Biofuel or biofuel? It's necessary to choose !

[Christophe]

Bonjour Christophe

Apparently in the various xxxpedia they do not make the same nuance as you.

http://fr.ekopedia.org/Agrocarburant
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrocarburant

Yes and that's the problem!
Pkoi would we not be at the origin of the distinction between these 2 terms? Besides the term agrofuel I had not heard before 2007 ... it seems to me ...

Some dictionaries seem to ignore the words agrofuel and biofuel. If there is no "official" definition, it may be time to "drop" one and taking into account your idea made from "food" crops or not. Hoping that the fame and the good ranking (rank) in Google of your site supports the acceptance of this "new" definition.
A+

Absolutely KK1 would have the email of an academician by chance?

But it would be good to relay "around you" this precision in the definition ... since it seems to please ...

[Gregconstruct]

Pssssst ... Can I have hydrogen ???

[Christophe]

I just wrote a short story proposing a distinction between agrofuels and biofuels :
https://www.econologie.com/agrocarburant ... -3575.html

[Christophe]

Here is the reaction (by email) of David Lefebvre, agricultural journalist to this proposed definition. He is the author of this article: Algae Fuel Oil, the New American Green Gold Researchers.

I copy / paste in the state so as not to distort his words (in black the text of the new distinction between agrofuels and biofuels :

Agrofuels or biofuels? Proposed definition to distinguish them on 31/12/2007: 13:52

Agrofuels are currently very popular in the media but they are also widely criticized by some environmentalists who condemn them systematically.

----> Above all condemn their merits: they require too much fossil fuel. Maize bioethanol ultimately requires more energy to be produced than it contains. (Coef 0,88 according to Eden)

This condemnation of biofuels in the broad sense has, in particular, the influence they have on the price of cereals and, consequently, on the capacity of agriculture to feed people, which is, let us remember, its primary function. For more details on this subject read the new agrofuel, eat or drive is it the right question?

---> Cereal producers put forward other reasons for the surge in cereal prices: strong growth in demand from china and india, speculation on raw materials, hedge funds are now also focusing on cereals. .


But too often these convictions (justified for some but not in other cases) are quickly generalized to all biofuels, something which is difficult to accept as false in many cases, that is to say on biofuels of 2nd and 3rd generation!

---> Please note that there are only a few industrial pilots in operation, one in Sweden with lignin and another in Germany, but not in France to my knowledge. The solution to their good energy efficiency and economic viability lies in their versatility in absorbing different plant sources. And this is the whole technical difficulty.

We would therefore like to propose a definition distinction between the concepts of agrofuels and biofuels according to the very simple, following criterion:


Agrofuel: fuel made from feed or food plants. Example: ethanol made from corn or wheat.

Biofuel: fuel made from non-food biological resources (for humans or our farms). Example: ethanol made from wood waste (wood).


It is quite a founding approach but very controversial. The profession will retort you yes but the cultures on "industrial fallows". Wheat is also used to make plastic, cosmetics, why see it only from the feeder angle?
The question is in energy efficiency. If we manage to produce wheat at 300 quintals / ha without the need for oil, we would consider this wheat as much from its feeder angle as from that of a raw material for industrial purposes.

In my opinion it's a question of words agro + bio fuel + fuel. Agronomic versus biological. What differentiates them: inputs, from fossil origin on the one hand (fuels from plants produced from fossil resources) and from non-fossil origin from the other (fuels from plants produced from biological resources and therefore non-fossil)

Thus we would find the concept of agriculture for agrofuels and this would stop the amalgam which systematically condemns all biofuels because 3 multinationals have decided to currently develop the worst agrofuels in terms of overall energy balance ...

Any reaction to this proposal is welcome: Agrofuel or biofuel? It's necessary to choose

It's nice to be called a founder by a professional in the agricultural sector Thanks David!

[Christophe]

2nd reaction:

Agrofuels and biofuels

Indeed, there are behind image battles.

I don't have too much time to get interested but it is clear that cereal producers have long defended the term Biofuels.

This term quickly turned into agrofuel thanks to the poor energy efficiency balance of beet bioethanol (1,50) and especially corn (0,88)!

It is necessary to differentiate carbonaceous energy of fossil origin from that
of plant origin.

But this carbon energy of vegetable origin must have a
coefficient greater than 1, because otherwise, we cannot consider that it is really of vegetable origin since it takes a lot of petroleum to produce it ... For example plowed corn, fertilized irrigated and dried with fossil carbon (about 800 l EQF / ha) !!

[lily]

Here...
So I am far from being a specialist in the subject, but concerning the distinction between organic and agro-fuels, I believe that the difference is mainly played on a com 'plan!
For me, the big oil groups, too happy to ride the organic wave, hastened to promote their new activity by claiming to be producers of biofuels. However, all of the production techniques have absolutely nothing to do with the "organic" sector (whatever the value that is given to it).
It was then that the major Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations decided to introduce another term to refer to the same products ... This is how agro-fuels were born.
As for my position on agrofuels, it is more than mixed !! Indeed, during some of my readings, I could discover how polluting these cultures are! In most cases, the energy balance of these productions is negative. Let's not talk about the impact on the greenhouse effect of the use of certain fertilizers which send gases composed of nitrates into the atmosphere and supposed to be greenhouse gases 10 times more powerful than CO2.
However, note that I do not reject while blocking ... It seems that among these fuel generators, sugar cane pulls out of the game and comes out with a positive balance (but according to my sources, c 'is the only one !!) ... But again, I would like to qualify this point here ... Yes, the energy balance of sugar cane is positive, but the greenhouse effect balance, I'm not sure! ! I am a forestry student, and I did an internship in South Africa this summer where the big landowners (white people need to be specified !!), choose to transform most of their forest plots into sugar cane fields ... And there, hello the carbon sink that represents the forest ... (That being said, given what the South Africans call forest I don't know if it's such a serious evil !!)
Anyway ... my words seem to severely condemn agro-fuels, but I only ask for proof that everything I say is wrong !! I don't really have the opportunity to diversify my sources of information ... So for me, vegetable fuels, that could be good ... except that ... for the moment in my opinion, they do not provide, as they claim, better quality alternative solutions than oil ... So as soon as agro-fuels are produced with respect for the sustainability of forests, the food sovereignty of local populations and their ecological balance will pass the threshold of positive ... count on my support ... But in the meantime, I fall back on solar, wind, or even wood (which at least has an almost zero carbon balance)

[Christophe]

Hi lily and welcome here!

It was then that the major Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations decided to introduce another term to refer to the same products ... This is how agro-fuels were born.

Hmmm I was not aware of this origin ... but it seems plausible! One thing is certain: I don't think I ever heard the term agrofuel before the end of 2006! (when we launched the E85 in France) ...

Indeed, during some of my readings, I could discover how polluting these cultures are! In most cases, the energy balance of these productions is negative. Let's not talk about the impact on the greenhouse effect of the use of certain fertilizers which send gases composed of nitrates into the atmosphere and supposed to be greenhouse gases 10 times more powerful than CO2.

Indeed there is no point in producing an agrofuel consuming more oil than it gives back ... overall, this is unfortunately the case for many industries (or just profitable).

In fact to properly characterize a biofuel, we should distinguish 3 balance sheets (+ or - linked):
- energy
- CO2
- petroleum (fertilizers of petrochemical origin are not counted in the other 2 for example)

And we should add the environmental cost on soils (intensive monoculture like corn in America on millions ha) and waters ...but in this case it would have to do the same for oil which is FAR from being clean on that side!

You will find a summary and links here: agrofuel eat or drive? Why choose?

There are also a lot of downloads here:
biofuels downloads

However, note that I do not reject while blocking ... It seems that among these fuel generators, sugar cane pulls out of the game and comes out with a positive balance (but according to my sources, c 'is the only one !!) ... But again, I would like to qualify this point here ... Yes, the energy balance of sugar cane is positive, but the greenhouse effect balance, I'm not sure! !

It is positive but light years from that of algae ...
Biofuel algae

The I am a student in forestry, and I did this summer an internship in South Africa where the big landowners (white must it be specified !!), choose to transform most of their forest plots into cane fields sugar ... And there, hello the carbon sink that the forest represents ... (That being said, given what the South Africans call forest I don't know if it's such a serious evil !!)
Anyway ... my words seem to severely condemn agro-fuels, but I only ask for proof that everything I say is wrong !!

Not at all your words are very courteous! (Ah South Africa, the inventor of the Fischer Tropsh process )

I don't really have the opportunity to diversify my sources of information ... So for me, vegetable fuels, that could be good ... except that ... for the moment in my opinion, they do not provide, as they claim, better quality alternative solutions than oil ... So as soon as agro-fuels are produced with respect for the sustainability of forests, the food sovereignty of local populations and their ecological balance will pass the threshold of positive ... count on my support ... But in the meantime, I fall back on solar, wind, or even wood (which at least has an almost zero carbon balance)

I think that the different links that I put you above should comfort you in your judgment that I defend perfectly.

[lily]

Good and good just to thank you for your answer !!
I will not fail to make a jump on all the docs that you advise me ...

And then here it goes ... I win ... Me, the term agrocaburant, I heard it during the summer of 2005 during my internship in the first year of Training of Forest Engineers ... I had realized it within group of Friends of the Earth France ...
;-)

[Christophe]

Rah is an engineer always ahead

[Cuicui]

Yesterday evening, on F2 at 20 p.m. news, a short report on agrofuels (word used several times insistently) and their drawbacks.
A large factory (probably built with subsidies) was shown to transform agricultural oil with the aim of incorporating 7% of it into diesel. When I think that with a little gasoline we can easily put 30% of recovered vegetable oil, we realize how much our decision-makers waste public money.