Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ei=5087&em=&en=d42cfa6f14c01268&ex=1202706000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1202534879-CdAI4XCAjWSMfr+JJZ6ncw)
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. “We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,” the letter said.
The European Union and a number of European countries have recently tried to address the land use issue with proposals stipulating that imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.
But even with such restrictions in place, Dr. Searchinger’s study shows, the purchase of biofuels in Europe and the United States leads indirectly to the destruction of natural habitats far afield.
For instance, if vegetable oil prices go up globally, as they have because of increased demand for biofuel crops, more new land is inevitably cleared as farmers in developing countries try to get in on the profits. So crops from old plantations go to Europe for biofuels, while new fields are cleared to feed people at home.
Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.
International environmental groups, including the United Nations, responded cautiously to the studies, saying that biofuels could still be useful. “We don’t want a total public backlash that would prevent us from getting the potential benefits,” said Nicholas Nuttall, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who said the United Nations had recently created a new panel to study the evidence.
“There was an unfortunate effort to dress up biofuels as the silver bullet of climate change,” he said. “We fully believe that if biofuels are to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, there urgently needs to be better sustainability criterion.”
The European Union has set a target that countries use 5.75 percent biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. Proposals in the United States energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents, supporting a burgeoning global industry.
Syngenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, announced Thursday that its annual profits had risen 75 percent in the last year, in part because of rising demand for biofuels.
Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately attacked the new studies as “simplistic,” failing “to put the issue into context.”
“While it is important to analyze the climate change consequences of differing energy strategies, we must all remember where we are today, how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic alternatives are to meet those growing demands,” said Bob Dineen, the group’s director, in a statement following the Science reports’ release.
“Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection,” he said.
The European Biodiesel Board says that biodiesel reduces greenhouse gasses by 50 to 95 percent compared to conventional fuel, and has other advantages as well, like providing new income for farmers and energy security for Europe in the face of rising global oil prices and shrinking supply.
But the papers published Thursday suggested that, if land use is taken into account, biofuels may not provide all the benefits once anticipated.
Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.
“This land use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers,”. “It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland.”
Not to mention they increase scarcity of food, driving up the cost of living and increasing the risk of transportation infrastructure breakdown in the event of a drought or crop failure or malthusian catastrophe. In their defense, emissions produced from biofuels are carbon neutral, as the carbon emitted cannot exceed that which was removed from the air by the plants used to create the fuel.
Centralized electricity charging battery-powered automobiles is the way of the future, with gasoline autos only being used for long-distance trips.
gerv
02-09-08, 12:45 PM
Centralized electricity charging battery-powered automobiles is the way of the future, with gasoline autos only being used for long-distance trips.
I think the article above tries to look at the whole picture. Food production is highly energy intensive these days. A lot of the energy used is not that clean and, even if it were clean, there is the additional issue of an ecostructure that is deteriorating as we try to grow more and more corn to fuel both autos and food animals.
However... if you think transportation derived from the electrical grid buys you anything, I would suggest two things:
1. Remember that these vehicles need to be manufactured first.... a process that can take up to 50% of the energy used by the vehicle throughout its lifetime. So whether it burns gas or electricity or whatever, there's a lot of something going up the smokestack.
2. Most of the electricity generated in my state is coal-based. (I believe it's actually near the 80% level). Coal is most definitely a greenhouse gas culprit and I fail to see how moving all vehicles to electricity would help CO2 emissions overall.
Blue Order
02-09-08, 07:45 PM
Not to mention they increase scarcity of food, driving up the cost of living and increasing the risk of transportation infrastructure breakdown in the event of a drought or crop failure or malthusian catastrophe. In their defense, emissions produced from biofuels are carbon neutral, as the carbon emitted cannot exceed that which was removed from the air by the plants used to create the fuel.
Centralized electricity charging battery-powered automobiles is the way of the future, with gasoline autos only being used for long-distance trips.I agree, although I would replace the gasoline in the equation with biofuels from recycled vegetable oils.
I think the article above tries to look at the whole picture. Food production is highly energy intensive these days. A lot of the energy used is not that clean and, even if it were clean, there is the additional issue of an ecostructure that is deteriorating as we try to grow more and more corn to fuel both autos and food animals.
However... if you think transportation derived from the electrical grid buys you anything, I would suggest two things:
1. Remember that these vehicles need to be manufactured first.... a process that can take up to 50% of the energy used by the vehicle throughout its lifetime. So whether it burns gas or electricity or whatever, there's a lot of something going up the smokestack.
2. Most of the electricity generated in my state is coal-based. (I believe it's actually near the 80% level). Coal is most definitely a greenhouse gas culprit and I fail to see how moving all vehicles to electricity would help CO2 emissions overall.There's an entire infrastructure that needs to be transitioned away from fossil carbon fuels-- not just the autos, but the electrical grid as well. Clean cars plugging into a clean grid will be what we need (not forgetting that this is a "car-free" forum).
kjohnnytarr
02-09-08, 08:00 PM
In other words: burning ANY fuels adds crap to the atmosphere. Surprise!
Blue Order
02-09-08, 08:34 PM
In other words: burning ANY fuels adds crap to the atmosphere. Surprise!Well, yes, but that's not really what the article is saying. Theoretically, biofuels should be carbon-neutral, but the article is saying that the full environmental effects haven't been factored into the environmental analysis of biofuels.
cooker
02-09-08, 08:57 PM
If biofuels were produced without using fossil fuels for farm machinery fuel or fertilizer, and without depleting the soil of stored carbon or causing soil erosion, and were distributed by a bio-fuelled network of pipes, trucks, pumps and computers, and were used to power cars made of cellulose, they would be a sustainable energy source. And if this were all done while preserving much of the rainforest for its climactic benefits, and setting aside enough agricultural land to feed the world's population, biofuels might eventually replace a tiny fraction of current oil usage.
cooker
02-09-08, 09:00 PM
I agree, although I would replace the gasoline in the equation with biofuels from recycled vegetable oils.
What recycled vegetable oil? If the world runs out of petroleum, it runs out of food. People aren't going to recycle vegetable oil, they're going to eat it.
Blue Order
02-10-08, 12:00 AM
What recycled vegetable oil? If the world runs out of petroleum, it runs out of food. People aren't going to recycle vegetable oil, they're going to eat it.Industrial biodiesel is made from vegetable oil produced specifically for biodiesel production. Biodiesel made by biodiesel coops (and individuals) is made from used vegetable oil collected from fast food restaurants.
mike
02-10-08, 04:20 AM
It is hard to beat the efficiency of petroleum; vegetable and other organic matter that has been converted by time and pressure.
Chemically changing vegetable oil into burnable fuel is ridiculously inefficient. It is an interesting experiment, but certainly not a solution worth considering even as a component an overall energy plan. Take away the subsidies, and it doesn't stand.
The most immediate thing to do is conservation. Hey, kid, turn the lights off! It takes a pound of coal to light a 100-watt light bulb for an hour. Ride a bicycle to go to the quickie mart for that pack of smokes. Drive vehicles that get 24 miles to the gallon rather than 12 miles to the gallon. Replace incandecent bulbs with LED or Fluorescent bulbs. Turn the thermostat down three degrees and put a sweater on.
These are very simple things so close at hand for all Americans. Even without any new technology added to the mix, we can do things today that will greatly reduce our use of energy no matter what the source of fuel.
wahoonc
02-10-08, 07:11 AM
It is hard to beat the efficiency of petroleum; vegetable and other organic matter that has been converted by time and pressure.
Chemically changing vegetable oil into burnable fuel is ridiculously inefficient. It is an interesting experiment, but certainly not a solution worth considering even as a component an overall energy plan. Take away the subsidies, and it doesn't stand.
The most immediate thing to do is conservation. Hey, kid, turn the lights off! It takes a pound of coal to light a 100-watt light bulb for an hour. Ride a bicycle to go to the quickie mart for that pack of smokes. Drive vehicles that get 24 miles to the gallon rather than 12 miles to the gallon. Replace incandecent bulbs with LED or Fluorescent bulbs. Turn the thermostat down three degrees and put a sweater on.
These are very simple things so close at hand for all Americans. Even without any new technology added to the mix, we can do things today that will greatly reduce our use of energy no matter what the source of fuel.
Conservation is going/have to be the number one method of reducing energy use. But until it happens people will continue to look for pie in the sky answers. I think that bio fuels have their place, but nothing and I mean nothing is going to be able to continue to allow the consumption levels of all types energy we have today. IMHO those of use that live simply and conserve are going to be way ahead of the game in the future.
Aaron:)
cooker
02-10-08, 08:21 AM
Biodiesel made by biodiesel coops (and individuals) is made from used vegetable oil collected from fast food restaurants.
I agree, but what I am saying it that when there is an oil and energy shortage, there will be a food shortage as well. At that point vegetable oil wil be too valuable to use in deep fryers, and there won't be any to collect.
gerv
02-10-08, 08:46 AM
I agree, but what I am saying it that when there is an oil and energy shortage, there will be a food shortage as well. At that point vegetable oil wil be too valuable to use in deep fryers, and there won't be any to collect.
There doesn't necessarily have to be a food shortage, but there will almost certainly be a shortage of processed foods. Which would describe the partially hydrogenate corn or soybean oil typically used in deep fat fryers.
One good example about future shortages is to look at the lifecycle of a pound of beef. It takes about 10 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of beef. That corn gets its start in fields that have been fertilized by chemicals that are heavily dependent on petroleum. Consider all the energy required to run huge tractors, move all the feed from A to Z, move the steer from Z to X and you have just touched the surface of the problem.
Yet, despite all these facts, you can still grow carrots in your back yard. Farmers can supply healthy vegetables and meat products to local consumers without a lot of petroleum overhead.... but don't count on using the leftovers to fuel your trip to the mall. :rolleyes:
maddyfish
02-10-08, 09:28 AM
A little bit of food shortage mightnot be bad for the world. And likely good for North Americans.
Roody
02-10-08, 11:35 AM
I agree, but what I am saying it that when there is an oil and energy shortage, there will be a food shortage as well. At that point vegetable oil wil be too valuable to use in deep fryers, and there won't be any to collect.
Exactly-- and this is already happening.
The cost of food oil is already rising as a result of biofuel demand. This will probably cause great suffering in the developing world, where palm oil is a major source of calories.
A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/worldbusiness/19palmoil.html?ex=1358485200&en=67cc783116126772&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)
It's not accurate to project American standards onto the rest of the world. Here, oil is an undesirable source of empty calories. For most people in the world, oil is a major component of the diet. They don't recycle oil, they eat it. We are taking food out of their mouths in order to assuage our guilt about global warming. And now we learn that biofuel will actually make warming worse!
El Julioso
02-10-08, 12:54 PM
The article points out flaws in our current energy infrastructure, not the actual theory behind biodiesel.
What we need is a more energy-efficient infrastructure. In any case, converting used plant and animal oils into usable energy (biodiesel) rather than throwing them away improves efficiency.
Using less energy for daily tasks (going to work, getting groceries, etc.) also improves efficiency. That's where bicycles come in. Using a 4,000+lb. steel cage to move a 170lb. person to work every day is RIDICULOUSLY inefficient - almost all the expended fuel is used to move the car, not the person. A 25lb. bicycle is a much more "eco-friendly" option - not to mention better for one's health.
Roody
02-10-08, 01:03 PM
What we need is a more energy-efficient infrastructure. In any case, converting used plant and animal oils into usable energy (biodiesel) rather than throwing them away improves efficiency.
No. At least, not necessarily. It's sometimes the case that recycling uses more energy than it saves. Energy development calls for careful economic and environmental analysis. That's the point of the article, and something that seems to be lacking in the USA. We are constantly coming up with "solutions" that are even worse than the original problem. Ethanol is the prime example, and biodiesel is shaping up the same way.
This is because energy planning in the US is conducted by private energy companies--which are naturally interested only in their own profits. Government, universities and non-profit institutes should be doing the planning, not Exxon-Mobil and ADM.
cooker
02-10-08, 01:07 PM
converting used plant and animal oils into usable energy (biodiesel) rather than throwing them away improves efficiency. That might be true now, but it won't be in the future because there won't be any used vegetable oil to throw away or convert to fuel. People will eat it. All of it. I think people aren't getting how petroleum and fossil fuel dependent current agriculture is. There is no way we can run out of petroleum, maintain food production for the world's population, and still divert part of that food to powering our energy needs.
Roody
02-10-08, 01:31 PM
That might be true now, but it won't be in the future because there won't be any used vegetable oil to throw away or convert to fuel. People will eat it. All of it. I think people aren't getting how petroleum and fossil fuel dependent current agriculture is. There is no way we can run out of petroleum, maintain food production for the world's population, and still divert part of that food to powering our energy needs.
Actually, organic farming grows as much or more food per acre. You just need more people to do the work. Considering that a third of the planet's population will soon be unemployed and living in urban shanty towns, we should be able to work something out.
dwainedibbly
02-10-08, 03:21 PM
A little bit of food shortage mightnot be bad for the world. And likely good for North Americans.
(Are you forgetting that Mexico is part of North America?) It's not the Canadians and Americans who are going to be the ones going hungry. It's a large part of the third world.
In my opinion, fuel from foodstuffs is immoral. We're going to take food from people and turn it into fuel so that "we" can continue driving oversized gas hogs? How do you think that makes us look to the rest of the world?
mike
02-10-08, 03:28 PM
Actually, organic farming grows as much or more food per acre. You just need more people to do the work. Considering that a third of the planet's population will soon be unemployed and living in urban shanty towns, we should be able to work something out.
Well, Roody, it really doesn't work that way with organic farming. You can apply an enormous amount of labor and mechanical intervention into an organic farm, but you won't get yields equal to conventional farming. Conventional fertilizers and insecticides result in far greater production acre per acre than you can get with organic farming even if you have workers standing in the fields shoulder to shoulder.
Organic fertilizers are nice, but they are puny compared with conventional fertilizers. Organic insecticides are hardly worth the trouble.
I doubt that the world could sustain it's present human population if we went 100% organic farming.
Blue Order
02-10-08, 05:03 PM
Farmers can supply healthy vegetables and meat products to local consumers without a lot of petroleum overhead.... but don't count on using the leftovers to fuel your trip to the mall. :rolleyes:Perhaps you haven't heard of Mr. Fusion (http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion).
:lol:
Blue Order
02-10-08, 05:07 PM
Perhaps you haven't heard of Mr. Fusion (http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion).
:lol:And in that vein, Mr. Fusion was inspired by the Ford Nucleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon).
:eek:
gerv
02-10-08, 05:21 PM
Well, Roody, it really doesn't work that way with organic farming. You can apply an enormous amount of labor and mechanical intervention into an organic farm, but you won't get yields equal to conventional farming. Conventional fertilizers and insecticides result in far greater production acre per acre than you can get with organic farming even if you have workers standing in the fields shoulder to shoulder.
Organic fertilizers are nice, but they are puny compared with conventional fertilizers. Organic insecticides are hardly worth the trouble.
I doubt that the world could sustain it's present human population if we went 100% organic farming.
My understanding is that much of the gain of so-called "conventional" farming is from the hybridization of seed strains. I believe this is the case with corn, for example, where 50 years ago -- with the then existing strains -- you simply could not crowd that many plants and still have a harvest. [disclaimer: I've read exactly one book on this topic...]
So-called conventional farming with fertilizers may allow marginal or poorly developed soil to grow bumper crops, but to kind of twist your last sentence (:D), with the degradation of nitrates to downstream water supplies and the continuing issue of soil erosion, I doubt the world will be able to sustain this type of farming activity.
I guess I should know about the downstream effects, since every Spring my family wonders if the city is able to filter enough of the nitrates out of the river water.
mike
02-10-08, 07:54 PM
My understanding is that much of the gain of so-called "conventional" farming is from the hybridization of seed strains. I believe this is the case with corn, for example, where 50 years ago -- with the then existing strains -- you simply could not crowd that many plants and still have a harvest. [disclaimer: I've read exactly one book on this topic...]
So-called conventional farming with fertilizers may allow marginal or poorly developed soil to grow bumper crops, but to kind of twist your last sentence (:D), with the degradation of nitrates to downstream water supplies and the continuing issue of soil erosion, I doubt the world will be able to sustain this type of farming activity.
I guess I should know about the downstream effects, since every Spring my family wonders if the city is able to filter enough of the nitrates out of the river water.
I suppose, gerv, we don't want to hijack this thread, but I am in the organic food production business and can offer you some insight that you might find interesting. Organic farming typically yields somewhere between 30% to 50% that of conventional farming. Some things like the grass-grains (wheat, oats, barley, rye) fair better than other crops like fruit, but overall, organic farming is very susceptible to loss from insect damage, mildew, mold, and other natural agricultural pests. There is an art to organic farming and some do a much better job than others - mostly, as you pointed out, by applying more labor and mechanical work to growing.
Concerning hybrid seed, there is a lot of controversy about the use of hybrid plants/seeds and GMO, but the fact is that virtually all plants grown today are some kind of hybrid. Genetic modification of plants has been going on nearly since the time of plant cultivation. The science of genetic selection and plant hybrids really ramped up nearly 200 years ago. There are very few, if any, heritage plants used today in agri-business. I personally prefer to eat a genetically modified plant that has been grown with less chemicals than a weaker plant that requires more chemicals.
On top of that, lack of conventional fertilizer and the ability to time the placement of the fertilizer also has a great reduction of production.
Farmers wouldn’t use chemicals if they could grow as efficiently organically. Chemicals are expensive, they are dangerous, and they impact the land. Most farmers are keenly aware of the effects agri-chemicals have on their land and they would love to avoid using them if possible.
As for your comment about nitrate leeching and run-off into the rivers; yes, that is a problem. It is mostly a problem on poorly managed farms. Ironically, it is the small family farms that do much of the damage and nitrate polluting through poor soil management. When nitrates flow from farm to rivers, good topsoil usually goes along with it, so it is in the best interest of farms to do a good job of soil conservation and run-off management. Nitrate run-off pollution is mostly caused by animal farmers – especially dairy farms that do not effectively control animal waste. Animal waste is a problem whether the animals are organically raised or conventionally raised.
Given the choice of food or clean water, it seems from what I have seen that people will choose food over clean water. I have been to countries where rivers run black with bubbling organic sludge from run-off and waste discharge. These rivers often ooze right through crowded cities. They don’t stop the farms from polluting and they don’t stop discharging their human waste into the rivers. Consciously or not, they have made the choice to make clean water a second or lower priority.
bizzz111
02-10-08, 09:01 PM
Why is this news now? It's been known from the very beginning that biofuels provide less energy per mpg, and take more energy to produce than they are able to put out. Hell, I saw studies on this in the 80's. Everyone just chose to ignore it because of the money/subsidies/pork barrel politics involved.
However, algae biofuel production may be the way to go. You can set up your plant in areas not needed for farming, and theoretically can produce a fuel that takes less energy to produce. It's still years away, and there's no subsidies like the corn growers are getting, and they still haven't figured out how to get any real production out of it, but if they can get it working it will be very nice.
mike
02-10-08, 09:11 PM
Why is this news now? It's been known from the very beginning that biofuels provide less energy per mpg, and take more energy to produce than they are able to put out. Hell, I saw studies on this in the 80's. Everyone just chose to ignore it because of the money/subsidies/pork barrel politics involved.
However, algae biofuel production may be the way to go. You can set up your plant in areas not needed for farming, and theoretically can produce a fuel that takes less energy to produce. It's still years away, and there's no subsidies like the corn growers are getting, and they still haven't figured out how to get any real production out of it, but if they can get it working it will be very nice.
Agreed. This is what I find amazing. There is very little new and revolutionary technology coming to the table for energy since, really, the 1970's. I was on the high school debate team in the late '70's and the topic was "Alternative Energy". We had the same options, same constraints, and same economies.
It only goes to show how little emphasis was put into energy strategy and technology development during the Republican years. It is hard to believe that if we put the same amount of money into research and infrustructure as we did into the Gulf wars that we couldn't greatly reduce our need for imported petrolium. If we had spent our money on technology and infrustructure rather than middle east warring, we could leave the middle east to deal with their own problems and stay free of that sticky web of hatred and terror.
GM claims it can make ethanol for less than $1 a gallon and that it can create that ethanol using agricultural waste like corn storks, waste grass and wood, household and municipal waste, discarded plastic, and old tires.
GM claims it can make ethanol for less than $1 a gallon and that it can create that ethanol using agricultural waste like corn storks, waste grass and wood, household and municipal waste, discarded plastic, and old tires.
The great hope and the arguments from the science community is that waste materials could be used for the production of ethanol. Clearly any plant material with convertable starches that can then be used for conversion into ethanol would be viable. It does not have to be corn. It could be many things.
However, the undisputable fact remains that the net energy yielded from distilling ethanol is a negative. In other words, if you took the ethanol from the distillation process and used it for the distillation process, you would not produce enough energy to have anything left over. It is an energy loser. The only reason it works now is because of a $0.52 per gallon blending credit that the USA government provides (thank you tax payers), and the use of cheap and subsidized natural gas.
The only reason to go through the process of creating ethanol is to produce a liquid fuel. BTU for BTU, it doesn't make any sense at all. Rather than using natural gas to distill the ethanol, simply bottle the natural gas and use it as automotive fuel. That makes a lot more sense than trying to convert vegetable matter to liquid fuel.
THIS is the critical point as to why ethanol is being pursued as a fuel. Explained by GM CEO Rick Wagoner:
"It's adaptable to our current refueling infrastructure and it requires little change in consumer behavior," Wagoner told a press conference at the show." In other words, ethanol makes sense only if you are stubborn enough to stick with liquid fuel which fits the way we fuel automobiles now. Forget about it making energy sense - it makes convenience sense. No need to change fuel tanks and infeed designs on automobiles and no need to cause distress for the gasoline distribution channels.
The other claims that GM's Wagoner makes are either based on deceipt or ignorance. The technology he seems to be banking on for converting garbage to ethanol via "munching microbes" is technically feasible, but practically impossible on any kind of production scale. It is like he is sitting with his cronies smoking pot and talking about the possibilities of time travel and biofuels. If that is the brilliance that they are paying Waganor for, it is no wonder Detroit is a wasteland.
Using ethanol as an energy strategy is like eating your own fingers and thinking that you aren't going to starve.
GM claims it can make ethanol for less than $1 a gallon and that it can create that ethanol using agricultural waste like corn storks, waste grass and wood, household and municipal waste, discarded plastic, and old tires.
Don't forget the rest of that quote:
Microbes then munch away on the stuff to produce ethanol.
Whoops, microbes don't eat plastic and old tires. In fact, nothing currently does. Unless they've somehow found something new or convinced existing microbes to chew up plastics at a quite rapid pace. And microbes tend to produce methanol when they munch on woods. Methanol is considered unsuitable as a regular vehicular fuel source; being poisonous, spills are a serious problem, and it also tends to corrode metals and rubber, which it seems cars are made of. It would appear that Mr. Wagoner is making things up about a subject he did not prepare to comment on. Whoops. He thinks we're all credulous idiots and we'll just take his word for it. Google time.
Alrighty, GM is not doing this. GM is investing an unspecified amount in an otherwise independent development project (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/general-motors.html) which currently has no working models. What these guys plan to do is to gasify anything with carbon in it until it's reduced specifically to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, then scrub out anything that isn't one of these. Somehow, this will be done in a super secret special way that'll work better than anyone's ever done it before with way less energy input. Then they'll turn loose their super secret special Proprietary Microorganisms to turn the gaseous CO and H2 into ethanol. But what if those two get together on their own? CO + H2 = Formaldehyde. Must be some hefty microbes they've got there. :D Google time again.
Hmmm, CO/H2 and catalysts come up a lot. Refine the search, and Ha! Direct hit on the patent. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7309592.html) Well, I'm impressed! Not that they're vastly overstating gasification efficiency, or conversion efficiency, or general biomass energy availability, or waving around "proprietary" microorganisms, or claiming absolute rights to all of this without crediting anyone involved in the research, or completely misdescribing the process with a mess of handwaving; but that something which may underly all of this might actually appear feasible enough to convince a patent officer or two. Same goes for quite a few perpetual motion machines, but hey, most get-ethanol-quick schemes aren't even that credible!
wahoonc
02-11-08, 03:22 AM
I am still waiting on Cold Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion) that was "just around the corner" back when I was in school:rolleyes: It was going to replace all known forms of energy and make the whole world a Utopian landscape...
Aaron:)
Elkhound
02-11-08, 01:19 PM
If biofuels were produced without using fossil fuels for farm machinery fuel or fertilizer, and without depleting the soil of stored carbon or causing soil erosion, and were distributed by a bio-fuelled network of pipes, trucks, pumps and computers, and were used to power cars made of cellulose, they would be a sustainable energy source. And if this were all done while preserving much of the rainforest for its climactic benefits, and setting aside enough agricultural land to feed the world's population, biofuels might eventually replace a tiny fraction of current oil usage.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyone would be fat.
Elkhound
02-11-08, 01:24 PM
I remember that there were some experiments back in the 1970s with extracting methane from manure and burning it to generate electricity. The electricity not used on the farm would be sold to the local co-op, and hence sent onto the grid; the residue could be used for fertilizer, and was both more concentrated and less malodorous than the raw manure. What ever happened to that idea?
mconlonx
02-11-08, 02:38 PM
<snip from original article>
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.
</snip>
Lovin' it! Used to be that vegans pointed a protien/amino-acid deficient finger at us meat eaters and said that we were killing the rainforest because farmers were clearing forest for grazing land. Now it's you tofu-munchers as well. Save the rainforest, eat locally produced food.
What we call conventional farming at the moment, I prefer to call mechanized or industrial farming. Back at the turn of the century, before petrochemicals became a necessary component of farming, at the height of non-industrial farming, farmers were getting 50 calories of food for every 1 calorie expended to raise it. Now, we're sinking 75 calories of petrochemicals into each calorie of food we produce, in fertilizers, tractor fuel, processing energy, and transportation. If the oil stops, we starve. Even if you're eating organic, there's still a huge petrochemical price tag associated with it unless it was raised locally.
And are we at the point yet where a biofuel production plant can produce more energy in biofuel than it costs to make?
This is the big problem I have with rampant environmentalism--very often there are unintended and worse consequences, or at least more immediate. Everyone thought it would be great to add MBTE to gas in order to oxygenate it and reduce emissions. The fact that it turned out to be carcinogenic and more penetrative even than gasoline when leaking into aquifers never turned up until after it spread throughout the nation...
cooker
02-11-08, 03:31 PM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyone would be fat.
??
cooker
02-11-08, 03:34 PM
This is the big problem I have with rampant environmentalism--very often there are unintended and worse consequences.
So what form of environmentalism do carnivores prefer?
Blue Order
02-11-08, 04:35 PM
<snip from original article>
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.
</snip>
Lovin' it! Used to be that vegans pointed a protien/amino-acid deficient finger at us meat eaters and said that we were killing the rainforest because farmers were clearing forest for grazing land. Now it's you tofu-munchers as well. Save the rainforest, eat locally produced food.Do you really believe that the Amazon is being felled to produce tofu?
'cause I have this underwater ranch, you know...
Elkhound
02-11-08, 08:42 PM
Lovin' it! Used to be that vegans pointed a protien/amino-acid deficient finger at us meat eaters and said that we were killing the rainforest because farmers were clearing forest for grazing land. Now it's you tofu-munchers as well. Save the rainforest, eat locally produced food.
And die of scurvey because we can't get fresh fruits out of season?
cooker
02-11-08, 08:56 PM
And die of scurvey because we can't get fresh fruits out of season?
LOL. When Cartier was exploring the St. Lawrence, his men came down with scurvy, and Chief Donnacona's sons cured them with white cedar tea.
<snip from original article>
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.
</snip>
Lovin' it! Used to be that vegans pointed a protien/amino-acid deficient finger at us meat eaters and said that we were killing the rainforest because farmers were clearing forest for grazing land. Now it's you tofu-munchers as well. Save the rainforest, eat locally produced food.
I think you tripped and bumped your head while you were climbing on that soapbox.
Elkhound
02-12-08, 08:04 AM
LOL. When Cartier was exploring the St. Lawrence, his men came down with scurvy, and Chief Donnacona's sons cured them with white cedar tea.
In the words of the late Euell Gibbons: "Ever eat a pine tree? Many parts are edible."
mconlonx
02-12-08, 10:59 AM
So what form of environmentalism do carnivores prefer?
Dunno. I eat veggies, too.
As far as environmentalism goes, I like the kind that's practiced at home. Reduce, reuse, recycle; composting and vermiculture; biking rather than driving; conserving as much as possible. The actual practice of trying to leave as small a footprint as possible given the necessities of daily life, as opposed to coming up with pie in the sky solutions and forcing them on others. MBTE is a great example. Reduces emissions (clean air!), but lowers milage to the point that any savings in emissions is made up by increased volume of emissions, with the whole carcinogen and contaminated groundwater thing as bonuses.
Point about tofu and deforestation is as valid as points made by local/organic-grown meat advocates and vegetarians regarding meat consumption and deforestation. Same logic, yes? Except I don't know for sure that Brazil is exporting soy to the US.
All relating back to the original article: I hate it when environmental experts say "oops." Destroys credibility. For years, biofuels were touted as an environmental alternative. We finally start getting geared up to do this and all of a sudden it turns out that there were unintended consequences that infringe on other environmental concerns. No one bothered to figure this out beforehand? Then maybe at some point before policies start being implemented, those on the authoritarian environmental end of things ought to look a bit beyond the end of their own environmental niche issue nose.
Blue Order
02-12-08, 12:15 PM
Point about tofu and deforestation is as valid as points made by local/organic-grown meat advocates and vegetarians regarding meat consumption and deforestation. Same logic, yes?Actually, no.
Clearing of the Amazon was begun to open up grazing land for cattle production. If it's now also being used to grow soybeans, those soybeans are being produced for use either as animal feed, or to produce biofuels. There just aren't that many "tofu-munchers" in the world to produce enough demand for soy to clear the Amazon.
Take a look at where most domestically-produced soy goes-- tofu? Or animal feed?
cooker
02-12-08, 12:17 PM
I hate it when environmental experts say "oops."
I love it when people say oops. Any plan has to be continually monitored and cancelled or modified as new information becomes available. People who stick with a plan after realizing it's a bad one are big problem
But don't lay this on environmentalists. Ethanol took off because George Bush and agribusiness decided there was profit in it, not because some authoritarian environmentalists imposed it.
At the same time, we can't ignore all ideas and do nothing because there may be unintended consequences. We act on what we think is the best grounds and if we have to modify our plans we do.
Roody
02-13-08, 12:02 PM
Well, Roody, it really doesn't work that way with organic farming. You can apply an enormous amount of labor and mechanical intervention into an organic farm, but you won't get yields equal to conventional farming. Conventional fertilizers and insecticides result in far greater production acre per acre than you can get with organic farming even if you have workers standing in the fields shoulder to shoulder.
Organic fertilizers are nice, but they are puny compared with conventional fertilizers. Organic insecticides are hardly worth the trouble.
I doubt that the world could sustain it's present human population if we went 100% organic farming.
Organic farmers get better yields because they integrate different crops and pay attention to soil quality. I think you get most of your info from the glossy Monsanto brochures. don't believe everything the big peto-corporations tell you!
Roody
02-13-08, 12:10 PM
Why is this news now? It's been known from the very beginning that biofuels provide less energy per mpg, and take more energy to produce than they are able to put out. Hell, I saw studies on this in the 80's. Everyone just chose to ignore it because of the money/subsidies/pork barrel politics involved.
However, algae biofuel production may be the way to go. You can set up your plant in areas not needed for farming, and theoretically can produce a fuel that takes less energy to produce. It's still years away, and there's no subsidies like the corn growers are getting, and they still haven't figured out how to get any real production out of it, but if they can get it working it will be very nice.
If you read the article closely, you'll see that the new finding is that clearing land for the production of biofuel crops is actually releasing MORE GHGs into the soil than will consumption of an equivalent amount of petroleum or coal. This is for two reasons. First, the clearing and tilling of the soil releases CO2 and methane that were stored in the plants and especially buried in the soil. Second, the biofuel crops are much less eficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere, compared to the forest or prairie crops that existed before the land was cleared.
This has been suspected for a long time, but recently there has been some empirical support.
Roody
02-13-08, 12:16 PM
]<snip from original article>
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.
</snip>
Lovin' it! Used to be that vegans pointed a protien/amino-acid deficient finger at us meat eaters and said that we were killing the rainforest because farmers were clearing forest for grazing land. Now it's you tofu-munchers as well. Save the rainforest, eat locally produced food.[/SIZE]
...
You missed the main point of this thread. The forests are not being cleared for tofu-munchers or for baby-cow-killers (since you insist on using juvenille stereotypes). The forests are being cleared to make fuel for automobiles, primarily.
mconlonx
02-13-08, 01:17 PM
Cargill (USA) is one of the biggest buyers of Brazillian soy exports. While some of their agribusiness is indeed feed and biofuel, they also tout their soy food products as well.
21-Mar-2002 - US agribusiness giant Cargill announced this week that it is to open a new soy protein isolate plant in Ohio, US. The plant, destined to make a wide array of soy protein products, is set for completion in the autumn of 2002. (cont'd)"
Soy Flour:
Soy flour is the protein-containing ingredient that remains after the oil is extracted from soybeans. Typically about 50% in protein, soy flour is the natural product with the highest content of the isoflavones that many scientists have identified as being responsible for the health benefits. Soy flour is also a good source of dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Textratein® Textured Soy Protein:
Textured Soy Protein is versatile soy flour that increases product juiciness and yields. In its dry form has a protein content of over 50% (with a fat content of 1% or less) and consistently registers a PER score of 2.1."
Rainforest TVP anyone? Unless of course, they keep their Brazillian soy segregated from soy sourced elsewhere...
Again, point being, like with biofuels, that rampant over-environmentalism, in this case usually as it applies to diet and vegetarian politics/ethics, has unintended consequences in other environmental fields.
Let's say demand for soy was not coming from livestock and biofuel needs. Let's say instead that the same scale of demand was placed on the market because everyone bought into all the arguments about how switching to a vegetarian diet can save the world. Would the result--rainforest deforestation to boost soy production--be any different?
Change isn't going to come top down through gov't policies, it will come from the bottom up through forums like this, with people sharing ideas and views on conservation.
Roody
02-13-08, 01:41 PM
Again, point being, like with biofuels, that rampant over-environmentalism, in this case usually as it applies to diet and vegetarian politics/ethics, has unintended consequences in other environmental fields.
Let's say demand for soy was not coming from livestock and biofuel needs. Let's say instead that the same scale of demand was placed on the market because everyone bought into all the arguments about how switching to a vegetarian diet can save the world. Would the result--rainforest deforestation to boost soy production--be any different?
.
An interesting hypothesis, but in the real world, a vegetarian diet places fewer demands on the diet, not more, when compared to either a meat diet or biofuels. In other words, if everybody in the world switched to vegetarianism, there would be less incentive to plow up rain forests or other uncultivated areas.
An interesting thought occurred to me. In those regions that have already sustained agriculture for thousands of years (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica) the people follow a largely vegetarian diet, and the meat they do eat comes mainly from pastured or herded animals, not animals fed cultivated grains. And they certainly don't grow crops to fuel SUVs! ;)