Biofuel, also called biorganic fuel, is this century's de facto alternative to fossil fuels. It is made from the fermentation of sugars. The resulting liquid is Ethanol, also commonly obtained from the fermentation of wheat and grapes resulting into beer and wine respectively. For the production of biofuel, countries like Brazil or Cuba grow sugar cane, while the United States specializes in corn distillation. But yields of ethanol derived from the culture of cellulosic ethanol - like switch grass - promises to be three times higher than corn; that is 15 ton per acre of land. If 100 million of acres of the 800 million used for crop growth and pasture land in the US were dedicated to growing switch grass, 150bn gallons (1 gallon = 3.79 liter) of ethanol could be produced - it is said sustainably - to completely satisfy US appetite for gasoline.

Famine and threats to the Environment

However, Scientists see a higher risk of extended world-wide famine and environmental degradation. In focus, a US energy policy that aims at promoting ethanol consumption v. oil for national security reasons. America's Energy Policy Act of 2005, and more recently the Energy and Security Act of 2007, call upon farmers to channel 25 percent of US maize-production into ethanol bio-refineries which mushroomed from a dozen to 142 in a matter of years. Another 67 facilities are under construction. This should boost yearly ehtanol production to 7.5 bn gallons by 2012. Farmers of the US Mideast, who own 40 percent of the facilities, have pushed yearly biofuel production to 6.2 bn gallons in 2007. The 150 bn gasoline-market in the United States is being covered by biofuel at lightining speed. Not without consequences:

Higher food prices

The share of US corn production to world output amounted to 43 percent in the period 2007-2008. As a net exporter, the US provided for about 50 percent of world corn imports in the same period, positioning America as a possible world biofuel-monopoly. The strains put on the world supply curve of corn, because of a diversion of corn exports to US bio-fuel refineries, and rising global demand for corn as a basic food, inevitably raised the price of the commodity. In 2005 the price of corn stood at USD 2.00 a bushel (volume of 35.24 liters or 150.42 cubic inches of corn) on a production of 11.1 bn bushels. In March of 2008 the Chicago Board of Trade (CBT) set a high at USD 5.20 on production estimates of at least 14bn bushels for 2008. Instead of increasing crops production and exports as usual, US farmers have focused production on corn, a comparatively higher-value commodity, leaving aside other crops, and integrated the bio-fuel business vertically to maximize return on investments. The high demand for corn as a source of bio-fuel in the US, and the scarcity of crops on US and international markets have lead to higher prices, raising inflation on all the items of the food chain.

Famine

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that while Americans spend only 10 percent of their disposable income on food, Europeans and Indians pay 22 and 51 percent respectively. Obviously, some are more sensitive to food price variations than others. Analysts who still believe that food prices will ultimately fall back to find a natural equilibrium, should have a look at the USAD agricultural projections until the year 2017. While the supply of crop in and from the US will remain stable, as opposed to the past, economic and agressive demographic growth will continue to increase the demand for crop. In addition, it is very likely that ethanol production will lead to global crop supply interruptions because of its negative effects on Global Warming and the Environment.

Unsustainability

Experts have proven that ethanol is not - as many dared saying just years ago - the friendly alternative to fossil-fuel energy. Facilities that convert corn into ethanol, release so-called Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) like carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels nearly ten times above those initialy projected; that is 1'000 tons annually. As a reference, emissions above 100 tons a year are classified as 'major sources' of pollution under the US Clean Act. It now seems that many of the plants were built on the promise of low emissions to bypass the lengthy and stringent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) licence-process in Chicago. This year another study published in Science demonstrated that the conversion of land for the harvesting of other plants would lead to a carbon debt that would have to be paid off over the future. For instance, it will cost Indonesia 432 years to pay off the carbon debt resulting from the conversion of peat lands into palm-oil plantations. In this study, the authors of one of the papers say 'Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gasses for 167 years'. Converting natural areas that hold lots of carbon into croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere resulting in a worsening of the global warming effect. This is how Amazonia looks like after decades of deforestation. Calculations made by Simon D. Donner of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and Christopher J. Kucharik of the Center of Sustainability and the Global Environment a the University of Wisconsin-Madison reveal that the Biofuel industry will increase nitrogen pollution in the Mississipi by 10 to 19 percent. See the results of the use of fertilizers on the Dead Zone of the Texas Coast. In addition, Mark Jacobson of Standford University published a study in which the enrionmental credentials of bioethanol - a mixture of gasoline and ethanol - are questioned. The study found that biothanol reduced atmospheric levels of benzene and butadiene, but increased those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. All substances are carcinogens. It concluded that 'a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline.' Adding:'it would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy issues with technologies that have known benefits.'

Jerry Lee does not endorse Biofuel as a clean alternative to to fossil fuels. Solar, geothermal and hydro power for dry, cold and montaneous regions respectively are among Jerry Lee's favourite sources of energy. Until we understand the meaning and importance of renewable clean energy, this world will continue to replace old, dirty energies with new, dirty energies at the expense of the Poor and the Environment.

	Radioactive levels caused by Chernobyl's meltdown. Click on the picture to put a human face on the disaster.

In 1986 Chernobyl's reactor meltdown lead to the world's biggest nuclear catastrophe. Today, French nuclear power-company Areva celebrates the 'nuclear renaissance'. Regrettably, few seem to remember what happened at the time: a radioactive cloud of Caesium-137 spread all over Europe and Asia resulting in 4'000 additional deaths, or deaths directly related to radioactive pollution. Statistics on additional deaths reported by the IAEA in 2005 are now greatly revised upwards by the Russian Academy of Science which recently published figures nearing 200'000 additional deaths in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone between 1990 and 2004. An estimated 5 to 8 million people still live in highly-contaminated areas or where radioactive levels are above 37kBq/m2. As a result, the real extend of Chernobyl on additional deaths will not be fully understood until at least 2015. Meanwhile, industrial promoters of nuclear energy are taking advantage of the global warming factor to justify a new era of nuclear development with the objective to increase their share of stalled energy-production, which stands at around 16 percent since 1986. At the center of the nuclear arguments lies a new generation of reactors which, they say, will provide for more safety. But Jerry Lee strongly questions nuclear safety for three reasons:

1. Based on IAEA's high projections worldwide, the revival of nuclear energy could lead to the production of 679 Gigawatts (GW=Billion watts) by 2030 from today's 370 GW. This means an average rate of increase of 12 nuclear power-plants per year until 2030.  In Europe alone, 166 nuclear plants exist, and the reliance on nuclear power-plants for electricity production in France now stands at a whooping 78 percent.  The nuclear wave is spreading to Asia and the Mideast with new projects in India, China, Thailand, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria.  Of the current 29 nuclear reactors under construction, 7 are located in India.  In China the number of power plants will increase from 11 today to 30 by the year 2020.  The list of countries going nuclear is growing faster every year. Even oil-exporting countries like Iran are building their nuclear power-plants in a move to export more of their oil, which could keep prices of oil relatively competitive and negatively impact the green revolution.  While some members of UNSC strive to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation for military use worldwide - See GW's policy and positioning on Iran -, the risks derived from a hungry use of nuclear activity for civil use worldwide will continue to increase substanciallly within the next decade.

2. The issue of nuclear waste and pollution remains largely unsolved. A nuclear power-plant produces yearly about 30Kgs of spent fuel (radioactive waste resulting from nuclear fission) for every 1'000 inhabitants. Considering today's (2008) share of nuclear-energy production in the world of about 16 percent, around 31'000 tons of radioactive waste are produced yearly worldwide.  This waste needs storage. While much of the waste is 'only' highly radioactive, some of it is plutonium-grade waste with a half-life of 25'000 years, meaning it needs 25'000 years to decay to half of its original potency. It is commonly believed that well-stored radioactiv waste loses its strength over time without other consequences. But the fact is, nuclear waste needs to rebalance with Nature.  It is like a debt Society owns to Nature, and for which it has to pay in nature in terms of health hazards, wherever the waste is located. In addition, the water used to cool down nuclear power-plants may get polluted, when radioactiv leaks happen; or when nearby exploratory uranium mining-holes are being digged, as in the case of the Cheyenne River at Pine Ridge Rez in South Dakota in 2007.

3. While old models of nuclear power-plants are being built fast worldwide - it is well accepted among nuclear-project specialists that power plants must be built as fast as possible to warrant their profitability -, there is a lot of talking about new generation power-plants with better safety standards.  However, statistics show that in China, for example, only 1 percent of the total nuclear incidents are reported to the public.  In 1999, Japan was highly critisized for not making immediately public the nuclear incidents of its Tokaimura power-plant where internal leaks of radiation were 11'500 times higher than normal.  This incident is only a follow-up of a list of other incidents in 1995, 1997 and 1998 that were not timely reported.  Certain countries view their independence as a national pride.  They will not accept even suggestions by well-trained western specialists on how to improve safety standards.  In other words, safety standards can only be improved with more transparency.  Countries which build their nuclear program for civil use are not always prepared to do so in the safest way.

Nuclear incidents and accidents have happened before in Europe.  They will happen in Asia too.  Jerry Lee, therefore, strongly recommends developed nations to lead the way into the green revolution by abandoning nuclear energy for energies, which profitability in financial, social and environmental terms are highly competitive.

Please consult gw's references for a list of worldwide nuclear incidents.