels completely renewable? (Or as Sol would put it, would they "close the loop"?) What happens when changing weather patterns disrupt crop rotations and optimal production zones?
Tune in all week for our guests' thoughts on biofuels.
Comments
One of the things that drives me nuts is biofuel based on corn of all things. The overall efficiency of corn biofuel production is such that it's a loss, or at least not worth it, which makes me really wish that corn subsidies were abolished.
Posted by: Yoo | July 15, 2008 2:46 PM
"With an anticipated global population of 8 to 9 billion people by mid century..."
Well, THAT'S the problem people should really be talking about, but no one ever does. Everything else discussed here is actually a secondary problem.
Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 4:45 PM
Dlux, you're right in that it's not fashionable or maybe it's considered impolite to mention population pressure as the foundation of all other environmental problems. Sometimes I think that's because the politics and ethics surrounding it are just too hard for people to face. Other times I think the prevailing view (not my own) is that population takes care of itself through demographic transition. In any case, considering how hard it is to create a safe-climate world with the current population, it's going to be that much harder with another 2 to 3 billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 15, 2008 6:19 PM
High commodity prices are fueling economic development in Africa. Just heard it on NPR's marketplace today. The same people who complained that US food exports were wrecking third economies last year are now crying foul over biofuels limiting those same exports today. I just don't get it.
Posted by: Lowry | July 15, 2008 6:48 PM
Normally I would be sensitive to thread drift, but since this post is more of a heads-up than one of substance, I don't feel bad going off on this particular tangent.
Energy needs should be addressed, by all means, but not bringing up the population component is neglegent, imo. (This also applies to any other environmental-science discussion, not just energy.) We can put on the blinders and concentrate on the nuts and bolts of energy production, but if these articles don't mention population, and recycling articles don't bring up population, and anything else depending on natural resources ignores population, when does it get brought up? Even tacking the idea to the end of an article in passing plants the word in people's mind for future reference...
As it is now, we are marching towards that cliff, albeit with better knowlege of energy options, but when we reach the edge it won't matter how efficient any given technology might be towards powering a light bulb.
Anyway, I've said my piece. Carry on.
Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 6:58 PM
You know the various connections here are too strong for me to resist mentioning the 30 years old 'Monolithic Oil' sketch by National Lampoon.
You can sample (MP3) a very apposite selection from it on Amazon. Just search in the site for "national lampoon monolithic oil".
Posted by: Grant | July 15, 2008 8:50 PM
The problem with bringing up population pressure is that short of draconian solutions involving genocide, in one for or another, there's literally nothing that can be done to curb that growth. So, in discussions on how we are going to survive it must be taken as a given that the population will, unless curbed by some natural phenomenon, continue to grow. Had we started 50 or 60 years ago truly raising the standard of living drastically throughout the world population would likely be stabilized or dropping due to the well known effect that as populations become healthier and wealthier they reproduce less. It;s too late for that now. That would have required not using up the 3rd world countries natural resources so that we could grow wealthy and comfortable (in comparison). Now there aren't enough resources to "go around" to make that happen even if we, as society, wanted to.
Posted by: Doug Alder | July 15, 2008 10:51 PM
Given that population reduction and use reduction have been mentioned in every thread in this blog, I would say that it's quite unnecessary to bring it up again.
Posted by: Anthony | July 15, 2008 10:54 PM
"Given that population reduction [...] has been mentioned in every thread in this blog..."
I just searched. It's come up in only two prior to this.
And yes, it's not an appropriate focus for a blog on energy technology, but still worth mentioning as a larger context for where things stand at any projected time. If we ignore it as a variable any holistic solution that falls short of projected needs is, obviously, a waste of time. People seem to forget that part...
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 1:54 AM
If there is potential that some of the less encouraging scenarios that come out of the Limits to Growth modelling might in fact happen - dramatic reductions in global population for whatever reason form the middle of this century for example - then discussing future energy with that in mind seems rather relevant.
Given the lead times for new technology development to reach the point of useful influence, which mostly requires some form of market ubiquity for economy of scale, 40 or 50 years out seems to be the target. Most available resource projections, such as oil sources, seem to look that far ahead as would infrastructure investment decisions.
A population collapse might force a review of energy production and perhaps lead to more localised solutions. Or it might be the result of compressing populated areas thus suggesting existing technology and infrastructures combined with greatly reduced demand (and hence extended availability of existing recoverable resources) would suffice.
When running a business that responds to market volume demands and attempting to make investment decisions that come on stream decades or more in the future these things matter.
Indeed some might argue that making the wrong investment decisions about future needs could well cause the problems that might lead to a self induced (as opposed to unavoidable natural calamity like a meteor strike) catastrophic (depending on your point of view) collapse in the human population.
Of course if such a thing were to happen a company with solid investment in energy generation from a variety of technologies that might be available on a location by location basis around the globe could have better potential for commercial survival than a company relying solely a global supply source product that requires shipping and transporting from remote sites.
So which ever way you look at this in the long term the potential shape and size of the market matters. Get the direction wrong and a lot of investment will be wasted.
Worse - that misdirected investment may cause uncontrollable problems that seed the issues leading to a rapid decline of human population. Whilst many might see such a result as desirable, for any number of diverse philosophical reasons, very few would welcome the processed by which it would likely be delivered.
In the end I guess it depends on whether you believe humanity has the organisational and planning capability deliver on a solution to a complex problem without a budget and time scale overrun. Oh, and the ready technology of course. Hence the reference frame for the blog.
Posted by: Grant | July 16, 2008 8:12 AM
"The problem with bringing up population pressure is that ... there's literally nothing that can be done to curb that growth."
Not so. Cheap, widely-available birth control would help, especially since most of the population growth is among the poorest of the poor. But religious groups and other irrational thinkers have fought this tooth and nail.
"High commodity prices are fueling economic development in Africa."
And high food prices are not completely bad. They should help improve the lot of poor farmers - a large part of the developing world - unless misguided 'cheap food' policies are mandated by politicians. Admittedly, once you start a cheap food policy, it's politically hard to stop!
Also, someone earlier posted a question about Sapphire Energy (http://www.sapphireenergy.com/). They claim to make oil from sunlight and carbon dioxide, which would make it carbon-neutral. I will repeat the earlier question: "Is this realistic or woo/scam?"
Come on, folks! Let's look into something we haven't debated a million times before. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting absolutely nothing out of these blog postings. (The comments, though, are interesting.)
Posted by: WCG | July 16, 2008 8:34 AM
Sapphire energy == algal biofuel, which in general is not woo, though in particular instances it may be a scam. The big problem with algal biofuel is that efficient oil production strands can only effectively be grown in an enclosed bioreactor, which is expensive (possibly too expensive to ever be competitive).
Posted by: Anthony Jackson | July 16, 2008 12:42 PM
The Guardian's 75% was a misquote. See here.
10% is much closer.
Posted by: DanielC | July 16, 2008 3:48 PM
Given that population reduction and use reduction have been mentioned in every thread in this blog, I would say that it's quite unnecessary to bring it up again.
Posted by: Zayıflama | July 18, 2008 5:11 PM