Biofuels Raise Beer Prices
German barley farmers switching to other crops
The cost of barley is rising – due to an suspecti8ng culprit; biofuels.
German farmers are slowly abandoning barley planting to plant other, subsidized crops for sale as environmentally-friendly biofuels..
In the last two years, the price of barley has doubled to 200 euros ($271) from 102 euros per ton as farmers plant more crops such as rapeseed and corn that can be turned into ethanol or bio-diesel, a fuel made from vegetable oil.
As a result, the price for barley has soared by more than 40%, to around 385 euros ($522) per ton from around 270 euros a ton two years ago, according to the Bavarian Brewers’ Association.
While some breweries have already raised prices, many others will follow later this year, brewers say.
Brewers predict that higher barley prices will add about 1 euro ($1.35) to each 10-liter case of beer, but the German Farmers Association disputes that, saying the figure is about 33 euro cents ($0.45). Other factors like higher salaries and energy prices are also jacking up prices.
The German government subsidizes biofuel crops at the rate of euro45 per hectare (US$24.60 per acre), according to the Agency for Renewable Energies, part of the Agriculture Ministry.
Barley production in Germany went down by 5.5% — from 542,000 hectares in 2006 to 514,000 hectares in 2007, according to the Bavarian Farmers Association. On the other hand, the production of corn for biofuel more than doubled last year and the production of rapeseed for biofuel grew by 3.4%.
Biofuels, which reduce the emission of greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming, have been seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way to meet the world’s soaring energy needs than with greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels. European leaders have decided that at least 10% of fuels will come from biofuels by 2020.
I’ll take issue with biofuels being more environmentally friendly–or anything friendly for that matter. Burning any fuel creates greenhouse gases–biofuel is no exception. And I fail to see how cultivating, irrigating, applying poison & fertilizer, and processing this fuel is any more environmentally friendly than extracting oil from the earth. Let alone the fact that planting for these fuels is done at the expense of human food crops. Just look at Mexican tortilla prices that have soared beyond people’s means because the corn is now grown for fuel.
gitchegumee,
the reason bio-fuel is better for green-house gases is because, the CO2 produce from burning it is directly from growing such plants (plants take up CO2 for photosynthesis); so instead of producing extra CO2 into the air, it’s merely “recycling the CO2”.
However, you are right about the extra energy cost in producing bio-fuel. It is certainly not as clean as it may appear… it’s just cleaner than fossil fuel at this time.
even with catalytic converters, combustion byproducts (like nitrates and sulfates) and hydrocarbon emissions are more toxic from petroleum-based fuels than from biofuels (i’ve read that the biodiesel-converted engines smell like french fries when they’re running). that being said, i still think that CO2 emissions are a problem for biofuels. even though their CO2 is “offset” by the CO2 absorbed by growing the plant (which would still be absorbing CO2 if it wasn’t cut down to produce biofuels) i would think the added energy costs in production would make it at least a wash. i don’t have hard numbers on this (i don’t think that anyone does yet), but the energy:carbon ratio is the most important thing (in terms of CO2).
but i will agree it is probably “cleaner burning” and would probably at least improve air quality.
reducing energy use is the best solution.
The energy efficiency issue is a real one. Sure biofuels may have x% less CO2 emissions, but if it takes X times more to get the same energy output, then no improvement in CO2 emissions has been made.
Additionally, CO2 is not the only negative by product of burning fuel. Particulate matter emissions in BioFuels have historically been higher than conventional on-road diesel (especially now that on-road diesel has dropped down to 500 ppm sulfur effective today).
So, if BioFuels don’t save considerably on CO2 emissions, result in higher non-CO2 emissions, cost more directly, and have significant indirect costs (higher cost of food stuffs)… what exactly is the point of them again? Alternative fuels for the purposes of the environment and (dare I say) national security is a great goal, but not at the expense of basic economics. Alternative fuels for the sake of alternative fuels is just silly. Especially if it means beer price inflation. 🙂
I guess I stand somewhat corrected on my statement about particulate matter… here are the results of a UC Davis study I found…
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/UCDavisSumm.html
FWIW, I’d be remiss not to mention that on-road diesel is much different today than it was in 1996, when this study was performed.