Biofuels: false good idea?

[alex 01]

Hi everybody!
I just registered so I quickly introduced myself:
my name is Alexandre and I am in 1ère S.

for my tpe (framed personal works, basically it's a presentation), I tried to make biodiesel, without results. this experience is apparently difficult to succeed, and I was told that there were testimonials about it on forums. not having more precise information, I am looking ... if someone has already tried and can help me or give me additional information ...
please

alex

[zac]

Hello

go to the local grocery store and buy a liter of sunflower oil; you have your biodiesel

@+

[delnoram]

go to the local grocery store and buy a liter of sunflower oil; you have your biodiesel
@+

sacred zac , I think that Alex01 speaks rather of diester house, a diester called a little abusively biodiesel, even if I share your opinion above by adding that the more we reduce the intermediates the more we get closer to "organic".
There is what you need here to try and I believe to succeed the experiment in question, since I managed it.
When the result obtained difficult to know its characteristics except the higher density and better fluidity.

[bham]

To return to the origin of the question, see the Kokopelli file:
http://www.kokopelli.asso.fr/actu/new_n ... id_news=90

Put blood in your engine! The tragedy of necro-fuels

Intoxication campaigns
At the 2007 Agricultural Show, part of the 2 hall was transformed into a motor show! They were all there, Peugeot, Ford, Renault, etc. With big planets hanging from the ceiling and small flowers painted on the car doors. Emotive: they proclaim loudly that they will save the planet with ethanol and rapeseed oil!

The big slogans are launched: biodiesels, biofuels, green gold, green fuels, "the fuel that sees life in green" ... The Ford special edition of Cahiers de l'Automobile is titled "Bio-Fuels", Bio making 7 cm high and fuels 1,5 cm high: the great traps of semantics to lull the people to sleep. The same magazine on page 7 headlines "the bio in 40 questions". What "organic"? Is this a new abbreviation for "biofuel"? The bigger the intoxication, the better it goes! Why bother?

The 40 questions above are about agrofuels and we learn that ethanol can not be drunk (no risk of increasing alcoholism in this country!), That the use of pesticides has decreased since 10 years (control l 'Acceleration of the number of cancers!) and that the baguette is not going to increase! It is true that if the baguette increased by 100% like the tortilla in Mexico, the French would wiggle their noses. It's better not to touch the stick!

We also learn that vegetable fuels were not developed earlier because "the economic, political and energy context was not so far favorable". Clearly, because the oil companies had not yet decided!

But the political context has changed. A presidential candidate even proposes in France a "blue badge", blue like the Earth (seen from very high, otherwise, it is less blue!) To favor vehicles with "biofuel" with a small discount at the toll and free parking . It's very cute, all of that!

The attribution of the term "bio" for necro-fuels is gaining ground quickly in any case. This reminds us of the Danone yoghurt syndrome. There are advertisements on the internet for Volvo "Volvo will do organic sports" or for Ford "Ford and Europcar are rolling for organic!" or for Saab "300 ecological horses". Some cars running on vegetable fuel even have the word "bio" painted on the body.

This is the coup de grace for organic farming, especially since the pressure from lobbies in Brussels is seeking to impose "second generation" organic farming with a pinch of pesticides here and half a pinch of chimeras genetics over there! Agro-organic specifications are on the way to becoming discharge specifications! Let's pinch our noses.

The auto industry is haloed, ad nauseam, with an escalation of green slogans. Saab touts one of its cars with the following logo "The forces of nature will always need to express themselves. Let's set them free." Koenigsegg presents a car as "its flower with a mighty stem". The rallies become "organic". "Green" cars and tires. Cars are getting "clean". It is the "green passion". Etc.

Inversion of values. Loss of meaning. Double language. Semantic drifts.

And if we proposed a moratorium on vegetable fuels!Vegetable fuels are not organic: they come from plants grown with all the heavy artillery of agro-chemical inputs and pesticides. The terms "biodiesel", "bioethanol" and "biofuels" have passed into common parlance in record time, following huge publicity and media hype. These vegetable fuels are obtained through very complex industrial extraction processes. The term "organic" means "life". It is difficult to see what would allow these vegetable fuels to deserve the prefix bio. Are we talking about bio-wheat, or biotomate or biomaïs?

Here we are at the heart of a gigantic semantic scam. It is rather "necrofuels", "necroethanol" and "necrodiesel" that we should speak. Necro means death and this prefix alone can qualify the technical, ecological and human aspects of this sinister farce.

Vegetable fuels are not green, they would be even rather red, the color of blood. They will increase the immense tragedy of undernutrition, death from starvation, social misery, displacement of populations, deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, water scarcity, etc.

The big oil groups who have allied themselves with the big groups of the food industry and the big groups of the agro-chemicals and the big seed groups to launch this grotesque farce are trying to reassure the citizen by claiming that vegetable fuels do not represent no "competition for food chains".

In the soporific "tchou-tchou" series, the Aficar (French agency for agricultural and rural information and communication) launched in February 2007 the "Train de la Terre" with the inevitable wagon on green fuels. Aficar must "promote a positive, dynamic and innovative image of agriculture" according to Minister Bussereau and it must reassure citizens about the quality of agricultural products. Which is not an easy task, especially when the said citizen discovers the fascinating work of Nicolino and Veillerette: "Pesticides: revelations on a French scandal".

Who will be the courageous journalists who will embark on the writing of a book "Vegetable fuels: revelations on a global scandal"?

Suite here: http://www.kokopelli.asso.fr/actu/new_n ... id_news=90

[Nikolian]

The solutions chosen are not the best, because the interests are not essentially ecological. The agro-fuels serve the interests of Lobbying.
That's why we chose ethanol rather than oil (which is cheaper to produce, pollutes less, and has a higher energy output)

If 36 000 is dead from hunger a day, you should also know that every country in Europe throws more food into the garbage per day than 36 000 people could ever eat.
These 36 000 people, dies because the food is not distributed equitably on the planet, and not because we do not produce enough.

On the other hand agriculture harms the planet when it practices in unreason and without method. Poor countries have no knowledge of agriculture and even less about ecology. Their only concern is to survive in the short term, hence deforestation.

In France, we produce too much, so it would be possible for our farmers to produce agrofuels instead of agricultural products that do not sell. The country's economy will be better.

Refuse a rise of some penny on our food and accepted at the same time the increase of the prices of our fuel, it does not make sense. Personally it would not change much if I had to pay 1 Euro my rice package instead of 80 cents.
It does not make you feel weird that a liter of fuel costs more than a pack of rice?

Ecologically, agro-fuels are viable if they are produced intelligently.
Unfortunately, economically and ecologically are two similar but very different words.

So give up the agrofuels? To put what instead?

Agro-fuel or not, it would be necessary to impose reasoned agriculture to the whole planet, can we do it?

[Valérie]

[quote = "Christine"] Once again, we must put things into perspective.

1) The fact that Malaysia's forests are poorly managed does not mean that biofuels must be rejected in their entirety.

2) We must stop believing that we are going to replace one fuel by another. It is intellectual laziness, it is undergoing the "single thought". The future lies in the [u] diversification of sources [/ u] of energy. A little imagination, damn it! [/ Quote]

Hello, I am a newcomer to the forum. I still have some experience in the field of environment (host at Tournesol in Brussels, you may know Christine).

I am downright shocked by point 1) of your answer. I am Belgian too, but I currently live in Guadeloupe after spending 6 years in Gabon (Africa). Maybe this is where I get a more global vision in terms of Sustainable Development, but it is unthinkable to consider giving ourselves a clear conscience by using bio- (hum, hum) -fuel produced by starving people already badly handled on the planet. I advise you, as well as to all of you, the edifying reading of the dossier "Biofuels: The scam" of Courrier International n ° 864 (from May 24 to 30) ...

In short: The production of ethanol or biodiesel leads to higher commodity prices and even a threat to food security, accelerated deforestation and a deterioration of working conditions in the growing regions (maize, cassava, cane sugar, palm oil give much better yields of ethanol than rapeseed) ...

Bush, whose moral sense is known, finds the alternative very interesting. And the brave Lula is already swooning in this mirror with larks ... The Asian elephant, the Sumatran tiger, the orangutan are still more for their expenses!

However, I agree with 100% in the sense of point 2). So let's produce the bio- (always hum, hum) -carbon consumed on a European scale. This is a good conversion of our farmers whose activity has been infused for ages. Let's deploy our energy production on a maximum of possibilities ...

... and share our technological advances in this area with emerging and developing countries.

[zac]

Hi Valerie

Welcome first

I think we can use biofuels; without disaster.

I use it for years.
I even convinced many restaurateurs, and big ones, to abandon palm oil, a major source of deforestation of primeval forest in Indonesia.

you just have to think about it and not fall into the “ethanol, sunflower” trap.

First of all, recycle the existing oil, very little valued.
then exploit fallows in short filiary.
we can also develop seaweed cultivation which, among other things, has the advantage of recovering nitrates rejected by intensive agriculture.
the algae are grown anywhere and do not need arable land; wake him everyone his little pond and the municipal press that passes once a month.

@+

[Nikolian]

Deforestation, it is not particularly biofuel. People deforest for short-term survival. Deforestation is mainly due to the total lack of agricultural technology.
It is possible to produce agrofuels in reasoned agriculture.

For oil it would be easy to produce locally, it is a short and inexpensive production. Unfortunately neither the political powers nor the car manufacturers want oil. It is difficult to control and taxable.

So we opted for the E85 less efficient and more expensive.
The project is launched, even our car manufacturers although retissant are going out of FlexFuel cars. So I do not think we're backing up now.

Now I hope that the production of this agro-fuel will be made in an intelligent way.
At first, I think that our beet growers can produce ethanol, without harming the sugar market that is saturated.
Then I think that the major oil companies will start producing ethanol, ideally that their establishment in poor countries participates in their development.

If the price of rice rises by a few cents, I do not see the problem, our fuel price 15 cents per liter since January.

If the production of agro-fuel is done intelligently we will have won everything:
- Revival of our agriculture.
- Development of poor countries.
- Reduction of pollution.

Now, how do you get the producers of agri-fuel to be reasonable?

[zac]

If the price of rice rises by a few cents, I do not see the problem, our fuel price 15 cents per liter since January.

Hello

for you for me no; for the guy who feeds with 15 € per month 8 people though; that means one or two meals less on 8 a 10 a month that's a lot.

@+

PS: the price of rice has gone from 15 to 30 cents per kilogram in 2 years; today we kill for a (small) bag of rice.

[Nikolian]

the price of rice has gone from 15 to 30 cents per kilogram in 2 years; today we kill for a (small) bag of rice.

Yes, I was talking about the price for us in France.

Regarding the price of rice in Madagascar, it's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with the production of agro-fuel.
The price of rice has not doubled in the world, this rise in prices is mainly due to their bad economy.
Madagascar is facing a serious management problem with regard to rice production and a clear technical problem.
The problem of Madagascar is that they have riches that can not exploit (example: oil) and that their economy is too dependent on the price of rice.

Madagascar, has the same problem as other underdeveloped countries, they are unable to produce wealth necessary for their autonomy.

From a general point of view on the underdeveloped countries.
These people have nothing so he sells the little wealth they are to survive, if they deforest, it means the loss of their forests but may be able to live a few months more. If they are allowed to do so, they will deforest until they have nothing left.
So if in these countries we plant plantations to make agrofuels, we give a possibility to live to the workers who will work there.
Companies possessing the necessary technicality and ethics must set up in these countries to prevent them from being damaged.

Deforestation is not due to agrofuels, it is due to misery.