The Politics of Biofuels
Posted by Robert Rapier on February 13, 2008 - 11:00am
In response to a recent query from an independent student newspaper in the UK, I wrote up an editorial piece on the politics of biofuels. That essay is reproduced below the fold. (The original can be found here.)
One of the intentions was to point out for European readers why the U.S. and the EU have begun to diverge on their biofuel policies. In the U.S. this is mostly a political issue, because our primary biofuel is home grown. In the EU, biofuels are mostly imported, so the EU can take a more objective view.
Introduction
Government policies often generate unintended consequences. This has turned out to be the case with the aggressive biofuel policies pursued over recent years by the European Union and the United States. While the EU was developing action plans and setting targets to promote biofuels, many states in the U.S. - especially those with high levels of corn (maize) production - were enforcing mandates to turn that corn into ethanol.
Superficially, this may sound like a great idea. The world obviously can't continue forever down the path of fossil fuels. Global Warming is a serious concern worldwide. Much of the remaining fossil fuel resources are located in areas hostile to the West. What better way to address these concerns than a movement toward renewable fuels? Furthermore, if the market won't encourage that move because of poor economics, wouldn't it make sense for governments to be proactive and force a move to biofuels? Of course this is the path we have taken, but we didn't sufficiently consider the potential consequences before doing so.
Criticisms
While corn farmers and palm oil plantation owners have been elated by the policies, critics have warned all along about the short-sightedness of these policies. Some, like Cornell Professor David Pimentel and Berkeley Professor Tad Patzek, argued that a full life-cycle analysis showed that most biofuels are actually net energy negative - that is it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce biofuels like ethanol than is returned in the process. This assertion, if true, would imply that expansion of biofuels would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. However, Professors Pimentel and Patzek have their own critics, who assert that their studies made flawed assumptions.
But the criticisms of the rush into biofuels didn't stop there. Some argued that the diversion of grains and edible oils away from food and toward biofuels had the potential to starve the poor. The United States Department of Agriculture, longtime staunch supporters of the biofuels expansion, published a study that concluded that the policies of the U.S. and the EU would raise prices across the food sector. Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute - a group that advocates environmental sustainability - famously noted in a Washington Post opinion piece that "the grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feed one person for a full year." Brown further wrote:
"Plans for new ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries are announced almost daily, setting the stage for an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world's supermarkets and its service stations. More broadly, it is a battle between the world's 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world's 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive."
Thus, at best the critics suggested that the impact of biofuels policies would increase food prices. Worse, biofuel mandates may be mandates for starving the poor.
Additional criticisms emerged. It soon became clear that the new policies were resulting in land usage changes. Grassland was turned into farmland, and tropical forests into palm plantations. As a result of EU-fueled demand for palm oil, Indonesia was destroying peat bogs to make room for new plantations, and this greatly increased their greenhouse gas emissions. This move reportedly made Indonesia the third largest greenhouse gas polluter.
In the U.S., former ethanol proponents such as Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley have recently abandoned their position that corn ethanol is environmentally beneficial. In a January 12, 2008 memo to California regulators attempting to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, they wrote:
“Simply said, ethanol production today using U.S. corn contributes to the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to agriculture, causing very large GHG emissions. Even if only a small fraction of the emissions calculated in this crude way [through land use change] are added to estimates of direct emissions for corn ethanol, total emissions for corn ethanol are higher than for fossil fuels.”
A pair of studies in the current issue of Science was apparently the basis for their change of heart. The Wall Street Journal reported on the studies:
While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of biofuels, two new studies suggest these gasoline alternatives actually will increase carbon-dioxide levels.
A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them by about one-fifth by some estimates.
"Even if we're dramatically wrong, it's hard to get to a result that says you get a benefit over 50 years," said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and a co-author of the paper on corn-based ethanol.
In the second study, researchers found that . . . draining and clearing peatlands in Malaysia and Indonesia to grow palm oil emits so much CO2 that palm biodiesel from those fields would have to be burned for more than 420 years to counteract it.
I made my own criticisms, on several fronts. I criticized what I felt were misleading energy balance studies, which inflated the attraction of corn ethanol. I criticized the morality of using food for fuel. I challenged venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who was promising the world something I didn't feel that he could deliver, and in the process wasting taxpayer money and precious time. I also challenged the hype of cellulosic ethanol, pointing out issues that the critics were ignoring. As I was warning about the folly of U.S. ethanol policy, I also cautioned over the irrational exuberance of ethanol investors. (I should also note that I wrote several essays in favor of certain ethanol applications. See here, here, and here.)
The World Responds
The criticisms didn't go unnoticed. The Chinese recognized the threat to their food supplies, and put a halt to new corn ethanol projects, noting that "the current maize-ethanol production capacity has far surpassed what the corn output can provide as an important grain resource." The European Union began to recognize the dangers. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said that "the EU had initially underestimated the danger to rainforests and the risk of forcing up food prices from its policy of setting binding targets for the use of biofuels." The EU further announced that they would be issuing a certification scheme and promised a "clampdown on biodiesel from palm oil which is leading to forest destruction in Indonesia."
The U.S. government continued to show short-sightedness, however, and mandated an enormous expansion of the ethanol program. To understand this, one has to understand that ethanol policy in the U.S. is dictated almost entirely by politics, and not by science. Because the source of U.S. biofuels is largely domestic, the issue impacts upon a large segment of voters. Former presidential candidate Bob Dole once explained the issue to oilman T. Boone Pickens: "Bob Dole once told me that there are 42 senators from farm states and that pretty much means the government is going to be into ethanol."
The prominence of the Iowa presidential caucuses also plays a major role. The Iowa caucuses are held prior to the elections in most other states, and presidential candidates hope to do well there and gain momentum going into the rest of the campaign season. Since Iowa is the heart of ethanol production country in the U.S., candidates pander to the voters there who have greatly benefited from U.S. ethanol policies. In order to win Iowa, you must support ethanol policy. Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John McCain provide perfect examples of the Iowa influence. Longtime critics of U.S. ethanol policy - both changed their positions during the most recent presidential campaign. In 2003, McCain had come out strongly against U.S. ethanol policy:
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."
Contrast that with his statements in 2006 as he prepared for a presidential run:
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects."
Thus, while the world wakes up to the overall social and environmental ramifications of a broad expansion of ethanol policy, the U.S. is unlikely to deviate from the current policy. If there was a major Midwestern drought that caused the corn crop to fail, it might cause a reevaluation of the policy as corn supplies disappeared. But barring some sort of catastrophe that impacts ordinary Americans, the policy of turning food into fuel will continue unabated in the U.S.
Lessons Learned
The consequences from these biofuel policies was foreseen by a number of scientists. However, their criticisms were often shouted down, and their motives were questioned by some proponents. In the U.S., proponents cast the ethanol debate in terms of national security, energy independence, and the benefits to farming communities. Opponents were cast as being anti-farmer and un-American. This had the unfortunate effect of largely quelling the public debate as these policies were being unveiled and expanded.
Yet these debates must take place, preferably before a well-intentioned policy begins to have such undesirable consequences. Our political leaders need to carefully consider not only the arguments of proponents, but they also need to give the critics a fair hearing. Had this been done, we may have been able to focus our attention on renewable options that do not compete with our food supply.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
http://reddit.com/info/68md3/comments/
thanks for your support.
Mr. Rapier as usual your comments are well thought out. Biodiesel and biologically derived alcohols can provide a means of fueling construction and agricultural machinery after post peak petroleum has priced itself out of the market. I see no diference between this and the historical practice of devoting a percentage of good crop land to feed draft animals.
At present I see no technologically developed replacements for liquid fuels in these uses.
If the crude plus concentrate peak is really 2005 and the rate of decline remains a point of contention the point at which the U.S. may need nonpetroleum liquid fuels is undefined.
One may readily criticize the U.S. govt for how they are encouraging alternate fuels. Some of the schemes being given state money in the state in which I live make ethanol look really golden. The roots of the ethanol push by the U.S. Govt lie in flawed agricultural policies of that govt but the history is past and we must deal with the present and the future. I look for ethanol efficiencies to improve as less efficient plants begin to fail economically.
Failing to push biofuels as a partial solution will in my opinion force us to use coal to liquid and or oil shale. It would be easy to fall into the anti-nuclear trap of destroying one alternative only to force the use of a worse alternative-coal.
The US fleet averages 20 MPG. Doubling this number is possible with inexpensive vehicles for sale today.
A 2 MPG increase would save more fuel than the whole US grain crop could provide and it would lower gasoline prices. Why should people be forced to pay More taxes and Higher gas prices and Higher food prices because the farm lobby wants a cut of the gasoline revenue?
If the farm states want subsidy, give the farmers funds to produce inexpensive organic produce!
US mpg is already going up, albeit very very slightly. that's just a start.
electricity and electric motors.
Go and stand on a bridge over a six lane freeway and count how many passing vehicles are electrically powered - as usual you are talking complete bollocks!
The electric motors you suggest need an adequate, low cost, high capacity battery of some sort - currently none come anywhere near gasoline and diesel for energy density, ease of use and cost.
It is not wise to assume personal electric vehicles will ever be cost competitive with ICE.
I used to rely on an electrically powered vehicle for most of my commute to work, when I lived in Newcastle and was commuting to a branch campus on the NSW Central Coast.
Of course, batteries were not an issue for those ...
... in any event, the "in these uses" in the comment further above referred to mechanized agriculture and construction machinery. That is a quite different problem to moving the people and freight that current use the Interstate.
In mechanized agriculture in particular, biofuel seems a plausible technology for including in the mix when developing alternatives to a petroleum based agriculture.
John,
You don't need new technology. It's already there. Ordinary cars (not the expensive hybrid technology) that run 50+ mpg can be bought as we speak. As a matter of facts, I have one, a second hand. The model has been on the market since 1997.
VW has introduced the Lupo 3L years ago. It runs 3 liters of diesel on 100 km. That's 75 mpg.
It's already there. No need for inventions. No need for break throughs. And it is much cheaper than a 15 mpg SUV. The average costs of cars like this are well below 10.000 US$.
And if you are American and want something a bit bigger:
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/car-review-pictures.aspx?RT=56&U=1
I get 45mpg (Urban commute) to 60mpg (Motorway) from this diesel, which has a larger cargo capacity than a lot of SUVs, as well as vastly better cornering. Modern diesel technology is something that might actually make a difference in the US - it's the reason why many European countries have seen flat or even slightly dropping oil usage in the past decade, despite increasing populations and passenger miles.
Well, at least one member of the Senate, Hillary Clinton will shortly be able to go back to her original and more science based position. She will no longer have to pander to the citizens of Iowa as she will be going back to being a full time Senator from New York. This is not an endorsement of Barack Obama but merely a recitation of an obvious reality.
Don't expect any changes in the positions of Obama and McCain until safely after the election. If Obama wins, he will begin looking to the next Iowa primary four years hence. McCain has said he would be a one term president. I doubt that he would follow through unless he dropped dead.
For a great many issues of lesser importance for the future of the planet, I can be forgiving due to the necessities of politics. Given the disastrous consequences, however, that will occur from a commitment to ethanol, especially corn, I think we should be very leery of politicans like Obama or McCain which promise a new era of hope and integrity.
Our political system, by its very nature is corrupt and undemocratic. I resent the influence of the denizens of Iowa who just feed the parochial nature of our politics which does not serve the interests of the general public of the U.S. or the citizens and other inhabitants of the planet.
On the margin, I think we should expect a more science based government for the next four years regardless of who is elected. Whether or not it will be sufficiently science based to avoid catastrophe remains to be seen.
I think cynics have long felt in relation to Mr Obama's calls for change: 'la plus ca change....'
Still, it takes some doing to make a virtue out of inexperience.
Don't expect any changes in the positions of Obama and McCain until safely after the election. If Obama wins, he will begin looking to the next Iowa primary four years hence.
I just did an interview with a major newspaper on Obama. Sounds like they are starting to kick the tires, because this didn't sound too friendly. I said that I was disappointed in some of his moves in the energy/environment sphere. However, I can't seriously fault him for supporting corn ethanol. He comes from a corn producing state. He is running for president, and that means he has to make a good showing in Iowa.
The truth of the matter is that if he had not been pro corn ethanol, he wouldn't be where he is. That is the political reality. But hopefully, he will have good advisors and he will be willing to make unpopular decisions if necessary. Because I have thought for months that he would be our next president. (I got into a funny argument with my father-in-law at Christmas who asserted that there was no way he could beat Hillary. I said "Just watch.")
I've been uncomfortable with Obama's willingness to play to corn ethanol and coal producers as well, but the political necessity of doing so is rather obvious, and there are no contenders with clean hands on that score...
FWIW, I happened to catch a RARE question about energy on the CNBC-sponsored Democratic debate several weeks back, and Obama's response was the only one that sounded right to me. He said that the low-hanging fruit was clearly efficiency and conservation. I don't think I've heard any of the other candidates say that. He may be cozy with corn and coal, but at least he seems to "get" it about the big picture on energy.
I agree: I think we're going to be an Obamanation.
(No, I can't take credit for that coinage, and I don't know who should rightly get it.)
We seem to be faced with a US government that perpetually either does nothing in the face of the looming crisis, or it does do something - that "something" ending up being exactly the wrong thing. It doesn't inspire much confidence for our future.
there is still the market.
that inspires even less....
the market is our savior.
Obama proposes $210 billion for new jobs
Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sixty-billion dollars would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_el_pr/obama_12
I'm sure that unlike most of our other national politicians Obama doesn't actually have horns growing out of his head, a pointy tail, and a pitchfork in his hand. Nevertheless, with all due respect, I'm underwhelmed. It is all going to be a case of being much too little, much too late.
There is a lobby for corn farmers, but no lobby for switch grass farmers. There is a market for corn in biofuels but not switchgrass, corn stalks, rice straw nor wheat straw. If we want to get to more rational cellulose biofuels, we have to develop a market system to make that happen.
If farmers had contracts to sell 1/2 of their corn stalks at a profit, they might be very pleased. They could get $40 per ton with up to 10 tons per acre and that would pay for a lot of corn growing fertilizer. Maybe they would not need as many price supports and we could stop the food/fuel debate.
Corn farmers and potential switchgrass farmers are the same people. Farming is highly flexible, and the same land, people and machinery can produce a variety of crops.
It is not a good idea to remove crop residues. That used to be common practice, back in the days of horse farming, combines without strawchoppers, and tillage equipment that could not handle high trash. Burning straw once was a common practice on the plains. But by removing that biomass and not reincorporating it back into the soil, soil tilth is reduced and erosion of soil A horizon (topsoil) is increased. There is no free ride.
If biomass feedstock is the desired product, then perennial grasses are by far the best choice for farmland. Perennial grasses are low-fertility, low-maintenance crops. The market will develop by itself when the technical problems of cellulose conversion are solved.
We are at the Wright Brothers and Langley stage of biofuel development. In 1907 nobody knew where this new toy called the airplane was heading. At the time, it was an interesting development but didn't look very useful as a transport solution. It could barely lift itself off the ground.
Corn farmers and potential switchgrass farmers are the same people. Farming is highly flexible, and the same land, people and machinery can produce a variety of crops.
Good, fertile cropland should not be used for fuel production; corn planting, cultivating, and harvesting equipment is radically different from that used to plant and harvest grasses.
We are at the Wright Brothers and Langley stage of biofuel development. In 1907 nobody knew where this new toy called the airplane was heading.
Conversely, one could say we are at the Edsel phase of ethanol fuel development.
First point: Fertilizing the corn belt is becoming another import addiction. With domestic natural gas prices up, fertilizer production is way down and imports from gas-rich countries are up. It's easier to import natural gas as fertilizer than as LNG with its complicated infrastructure.
Second point: A possible way of utilizing straw, corn stalks, etc. is to generate energy via pyrolysis with co-production of biochar that is returned back to the soil. Biochar is recalcitrant to decomposition in the soil, yet provides many of the benefits of more conventionally produced humus. Such carbon-negative energy production may be our only way out of the present global heating nightmare.
Absolutely..the latest studies show that you can preserve the soil by only removing 1/2 of the stalks. After the process, the char contains the carbon which is returned to the soil. Methane in remote locations should be turned into a product like fertilizer rather than LNG. An LNG plant costs billions of dollars and then you have to spend billions more dollars on the LNG tankers. Just because you can use a technology, does not mean that you should. It may not be the best way, if you think it through further.
Note that this appeal of perennial grasses is the case for farmland in areas (like Iowa) where a mixed grassland is the climax vegetation. In bioregions where forest is the climax vegetation, it may be that wood coppice is the most productive source of cellulose feedstock.
Two weeks ago I sat in a room with bankers, farmers, college staff, ethanol plant operators, and wind project developers. It seems I'm not the only one in northwest Iowa with a hankerin' to build wind driven ammonia production :-)
Anyway, in the course of the discussion, ethanol EROI came up. The ethanol guys were there specifically because they're looking for processes to colocate with ethanol production in order to improve efficiency. They were quite interested in the waste heat from
I suspect that a moratorium on construction with continued operation of existing plants is in the cards. I don't have anything more specific than my own sense of the region behind this statement, but I think it makes good political sense.
Iowa farmers as well as those in other states are being put into a no win situation in the food vs fuel debate. If they get a decent return on their investment they are criticized for pricing the poor out of the market. If they grew at a price the poor could afford then they go bankrupt. The solution is to assist the poor in developing countries so they can produce their own food. Foreign aid has not been a significant part of the US political agenda (or its budget) for decades. The billions of people living on $10 a day or less are simply invisible to the American voters.
As for the subsidies don't they go to the fuel blenders directly and not the ethanol producers and the farmers? Finally the corn going to the ethanol plant is not considered suitable for human consumption.
Iowa farmers as well as those in other states are being put into a no win situation in the food vs fuel debate.
I am all for helping farmers, and I am not against farm subsidies. I would much rather pay farmers NOT to use up their land in a boondoggle. But I am against creating a situation in which farmers are encouraged to adopt highly unsustainable and environmentally harmful practices.
As for the subsidies don't they go to the fuel blenders directly and not the ethanol producers and the farmers?
They do. Now ask yourself why it is the ethanol producers and farm state senators who lobby to keep the subsidies, and not the fuel blender. When fuel blender ExxonMobil suggested removing the subsidies, the American Coalition for ethanol screamed long and loud. Curious response for a subsidy benefiting the blender.
Finally the corn going to the ethanol plant is not considered suitable for human consumption.
And I suppose it isn't grown on land that can grow food suitable for human consumption? That other crops haven't been displaced to grow this unsuitable food? That the demand for the unsuitable food hasn't sky-rocketed due to mandates, resulting in displacement of other, less profitable (but tasty) crops?
Robert, you are aware that the number of acres devoted to the 8 major crops has fallen from almost 300 million acres in the early 80's to less than 250 million acres, right?
Robert, you are aware that the number of acres devoted to the 8 major crops has fallen from almost 300 million acres in the early 80's to less than 250 million acres, right?
Discussions with you could be so much more productive if you would source some of the claims you make.
Wheat and rice are human end-use products, but corn is an intermediate product. It's primary use is as feed for animals, the harvesting of which provides humans with meat. We can stop growing corn, but you will have to cut back on your meat consumption.
What is unsustainable is trying to feed 6 1/2 billion people. Present farming practice is unsustainable, but we have no choice. We're doing all we can to feed that many people, and the small percentage that is going into biofuels is not the driver of the system.
American agriculture policy has always been aimed at producing cheap food. If it had the best interests of farmers at heart, our rural farm population wouldn't be so small and you wouldn't be depending on a rapidly aging Thin Green Line to provide you with food that most of you no longer know how to produce yourselves.
We can stop growing corn, but you will have to cut back on your meat consumption.
I believe you meant to say "corn-fed meat" as opposed to "grass-fed meat". I personally have been cutting back on meat consumption altogether anyway.
Speaking of no win situations: if we assist the poor in developing country grow their own food we get criticized for not being able to assure them the seed is GMO free. Like anyone could possibly do that these days. Does the American taxpayer's billion dollar contribution to the UN food program count? That's half their budget and a lot of the other half comes from American individuals and companies.
Corn must be milled into flour before being made into tortillas, Who ever heard that the types of corn sold as livestock feed one year might be unfit for human consumption the next? The corn on the cob you saw in the supermarket was a different variety grown for table use. Ethanol distillers were supported by subsidies that were in turn used to buy high cost corn. I read of at least one company cancelling plans to build an ethanol plant because they could not forsee any profits in the operation.
Corn is low in BTU's per ton compared to uranium, coal, oil, or LNG. The green energy people recommending biodiesel and ethanol were naive and emotional in their approach to trying to solve energy problems. The United States is the largest corn producer in the world and the largest corn exporter in the world, yet there is not enough corn grown here to fuel more than 12% of our gasoline needs. If the US were to get 12% of its gasoline needs from ethanol, people would complaining loudly in Washington and elsewhere about the food shortages and skyrocketing food prices. They might start to look for someone to blame. The ecopolitics people might have to come up with a plan to save the human species. They might also need to find cheap energy supplies in order to distill their grain mash liquids after fermentation as ethanol is more expensive than hydroelectric, coal, uranium, oil, and natural gas as an energy supply. It is not clean, nor can it prevent deforestation and soil erosion. Pulling up corn stalks as an energy supply is less popular than cutting down trees and shoving logs into wood burning stoves. I suppose someone might want to think backyard grass clippings as an energy supply might save us. No one has proven it. There needs to be more flip-flopping back to sane energy policy than consistent error in sticking to the wrong story.
There is quite alot of evidence that no one has ever run a nation on switch grass, but there are people in Washington who claimed it can be done. A call to switch to cellulosic ethanol production was issued from the White House. The place seems to have no shortage of false claims, failed plans, and bad advice.
Robert, I think the biggest problem with figuring EROIE is accounting for the Distillers Grains. I would like to offer a few thoughts.
First: Field Corn is, primarily, Cattle Feed. Distillers Grains have been found by cattle producers to give a 10% greater weight gain than corn when fed in a thirty percent mixture. How, you ask, can that be when the starch has been removed. One reason, I think, might be that a considerable amount of CO2 has been removed. I don't think anyone ever got a very hefty weight gain by feeding CO2.
So, NOW What? How many gallons of ethanol did we get out of our bushel of cattle feed? Well, it seems to me that we've RETURNED about 44% (equivalent) of the original corn. Now, where did I go wrong?
The biggest problem with EROEI figures is not distillers grains or the arcane figures themselves. The biggest problem is the concept itself which is fallacious as I have pointed out many times. It is a classic case of comparing apples and oranges compounded by the error of omitting the critical function of price in resource allocation. Comparing fossil fuel inputs to ethanol, while both are forms of energy, is like comparing apples and oranges (both being fruits) which is a well known logical fallacy. When the prices are left out of the comparison, the fallacy is compounded. Just because university professors or the USDA commit logical fallacies does not give the result validity. People in Iowa know something goofy is going on, but most can't put their finger on it. It has taken me a couple of years to figure precisely what is wrong with RR's reasoning. Further compounding the errors of EROEI are the way it is applied only to ethanol. If EROEI were the voice of a god, then it should be applied equally to all. In the case of the apples and oranges comparison of electricity produced from natural gas, the resultant energy loss is ignored despite the fact that more natural gas is used to produce electricity than ethanol. It is this unequal application of EROEI which shows that there is a another agenda at work which I will not speculate on here. I would love to take this to my logic teacher that I had in freshman college English class although she is probably dead by now. She and the class would have a field day finding all the logic fallacies in RR's anti ethanol arguments.
It has taken me a couple of years to figure precisely what is wrong with RR's reasoning.
Yet it only took me 5 minutes to refute that argument. Really, just long enough to type it out. And I have done it now, what, 10 times? And yet you never answer it. You just repeat what you wrote above.
The ongoing "debate" about EROI seems to me to be wandering towards AGW denialist territory. The fact that you have to expend some energy to extract or otherwise produce some is a concept that even my fifth grader can grasp with just a few moments of discussion, and I'm at a loss as to why people (presumably grown ups) have such trouble with this.
Sure, there are details regarding what the inputs actually are, what is actually produced, and so forth, but these are details involved in characterizing EROI, not issues with which one can debate its existence.
I'm all for dissenting opinions because that keeps the debate fun, but continuously revisiting something that is a widely held belief of many without providing any new information? Thats compulsive and distracting ...
Well, okay, we've used, for all practical measures it seems, .56 of the bushel of corn, and we've produced, let's say, 2.8 gallons of ethanol. What's that? 2.8/.56 = 5 Multiplied by 151 bu/acre = 755 gal/acre effective yield?
Now, granted; all refining inputs must be charged off against the 2.8 gallons/bu, but fertilizer, farming, harvesting, it would seem, have to be charged off against the gal/acre number. Do you agree?
Well, okay, we've used, for all practical measures it seems, .56 of the bushel of corn, and we've produced, let's say, 2.8 gallons of ethanol. What's that? 2.8/.56 = 5 Multiplied by 151 bu/acre = 755 gal/acre effective yield?
You don't work for the USDA, do you? That's like some of the accounting I have seen them do. But do go on. Explain what a 755 gal/acre "effective yield" means. How big is an "effective acre?" Hint: Quite a bit bigger than a real one. And where are you getting your 0.56 of a bushel from? DDGS comprises 30% of the bushel. Or are you claiming the water back as well in this calculation? Hey, you know what would make it even more awesome? Just base it on the actual fermentable content that results in ethanol. That way, you don't take a penalty for the CO2 and could probably get the effective yield up over 1,000 gal/acre! Then consider this. What if we define an "effective bushel" at 28 pounds? Now we have pushed our bushels per acre up over 300. Holy smokes we are making some ethanol now! Er, "effective ethanol."
:-)
Ethanol sticks in the throat of Big Oil.
They hate it to death.
And so do their employees.
The problem is that Big Oil has no prospects and NO IDEAS (they can't figure out how to make a lot of money from oil shale or tar sands).
IOW, 'misery loves company'.
Aw, I just love the smell of an ad hominem in the morning. Was there an actual argument, a rebuttal to something I wrote, maybe, hiding in there somewhere?
The problem is that Big Oil has no prospects and NO IDEAS (they can't figure out how to make a lot of money from oil shale or tar sands).
Yet if they wanted to, they could easily buy up every ethanol plant in the country. But they don't.
All the ethanol output in the country is equivalent to the output of 1 mid-sized oil refinery. It's a drop in the bucket, but the proponents always envision that oil companies are quaking in their boots at the prospect that ethanol is going to put them out of business.
I thought I WAS responding, 'in kind'.
Rant to rant.
I'll be happy to respond to 'the Politics of Biofuels',
which I found to be one sided, non-technical, propagandistic in tone but the atmosphere seems rather hostile to other points of view(pro-biofuels). I noticed you still have Kammen's name supporting Farrell's opinion of biofuels vs. LUC. Did you even read the link I sent you before?
Why would Big Oil buy somebody else's ethanol plant when they have billions of dollars invested in aging oil refineries. They want to process heavy oil, and tar sands. They want oil going to those refineries to make them pay. They don't like to develop rival technologies like CTL, oil shale, NGL for the same reason.
The oil industry isn't quaking in its boots about ethanol
but it galls them that industry is growing and their business is shrinking--hell, they're just teed off!
You really should try to provide more facts and less opinion in writing a college course (Do it for the children).
I'll be happy to respond to 'the Politics of Biofuels',
OK, do so and I will publish it. I publish essays from my critics all the time. I don't censor their arguments. But it can be a meat grinder around here.
I noticed you still have Kammen's name supporting Farrell's opinion of biofuels vs. LUC.
That's because, as I said, he is co-author of the Farrell papers. And as I said, feel free to write and ask for his position on corn ethanol. Do you want his e-mail address?
They don't like to develop rival technologies like CTL, oil shale, NGL for the same reason.
You really don't know anything about the oil industry, do you? They develop what is economical to develop. CTL is not economical. Oil shale is not economical. You said NGL, but of course they are heavily into NGL. I think you meant GTL, which due to skyrocketing costs, isn't really economical. When you move away from conventional oil, the most economical sources are heavy oil (actually, that's even more profitable than conventional oil) and tar sands. No surprise that those are under development.
it galls them that industry is growing and their business is shrinking
Yes, they can only hope for the profitability of the ethanol industry over the past couple of years. All those subsidies, and still you have ethanol producers going broke. Galling indeed.
You really should try to provide more facts and less opinion in writing a college course (Do it for the children).
That piece is reporting on facts. What you posted about the oil industry being galled over ethanol is opinion. I reported on the criticisms, here and abroad. I reported on how the U.S., China, and the EU has responded. I reported on the flip-flops of the candidates. None of that is opinion. It is all fact. You would be hard pressed to find much in that piece that actually qualifies as opinion.
You know, I asked the other guy who showed up a week ago singing the praises of ethanol what his relationship was, and he denied any. How about you? Corn farmer? Ethanol producer? Politician?
"OK, do so and I will publish it."
I've pretty much said it all before, but I know the general reception is going to negative.
But p'raps I will.
"Farrell says he did his work on LUC with some grad students (and was pro cellulosic ethanol)and the link I left with Kammens and Farrells names was pro ethanol. I honestly don't know how you can link these two. If you have his email, then you should write him."
I worked in an oil refinery(FCC unit, Stretford, Claus, tank farm,etc.). The oil industry really likes oil, and not 'energy' IMO. And the refinery is their cathedral.
They aren't into CTL because they don't own coal mines, they aren't into oil shale because they'd need refineries at oil shale sites.
..NGL..
Oops, me bad.
I did mean GTL, they love NGL( pentane, butane, propane), which they can use for refinery operations.
On GTL--there are only a couple small GTL plants in the whole world, one in Nigeria, one planned for Qatar( now cancelled?), one in Malaysia. They don't own a lot of natural gas, so they don't want to develop it.
If ethanol is profitable now, it will be more profitable than oil as crude prices rise.
Again, the 'subsidies' issue--there's the 51 cent excise tax (which doesn't apply to ethanol because without it RFG would be far more polluting), there's farm price supports(loan guarantees) which go away when the farmers make a profit and there's ethanol subsidies from individual states which see it in their interest to help an industry which helps those states economically. The subsidy issue is a red herring. None of these represent a windfall for the ethanol industry.
That piece is reporting on facts. What you posted about the oil industry being galled over ethanol is opinion. I reported on the criticisms, here and abroad. I reported on how the U.S., China, and the EU has responded. I reported on the flip-flops of the candidates. None of that is opinion. It is all fact. You would be hard pressed to find much in that piece that actually qualifies as opinion.
The 'facts' of 'the Politics of Ethanol' were used in painting with a broad brush a picture of noble scientists (Pimental-Patzek) battling venal politicians
and their greedy farmer-constituents flush with subsidies.
"Lessons Learned
The consequences from these biofuel policies was foreseen by a number of scientists. However, their criticisms were often shouted down, and their motives were questioned by some proponents. In the U.S., proponents cast the ethanol debate in terms of national security, energy independence, and the benefits to farming communities. Opponents were cast as being anti-farmer and un-American. This had the unfortunate effect of largely quelling the public debate as these policies were being unveiled and expanded."
In fact, the battle of ethanol is being fought by scientists with different views. You never mentioned that the views of Pimental-Patzek represents a tiny minority of scientists and has not been replicated by other scientists. You feel that your side has been demonized. You also seem to think that the public should be in on the battle.
The politicization of ethanol has been achieved, it's not a scientific debate any more, it is a policy debate. That's not a good thing.
To paraphrase a quote I heard on TV, when you mix politics and science you end up with politics. I count that as a victory for your side.
"You know, I asked the other guy who showed up a week ago singing the praises of ethanol what his relationship was, and he denied any. How about you? Corn farmer? Ethanol producer? Politician?"
Me? Not a corn farmer, not an ethanol producer, not a politican. Just a regular american who sees an end to oil
and nobody doing anything about it.
They aren't into CTL because they don't own coal mines
These sorts of claims are just silly. They don’t own most of the oil either. They buy it from 3rd parties. This is what they would do with coal, if it made economical sense. Perhaps you might be interested in the EIA assessments, which show capital costs for CTL being about 4 times those of a conventional refinery. And we aren’t even building new refineries, because the economics are so poor. Yet you think oil companies aren’t into CTL because they don’t own the coal mines. That, sir, is opinion, and a very wrong opinion. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the economics are what prevent oil companies from being into CTL. I mean, how do you explain the reluctance to embrace GTL? Oil producers are generally also gas producers. The reason, if you really understood the industry, is that the economics aren’t there.
They don't own a lot of natural gas, so they don't want to develop it.
You should really fact check before posting stuff like this. They own most of the natural gas production. The largest natural gas producer in the U.S. is an oil company.
If ethanol is profitable now, it will be more profitable than oil as crude prices rise.
How so, when the inputs are fossil fuel? How so, when the barriers to entry are so low? I predicted that ethanol profitability would fall off a cliff last year, and it did. Why? Overbuilding puts upward pressure on corn prices, and downward pressure on ethanol prices. The only ones who will be consistently profitable are those who are integrated corn producers/ethanol plants.
Again, the 'subsidies' issue--there's the 51 cent excise tax (which doesn't apply to ethanol because without it RFG would be far more polluting),
That makes no sense it all. Furthermore, the California Air Resources Board determined that there were no pollution benefits because of the increase in RVP which leads to more ground level emissions. You read that link, right? But I have noticed that you simply ignore or dismiss studies that dispute your opinion.
The subsidy issue is a red herring. None of these represent a windfall for the ethanol industry.
This industry wouldn’t even exist without the subsidies. That’s why ethanol lobbyist keep talking about this as a fledgling industry - just a few more years and it can stand on its own. In fact, this industry has been directly subsidized on each gallon of ethanol production for 30 years. You would think the fledgling could fly by now. Unless, of course, it’s a penguin that will never fly, and all of this fledgling talk is just a stalling tactic.
In fact, the battle of ethanol is being fought by scientists with different views. You never mentioned that the views of Pimental-Patzek represents a tiny minority of scientists and has not been replicated by other scientists.
First, the views you refer to are the energy balance views. The big picture of corn ethanol – that it isn’t a scientifically sound policy – represents a large proportion of scientists. And as you saw with the Farrell/Kammen defection, the deeper they dig the worse things look. Furthermore, I directly linked to Pimentel’s critics, so people can see the criticisms. I note that to date I have never seen you link to anything that indicates there is a contrary opinion.
The politicization of ethanol has been achieved, it's not a scientific debate any more, it is a policy debate.
When you have agencies like the USDA doing creative accounting to exaggerate the energy balance, it is a political issue. It has always been a political issue. The scientists have never been seriously consulted on this.
Me? Not a corn farmer, not an ethanol producer, not a politican. Just a regular american who sees an end to oil and nobody doing anything about it.
I have a hard time believing that. Why? You are too quick to dismiss any studies that you don’t like. No actual evaluation, no concern at all that there may be a problem – just a quick dismissal. Those are not the actions of an objective person who is just interested in making sure we are following a sound energy policy. Furthermore, to suggest that corn ethanol is “doing something about it” with respect to the end of oil demonstrates a serious ignorance of just how dependent upon fossil fuels the entire industry is.
There ARE CTL companies and the coal companies are interested in CTL.
http://www.peabodyenergy.com/pdfs/peabody2005ar/narrative1.html
The Chinese are very interested in CTL.
I agree that CTL doesn't make much economic sense at the current time. Using the coal to provide heat for ethanol is the most efficient use of coal per BTU.
Oh, the oil companies want gas! But they don't want to use it to make GTL liquid fuel at least in North America which is peaking in natural gas IMO. They haven't convinced Russia or Qatar to do that for them either.
BP, for example is hardly likely to invest in US GTL technology if gas production is poised to decline. (Nice snark tho)
How so...
Simple logic. If ethanol is energy positive( which all experts agree-P&P are not experts IMO) and turns a small amount of oil into a large amount of oil substitute, then as the cost of crude leads energy costs, ethanol will become comparably cheaper than oil.
I read the paper about LUC and don't think the issue applies to US grown bio-ethanol at all. I sent you multiple times air pollution reports that show ethanol has lower tailpipe emissions than gasoline. Can you show me reports that show tailpipe emissions of pollutants are higher with ethanol than gasoline?
Here is a review of EROEI or net energy studies on ethanol. Look at Pimental's studies..'stuck on stupid'!
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf
Well, at least USDA publishes their energy accounting. Pimental
energy balances have weird entries on their ledger(irrigation when corn is rarely irrigated, massive amounts of fertilizer farmers don't use on average, etc.).
http://klprocess.com/Facts_Legends/Pimentel_Paztek.pdf
Hard to believe(that I'm not a paid agent of Big Corn)?
I support the current 15 billion gallon per year limit for 2015 on corn ethanol. I believe that cellulosic ethanol, not corn ethanol is the future and a partial solution at best. I oppose the car culture in the form of plug-in hybrids and gas guzzlers. I'd favor rationing of liquid fuels. I'd favor tar sands and oil shale( with environmental controls)!
And I don't expect the world to keep supplying us with oil!
I think we need MORE energy not less(unfortunately that's a VERY difficult problem).
To paraphrase Boone Pickens, 'Wind, solar, ethanol, oil...we will need ALL of them!'
But they don't want to use it to make GTL liquid fuel at least in North America which is peaking in natural gas IMO.
If you have seen the economics on GTL - which I have since I worked on GTL for several years - it is no mystery why they wouldn't do it in North America. It only ever made sense for stranded gas that is almost worthless. The capital costs are just incredibly high. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to be in the market. Same with CTL, which has even worse economics. (Think about gasifying coal versus gasifying natural gas, and the reason should be obvious). It has exactly zero to do with ethanol.
Then why do coal companies(and a lot of other folks) want F+T?
For example, the Hirsch Report calls for a big expansion of CTL liquids(see page 56)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
The entire Hirsch report is about peak oil mitigation which mentions biofuels.
"Ethanol...Ah'm agin it..dagnabit!"
It's hard to see whatever it is you are FOR.
Or maybe it is enough to 'just say no'.
I honestly feel sorry for Dr. Hirsch and Rodger Bedzek...forget the oil industry, they've got to get by the doomers first!
Then why do coal companies(and a lot of other folks) want F+T?
Duh! They are for it, so they can sell their coal. But why aren't they building CTL plants? The economics aren't there.
It's hard to see whatever it is you are FOR.
First and foremost, I am for reducing our energy usage. America uses twice as much energy per capita as Europe, and seven times as much as Brazil. Why? What right do we have to use up the world's supply of oil as fast as we can? I want to see a phased in series of higher gas taxes, and rebates and incentives for hybrids and fuel efficient cars. That's an immediate benefit, and it would stretch our oil supplies. But not for long, because China and India will continue to demand more oil. So, we need to figure out a different arrangement. The only real shot that we have, in my opinion, is massively reducing our energy usage and shifting to electric transport:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2812
I am also in favor of nuclear power:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2826
Compressed natural gas, which skips the ethanol step:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/3/101857/5186
Potentially ammonia:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/27/22545/5999
Higher gas taxes as I said:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/18/12529/1219
Some biomass gasification:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/22/211321/89
Electric cars:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/01/electric-cars-versus-ice.html
And a lower speed limit:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-can-drive-55.html
Any more questions?
Thanks!
That's clear enough.
On conservation, that's obvious, but I don't think we can reduce all that much, at least using our current technology and we can't replace all our technology at once. I don't even count it as mitigation. Hirsch gives it a minor effect in his mitigation scenarios.
Electric transport will not happen, too much infrastructure required, too little time. Even nuclear France still has about 1/3 of its trains running on fossil fuel. We have almost no electric trains. Can't be done in 50 years.
Nuclear has limited supply of fuel and the waste problems. It will take a long time to build new reactors and then the fuel will run out--not sustainable IMO.
The technology is not improving much either. On top of that 70% of the energy is waste heat.
CNG cars, is a good idea for Iran(which supposedly has lots of natural gas--then why did they run out this winter you may ask). I believe NA natural gas has peaked and is needed for things other than transport, but energywise, I agree--it's a good idea.
I prefer methanol( George Olah's method) longterm to ammonia(very nasty stuff, even slightly explosive)--I used to do ammonia in a CLOSED system--refrigeration. If it's burnt you'll probably get nitrous oxide in some amount which is a GHG and the way ammonia is manufactured it is a source of a lot of nitrous oxide. A poster here talked about ammonia fertilizer from windpower, a really brilliant idea IMO, much better than windpowered cars. Remember ~1% of all the worlds energy goes into the production of fertilizer.
Methanol(Olah) has a higher heating value per pound than ammonia and is not a gas at room temps, stores like gasoline.
MUCH higher gas taxes!! Worse, I welcome a BTU tax.
Biomass gasification is better than ethanol?? No way!
Gasification is worse than distillation per BTU.
Lower speed limit, great idea--better idea? make cars that can't go faster than 30 mph! That alone would end the reign of the automobile. I can imagine the bike mechanics, animal breeders etc. trying to put GM out of business.
My apologies, I stand corrected!
You do stand for somethings.
True, and they're still trying to get somebody to listen! This just in:
Seriously,
Can we start banning people for attacking the messenger and not the idea?
The greater the price of oil, the greater the need for moderation here.
I would like to see you attempt a pro-ethanol article to counter Robert's. You make accusations, you make claims, you show zero support for your claims, no proof for your accusations.
Unlike Robert, I have no connection to the oil industry (although like you and everybody else here I benefit from it every day of my life - even count on it for survival when I drive to the market and buy all those crude-oil grown foods).
The reason this board is so often anti-biofuel is we read the facts, we read that Brazil's real triumph isn't cane ethanol (which is MUCH better than anything we can do) - it was discovering lots of oil! We read that Indonesia is killing their jungles and peat bogs to plant palm oil plantations - and it worries us. We read scientific studies that show ethanol to be a dead-end so far. All this and we judge it harshly
you show me working cellulosic ethanol on a large scale, with inputs that don't starve people abroad or drive domestic food prices through the roof - you show me we can grow enough of ANYTHING to replace our liquid fuels, and I will wholeheartedly support it - until then, I will curse ADM and all the politicians who must such at that corporate teat to get elected - and I will prefer Robert's well-supported, documented and thought-out articles to outrageous claims of "teed off" oil industries
you said "You really should try to provide more facts and less opinion"
and yet....you provide no facts in this at all
I covered that, I thought. I can get a ten percent better weight gain (660 vs 600) feeding 30% distillers grains. That means when I process that bushel of corn for ethanol I still end up with 44% of the cattle feeding potential I had with a straight bushel of corn. This means: I have, effectively, only used .56 of a bushel.
This means that if I process the corn from one hundred acres for ethanol I get back 44 acres equivalent in distillers grains.
Only .56 of the corn is being used to make that 2.8 gallons of ethanol. Hence, the multiplying of 2.8 by .56
Uh, that should be dividing 2.8 by .56
Also, I used 33% for dds coproduct, not 30%. That would change it just a bit, I guess.
And, no, I don't work for the USDA. I'm the same retired insurance man I was a couple of days, ago, when you asked if I was with RFA.
:)
Hello all.
After a few years there is not a lot of discussion on bioethanol in LCA circles. Bioethanol has been studied in most countries a lot, mostly with the same result.
Even the inclusion of the fermentation rests as animal feed do not add much. The present discussion in LCA circles goes on how to use system expansion- and including what goes on in the soil with the carbon pool, the NOx developed etc.
The conclusion is that as long as we have liquid fossil fuel it should be used for transport, and biomass should be burnt for heat and electricity, at best in cogeneration plants, saving fossils. This is done extensively in northern Europe. In special cases, like Brazil, Bioethanol may be an option.
When most fossils are gone, Cellulosic bioethanol via enzymes could also be an EROEI interesting option, but the amount ever produced will be marginal compared to present transport fuel consumption.
Just one example.
http://www.lcm2007.org/presentation/Tu_2.07-Zah.pdf
Extensively discussed on the oil drum in September 2007 here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976
A quick search on Scirus indicate, how well ethanol has been studied.:
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=LCA+ethanol&ds=jnl&ds=nom&ds=web&g...
kind regards/And1
All is not lost if we avoid the food fermentation route, plus reduce and electrify transport. Gasification of garbage and low value vegetation could conceivably retire some atmospheric carbon via charcoal. The stumbling blocks appears to be high capital cost and an expensive finished fuel.
This time add a sunset clause to government intervention. Perhaps the ethanol tax credit should have timed out by now and the money used on something else. At the same time if FF inputs like diesel for tractors and NG for nitrogen fertiliser are carbon taxed (coal to liquids gets double taxed) there will be an incentive to do more with less. If there are unintended consequences then pull the plug on government aid.
If no biofuel can stand on its own feet then the days of happy motoring could be over.
So McCain too has switched his tune, but because Presidential elections are based on 30 second commercials, it will not register with voters.
Two quotes seem apropo:
“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” – Milton Friedman.
"Is it the lies we ordinary citizens tell ourselves which give our leaders license to lie?" - Hans Noeldner
It seems there are always two sides to each issue, with ethanol being no different, except the contrast between the positives and negatives couldn't be more striking. Yet, however much the ethical and moral imperative there may be to halt ethanol production due its cause and effect of poor people starving, humankind's jungle is an economic one of what makes most sense for business. Only by mandating at the top political levels could ethanol production be stopped. But with so much investment having already been allocated for its production, what politician is going to stop big business from making ethanol?
Robert
What I'd be concerned about is some bright spark getting the idea of genetically engineering a biological agent that does a cellulose->ethanol conversion and it gets into the biosphere, cellulose is the concrete of the plant kingdom the result would be catastrophic. Oh hang on they are already doing it
Neven
I have also wondered about such a possibility. If it happened, peak oil would look like an all-expense-paid vacation in Disneyworld.
Is There a Plan for Life After Peak Oil?
By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted February 12, 2008.
"Yes, but it involves a new generation of biofuels that are an environmental disaster. "
http://www.alternet.org/environment/76782/
I wish TheOilDrum would stick to oil industry issues, which it does really really well, and leave the agronomy issues, which it does poorly, to another blog, perhaps a sister blog that would focus in that area and develop a list of writers with the necessary backgrounds.
As a retired North Dakota farmer, it's painful for me to read these postings and see the misunderstandings about agriculture in general and American agriculture in particular. I can't really blame anyone, since there are so very few people growing food anymore that the chances of someone having a direct experience in farming are slim.
I've grown the standard food crops of wheat, barley, soybeans, sunflower, and corn, but my specialty was producing seed from perennial native grasses, including switchgrass, which is so talked about but so few people really understand, including botanists, who have talked to me about how tiny our knowledge of the underground hormonal activity of perennial grasses is, and who used to pick my brain about my own observations of the plants I grew.
Farming is a capital intensive, high risk, dangerous and low-profitability endeavor. After the big shakeout in farming two decades ago, the only remaining operators are the very best there have ever been. They practice very tight control of their inputs; they are highly educated; they are environmentally conscious; they are creative and self-reliant. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never have so few, done so much, for so many, for so little in return.
I think its important to address the issue here. Peak Oil is a event but whats important is how we handle it. Corn Ethanol is not a good solution for a post peak world. Biodiesel and Sugarcane are a lot better. I'd rather see the farmers investing in wind farms on the poorer land rather than expanding corn production.
One of the biggest changes post peak is that everyone needs to be intensely aware of the supply chain that supports there lifestyle. I'm not comfortable with corn ethanol providing a critical part of my lifestyle support.
Certainly I need to make more changes in the way I live granted but on the same hand I need to see clear and reasonable changes from people that produce the goods and services I rely on esp if I'm to change the way I live.
What I see is not a well thought out transition to alternative energy sources but simple greed. The oil industry crashed in the past and is responding with basically the same response. The deserve the money now because they lost in the past.
My industry crashed and it was ten years before my salary has climbed higher than what I used to make. Inflation adjusted I'm still way behind but I don't think just because I went through hard times I "deserve" some sort of profit.
If the farming community was switching to biodiesel and ammonia synthesized from natural sources and in general moving renewable/organic farming then I think a lot of people would be very supportive. Producing corn ethanol to make a quick buck is not something I'm interested in supporting and does not help me move to a sustainable lifestyle. Farmers will become increasingly important as the oil supply depletes the fact they are unwilling or unable to take on really transforming the agriculture industry in a sensible post peak fashion is troublesome. What I see is they are quite willing to allow blind greed to drive their actions to the eventual detriment of all.
Wind turbines are not placed on the land least useful to the farmer, they're placed in the very best location possible for the production of wind. The farmer would prefer to leave low lying wetlands idle, the wind turbine wants a smooth hill top with a gentle slope away from the top in the general direction of the prevailing winds. We're talking about a 34% of faceplate generation with proper placement versus perhaps as little as 10% using the least desirable land; no such arrangements are made for anything larger than a hobby horse turbine installed by the land owner himself.
The placement of wind farms in the most optimal crop land is not a problem; the Storm Lake II farm of 252 units is pretty much right down the middle of a broad, flat ridge south of the city of Storm Lake. The farmers have given up less than 5% of their land for turbine bases and the service roads needed to reach them. Their compensation for the easements exceeds what they'd make farming the ground used.
Just a little nit of mine ... I'm wading through the turbine siting class materials and there are a lot of misconceptions about where one builds large scale wind turbines.
Government policy was obviously a big driver for intensive agriculture; but farmers also have themselves to blame. Thinking that mechanizing and chemical use would increase profits you only succeeded in driving yourselves off the land. The problems you mention above were created by the farming industry itself. Producing more and more food at cheaper and cheaper prices whilst slowly putting yourself out of business is hardly something you can expect to be slapped on the back for.
I wish TheOilDrum would stick to oil industry issues, which it does really really well, and leave the agronomy issues, which it does poorly, to another blog, perhaps a sister blog that would focus in that area and develop a list of writers with the necessary backgrounds.
First of all, The Oil Drum is about discussion of energy issues. This is an energy issue. Second, this wasn't a discussion of agronomy issues, it was a discussion of the politics of ethanol. Can you show me where the essay is wrong on that topic? Third, my background is farming as well. I grew up on a farm, which my family still owns. My extended family is full of farmers in Oklahoma and New Mexico. So I do have a direct experience there.
Finally, since your criticism was generic and not specific, I can't really offer a rebuttal. If you want to get into specifics, we can do that. I will comment on one thing, though:
they are environmentally conscious
Some are, and some aren't, but the cumulative effect is an enormous runoff of herbicides, pesticides, and topsoil into the Mississippi River, which has resulted in a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. And for what?
The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is an unintended consequence of our need to eat; it is an unintended consequence of our meat hunger and the huge quantities of feed grain produced and the manure resulting; it is an unintended consequence of our desire for green, weed-free lawns. The dead zone predated corn ethanol and it will post-date it.
Robert, be honest with yourself. This is not one of your better postings. It is a self-congratulatory polemic recapitulating some common themes that have become popular of late. It offers no historical background and very little political analysis. There is no explanation of the massive shift in American farm policy that occurred during the Nixon administration; it doesn't explain the role of a continuous decline in the federally set Commodity Credit Corporation loan rate, and the critical importance of "base acres" as a determinant for farm program enrollment; it doesn't look at the collapse of land prices in the mid-80s, the desire to develop rural value-added industries to staunch the flow of children leaving for the cities, and the determination of the federal government to get out of the crop storage business; it doesn't explain the role of chronic hopper car shortages to ship grain by rail, leaving huge piles of corn on the ground exposed to the elements; it doesn't investigate the can-do attitude of farmers and their willingness to form co-operatives to accomplish common goals. It doesn't analyze how political decisions in Washington are following indicators, not leading indicators.
If you consider yourself having a farm background, you wouldn't use Pimentel and Patzek to backup your arguments. Their methodologies are deeply flawed, especially on evaluating farming practices. I won't go into details. There isn't room here, and critiques of their work are readily available online.
You're proud of opposing Vinod Khosla, but you've posted on your own website that you will be working for a cellulosic biofuels company competing with Khosla, and that their approach is right and Khosla's wrong. There's no way for you to know that, at this point in time. I'm old enough to have gone through many cycles of the rigidity that comes with "correct thinking," in myself and in others. I prefer a Gandhian approach that recognizes there is a part of the truth in each and every one of us.
The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is an unintended consequence of our need to eat;
Yet for some reason we think it's OK to make it bigger by recycling natural gas into fuel via corn?
It offers no historical background and very little political analysis.
It is an explanation, primarily for a European audience, of why Europeans are slamming on the brakes on biofuel policies while we are expanding ours. The politics are different. Iowa plays a key role, as well as the number of farm state politicians we have. This has nothing to do with farm policy during the Nixon administration. It addressed the issue it was meant to address.
If you consider yourself having a farm background, you wouldn't use Pimentel and Patzek to backup your arguments.
Isn’t that the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? If you had a farm background, you wouldn’t use Pimentel and Patzek. You used Pimentel and Patzek. Therefore, you don’t really have a farm background? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
There isn't room here, and critiques of their work are readily available online.
This leaves me to wonder whether you even read the article. Of course I know there are critiques available online. I did, after all, link to one of them. And I didn’t use Pimentel and Patzek to back up my argument. I pointed out that they were some of the first critics. That is a fact. I also pointed out that their analysis is disputed. I really don’t know what else you could have wanted. It is true that their criticisms came early, and it is also true that other criticisms followed. That isn’t my opinion. Those are facts.
You're proud of opposing Vinod Khosla, but you've posted on your own website that you will be working for a cellulosic biofuels company competing with Khosla, and that their approach is right and Khosla's wrong.
Would you like to source that claim? I don’t recall ever saying that we would be competing with Khosla. Due to the nature of what we are doing, it’s highly unlikely that we will both be in the same market at the same time to compete against each other. But I have seen (and worked on) any number of approaches, and I will stand behind my assessment of that situation. The other thing is, my criticisms of Khosla's approach are specific to things like Pacific Ethanol. I have a post in the queue where I point out several areas in which I think he is headed in the right direction.
"The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is an unintended consequence of our need to eat; it is an unintended consequence of our meat hunger and the huge quantities of feed grain produced and the manure resulting; it is an unintended consequence of our desire for green, weed-free lawns. The dead zone predated corn ethanol and it will post-date it."
If my memory is right, the "Dead Zone" is caused by excessive nutrients being in the water causing large quantities of low level life forms to consume excessive amounts of the oxygen in the water which leaves insufficient oxygen in the water to support higher aquatic life forms.
If this is correct, then you simply have an aquarium effect and it should be able to be simply reversed by building commercial wind generating size wind turbines connected to air pumps connected to hoses leading to bubblers at the bottom to re-oxygenate the water. With the large amount of low level life forms that are a primary source of food for the higher life forms you have the potential of dramatic growth of the higher life forms. ie. the land farmers would be supplying free food for the sea harvesters - If the sea harvesters were just willing to invest a reasonable amount in the air pumps to keep the higher life forms alive?
Maybe there is something I don't understand, but it sure seems to me to be a simple problem that any 10 year old that has taken care of an aquarium would be able to solve - Oh, what am I thinking? What government is as smart as a 10 year old?
"If this is correct, then you simply have an aquarium effect and it should be able to be simply reversed by building commercial wind generating size wind turbines connected to air pumps connected to hoses leading to bubblers at the bottom to re-oxygenate the water. With the large amount of low level life forms that are a primary source of food for the higher life forms you have the potential of dramatic growth of the higher life forms. ie. the land farmers would be supplying free food for the sea harvesters - If the sea harvesters were just willing to invest a reasonable amount in the air pumps to keep the higher life forms alive?"
and who pays for this "simple" system? - this sounds like insanely large scale engineering - which costs a lot of $
I'm still holding out for mining the moon for helium 3 for our fusion reactors....
Robert, I meant to post this link in my earlier post, but I forgot.
Decreasing acreage devoted to the 8 Major Crops - Almost 300 million acres to 246 million acres. From your favorite outfit. :)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE081/OCE20081c.pdf
Wow kdolliso, was that a source you posted? Way to go! But don't stop now...you've still got about a dozen other claims to support.
Decreasing acreage devoted to the 8 Major Crops - Almost 300 million acres to 246 million acres.
But you are looking over a time that far exceeds the ethanol mandates. The relevant period is from about 2001, when total acreage was marginally higher than today. But, look what happened to corn acreage, at the expense of soybean and wheat acreage. Due to the artificial market created by the ethanol mandates, acreage for the latter two has shrunk to make way for more corn, which has put upward pressure on the commodity prices of wheat and soybeans.
It wasn't long ago that the US and EU were criticized for harming development of third world countries by dumping excess agricultural production.
Here is an example:
http://www.agrifood.info/connections/winter_2002/Howard.html
There is an argument to made that high food prices encourage development in 3rd world countries, particularly if a side effect is to reduce the price of imported Oil.
I'm not particularly in favour of corn ethanol subsidies but I haven't seen this argument much on TOD so I thought I'd run it.
Are 2nd generation biofuels like the Coskata syngas ethanol supported by the present US subsidies?
First of all you can't legitimately compare ethanol production to
petroleum production when it comes to Green House Gas.
Oil is dwindling fast and the true comparison
is to oil shale, tar sands, coal to liquids and methane clathrates.
That's where the oil companies are going if we don't develop biofuels and most specifically alcohol. Those other sources are as much as
hundreds of times the impact of petroleum on air quality and climate
change.
These CO2 studies as well as others are at odds with the Dec
6, 2006 Science study which is the only study to look at polycultures
of energy crops and the full carbon absorption including that which
is exuded from the roots which accounts for up to 80% of the carbon
absorbed by plants. These other studies ignore these contributions so
their numbers are nothing more than an academic exercise but have no
relevance to the real world The 12/6/06 study shows that 13+ times
the CO2 is absorbed than is produced in the farming and burning of
alcohol.
First of all you can't legitimately compare ethanol production to petroleum production when it comes to Green House Gas.
Sure you can, when the petroleum production is embedded in the ethanol production. That's the situation we have (except it's primarily natural gas and not petroleum).
Some of you guys seem to be under the impression that oil companies aren't looking at this. My own company has probably done hundreds of studies on various biofuels. I was reading through some of them a couple of days ago. But this stuff never seeps out to the general public, so we get assertions that we are just setting around on our hands, fretting over the growth of the ethanol industry.
But Robert, that is on the large scale 100 million gallon scale.
Small scale production from polyculture crops, and you can use alternative heat sources that close the loop so you don't need petroleum.
Granted, I'm not advocating horse drawn carts for hauling the feedstock to the still, however the process can be separated so that petroleum isn't embedded in the ethanol process.
As small scale markets come online in local areas, this debate will settle itself. As for GHG / CO2, I'm not sure we can stop the positive feedback loop that has started, better to go natural with plant-based sequestration than see oil companies add to the problem.
I am just curious about EROI...is there no difference in EROI for biodiesel say from Canola or discarded chicken fat (ala Tyson's new plant) than for ethanol which requires distilling?
I am just curious about EROI...is there no difference in EROI for biodiesel say from Canola or discarded chicken fat (ala Tyson's new plant) than for ethanol which requires distilling?
Transesterification uses far less energy than distillation, but of course that's only one factor. The full EROI calc for biodiesel is going to be very different from that of ethanol. For one, you'd have to include some chickenfeed (and all its energy inputs), proportional to the amount of rendered fat vs. meat.
BIOFUEL IS NOT A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE
Soil needs to be nourished and replenished with nutrients, but large soil losses due to erosion, soilcontamination, carbon dioxide emissions and food supply demands make biofuel not a suitable renewable energy source.
Mr. David Montgomery, geologisst at University of Washington estmates that we are now losing one (1) percent of our topsoil every year to erosion, most of this is caused by agriculture.
A 3/2006 Cornell Univ. study shows Woild Soil is being swept & washed away 10 to 40 times faster than it is being replenished, destroying cropland the size of Indiana (37,000 Sq. Miles) every year. The USA losses are 10 times faster than the rate of replenishment. 30% of the World available land has become unproductive in the last 40 years. World cropland degradation, salination, abandonment and urbanization amount to 1% annually. World irrigated croplands of 1.68 million sq. miles produce about 40% of world crop productivity. A study states that World topsoil will be depleted in 70 years, because erosion and topsoil contamination from fertilizers and pesticides render soil unproductive for many years and decades. Corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years, and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years according to researchers. Corn, soybeans, sugarcane and palm oil release 17 to 420 times more carbon, than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels. Residual solids and fibers from biofuel resources are not suitable for food, and/or have very little food value.
These studies were conducted by agricultural experts at Princeton University, Cornell University, The Nature Conservancy, University of Minnesota, and Iowa State University, etc. Very informative is Chapter 1 - Soil Loss Overview, Edition 7, on July, 2007 - at http://home.alltel.net/bsundquistl/sel.html.
Only 53-56 million sq. miles are biologically productive as croplands. Typical World topsoil averages about 11 inches in depth, and weighs about 249,000 tons/sq.mile, amounting to a total of approx. 6000 Giga/tons, based on 1970's data of measurements. A more recent estimate now reduces the World total topsoil to 3600 Giga/tons. When topsoil depth is reduced below 6 inches (150mm) in depth, crop productivity drops sharply. Any further food production yield demands increases cropland degradation, and reduces the feeding of the growing world population. Expanding global croplands to meet future food requirements is no longer possible.
The shifting of Global Warming Climate Patterns in the Northern Hemisphere by as much as approx. 500 miles northward in approx. 80 years, would cause substantial reductions in needed rainfall, and produce major droughts, resulting in major losses in crops and food supply. If and when the forests in Canada and in the Russian Federation are cut down for use by agriculture production, then global warming will be dangerously increased, and the consequences would then become a worldwide disaster.
Any arable land that is now available would need to be used for food production within a few years, but that may not be adequate in view of global warming, climate changes, fossil fuel depletion, global energy supply shortages, and world population growth. Therefore, Biofuel obviously is not a renewable energy source anymore.
Huge amounts of methane hydrate gas rises from the ocean floor, and is continuously released into the atmosphere every day. The potency of Methane concentration is approx. 20 times that of regular carbon dioxide, and is formed by high pressure combined with low temperatures in depths of approx. 300 feet below the ocean surface, and can be found in thick sediment layers of 50 feet to over 430 feet. The volume of 3 trillion tons of methane hydrate gas on the ocean floor is estimated to exceed all the existing amounts of oil, coal and natural gas combined, but it also contains approx. 400 Giga/tons of carbon dioxide, and can be found in large quantities in sediments around the periphery of all continent shorelines.
China, India and Japan are attempting to harness these huge quantities of methane hydrate gas, but the costs of such extraction and production processes prove to be prohibitive, and production plans will soon be abandoned.
In addition, the expected melting of polar ice and warming of ocean water temperatures and ocean currents are expected to release very large amounts of the frozen methane and release this potent carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. The melting of the Permafrost, Tundra, and warming of Peat Bogs in Alaska, Canada and the Russian Federation could exceed the land area of 2-3 million square miles. The total land area affected by the melting of permafrost, tundra and peat bogs and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions still require to be evaluated and properly researched.
If all the greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide are combined with the additional carbon dioxide emissions produced from biofuel, then we have a global warming crisis in magnitude as was disclosed by Al Gore.
To be a conscientious citizen and to strive for a better future for us all is being patriotic, and not a crime, no matter how much this government twists and distorts the truth and facts. Life in opppression and bondage is not freedom, and the future has to be freedom from such oppression and bondage.
We all need to be fully knowledgable of what the Global Warming problems are, as well as the Peak Oil, future World Energy Supply, and any substitutions for oil, in order to manage our lives and future! This disclossure contains intellectual property rights, and copying, and publication is advocated and authorized with author's name. For additional information about Global Warming, Fossil Fuel Depletion and Hydrogen Energy Regeneration, please see my website: www.MZ-Energy.com
Siwmae (Hiya) Manfred!
What your sampling of facts seems to say, in its most general aspect, is that there may be no way out of a global societal and population crash; and along with a whole lot of other species which are certainly for extinction hom sap might find himself included; and at worst there could be a runaway global perturbation which fries the planet and kills everything: Earth as a true twin of Venus, at last.
As I surf around widely (I'm retired, and addicted) I keep running across disparate sources of information that all seem to nudge me softly but irresistibly towards these ideas. The more aspects of the mess that you take on board, the more grim the gut feeling gets. (Of course, you have to offset that with the certainty that ageing men fequently pick up the Chicken Little meme, and start seeing the end of the world at hand compulsively)
Being a hom sap myself, of course I continue to live mechanically from moment to moment as if everthin' gonna be alri'. But is it? I wish I could get some sober handle on that basic question. But I suppose it may well be beyond even our best collective capacity to estimate such a grand imponderable reliably.
Meanwhile, outside when not surfing, I do permaculture (Fukuoka/Hazelip style) and am mightily impressed by the way it kicks conventional agronomics to the ground, beats it up and dares it to get up and fight back. Which I suspect it can't.
At bottom, I'm always impressed by how, right through human history, the totally unexpected keeps taking us completely by surprise. I think that maybe future history -- if there is any -- may come to see Masanobu Fukuoka in that light, Hope so. And that's not the only case that I know of personally where overlooked, largely undiscussed, but potentially very revolutionary possibilities are lurking in th deep undergrowth, waiting for dire necessity to force us to call them forth. Bloody Interesting Times, aren't they!
Respect to you, Robert, for your detemined maintenance of a high level of intellectual meticulousness. Many thanks! OK! Lunch over, back to the land!
Yes, cellulosic ethanol IS being made Commercially; as we speak
http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/ehtanol-plant-0208/
Nobody ever suggested that it can't be done. The technology has been with us for 40 years. I was working on it in the early 90's. The problem is economics. When you have a much more complex system than corn ethanol, and your crude product is 95% water (versus 83% water for corn ethanol), you are going to have a tough time. In this case, your purification BTUs will absolutely be greater than your final ethanol BTUs. What I can tell you is that that plant is losing money with every gallon they make. You can take that to the bank.
Did you ever wonder why Iogen - who has been running a pilot cellulosic plant for probably around 10 years - still hasn't built a commercial facility? If the economics were there, they would have.
This raises a good question: what's "commercial?"
OK, so at full production that plant produces 1.5 million gallons per year, or about 4,100 gallons per day, or about 98 barrels per day, or about 205 20-gallon fillups per day. I couldn't find any data on the cost of the plant or the end cost of the fuel, though. Maybe that has something to do with why some of the initial output will be used for auto races, where (I assume) they're not too sensitive to the fuel cost.
It's a start, sure. But hardly a case for getting all starry-eyed about the potential to displace our 21 mbpd of petroleum consumption, unless you're absolutely desperate for some good news on ethanol.
Scaling up cellulosic ethanol to true "commercial" levels--I'd call it 100,000 bpd--is going to take a long time. It has taken 6 years to build that plant. How many years will it take to build 1,000 of them (or equivalent)? And more importantly, how many years after the global peak of oil production will that be? How many bpd will the U.S. have lost in imports by then? (WT: want to take a SWAG at that?)
As usual, a well written and forceful argument.
I did puzzle over this however: "many states in the U.S. - especially those with high levels of corn (maize) production - were enforcing mandates to turn that corn into ethanol."
You give the impression that the law mandates that corn must be turned into ethanol. Just from reading your linked reference, it seems that the law actually just states that gasoline must include 10% ethanol. It doesn't seem to require that the ethanol be from corn.
Just a nit that stuck out to me, since farmers generally don't like "mandates".
You give the impression that the law mandates that corn must be turned into ethanol.
That's by default. Corn is the most economical feedstock in the U.S. market. So an ethanol mandate in the U.S. is presently a mandate to turn corn into ethanol. Sure, they could do it from wheat, etc., but it isn't as economical.
I don't know if people saw Geoff Styles' post on ethanol. He made some interesting recommendations in that post, based on information regarding the CO2 impact of corn ethanol:
I did hear that they were capping corn ethanol at 15 billion gallons and excess ethanol production would be cellulosic as part of the Energy Bill.
The removal of the exemption from the 51 cent excise tax is new. Probably justified only by the profits the ethanol industry is making. Ethanol shouldn't bear the 51 cent tax at least in E10 as it cleans up tailpipe pollutants.
I doubt this will cool the rage against ethanol here.
(I know..it's pure evil)
I doubt this will cool the rage against ethanol here.
(I know..it's pure evil)
These kind of statements show frustration in your efforts to provoke an emotive reaction from readers, instead of a logical examination of the facts. Relying on strawmen statements will always backfire on you in the presence of an informed readership.
The USDA file appears to be altered now for the study that concluded that the policies of the U.S. and the EU would raise prices across the food sector. Does anyone have a pointer to a copy somewhere else?
I think you are correct. It appears that they modified the language from the original, especially toning down EU comments. I wish I had provided a quote. Remember, the USDA is a pro-ethanol organization, and a branch of the U.S. government, whose policies are clearly based on an expansion of ethanol production. That was one reason their frankness was so surprising.
However, the document still contains the following:
Page 5:
Page 7:
Page 23:
Here is a biggie:
Page 81:
"Here's a biggie.
Although the projections assume no shocks to commodity markets from production shortfalls due to weather, pests, or other factors, an important issue is how agricultural markets might respond should a production shortfall occur."
I'm surprised nobody amongst the 'informed readership' has ever mentioned this one before. It's the most serious objection to biofuel crops--the possibility of droughts radically
cutting back the biofuels production.
It hasn't happened yet, but I would be willing to GUARRANTEE it WILL happen sometime in the future. oF COURSE, cellulosic ethanol is less prone to drought as it uses a variety of biofuels( drought resistant switchgrass, wood, etc).
Should it happen, we could make up for the loss temporarily with methanol from coal as flex fuel cars run on up to M85/E85 or with straight gasoline assuming it's available. If we start building coal gasification plants( with CCS) they easily can be adapted to produce either electricity or methanol from syngas at an energy premium to ethanol. But in a drought, what can you expect. Another reason to invest in IGCC with CCS!
No more conventional coal-fired power plants!
I'm surprised nobody amongst the 'informed readership' has ever mentioned this one before.
I have mentioned it before. In fact, I mentioned it in this essay
Look, the key to it is: The RFS clearly cuts corn ethanol off at 15 Billion gallons.
Figuring 2.8 gal/bu, and 151 bu/acre, that means we will use a max of 35 Million acres (out of apprx 90 million acres of corn.)
We have, at least, 4 distinct growing zones in which we raise corn. I don't think we've ever had a drought that wiped out 1/3 of our corn crop.
Note: We will get at least 40 - 45% of our cattle feeding potential back from the distillers grains produced from those 35 million acres. (remember, they will give about a 10% superior weight gain compared to corn.) Let's figure 40% to be safe. That's 14 million acres we get back. Now, we've used 21 million acres out of 90 million, which leaves 69 million to feed cattle, make pepsi, and corn meal, and export.
Note, note: This would seem to suggest that we would use 46 million acres for cattle feed (here, and abroad) and supplement it with an amount of distillers grains equivalent to 14 acres of corn; use 21 million acres, equivalent, for ethanol; and, have nine or ten left over for corn syrup, corn meal, etc.
If I understand correctly we all agree with one fact: we need alternatives for oil!
Some might say that it is not a problem of peak oil, that is more geopolitical problem than geological. I personally, from my limited knowledge about this industry which I have being studying only for 5 years, believe that the geologic problem is more, or as, serious and oil has peaked. Anyway that is not the point here.
My point is; we need alternatives! Energy demand is growing... let's star with basic economics, we have a limitation of resouces (oil) and a increase in demand (China, india, transportation...). We need substitutes...
Other factor: environmental anxiety! The energy mix that we have today is not environmentally sustainable.
So: we need more energy with less environmental impact!
There is a majic solution for this equation?
No but there are some partial solutions, that could help to fill the gap.
Biofuels could be part of this solution? Depend on what the biofuel is made of.
I haven't seen any point here about different feedstocks. When you make a statement that biofuels are bad you are generalizing!
Can you compare GTL diesel with oil refined Diesel? Different economics, different environmental impact... same final product (or almost, considering Sulfur). This is almost the same as comparing corn ethanol with sugar cane ethanol!
I am not saying here that sugar cane ethanol is the majic solution to solve all our energy and environmental problems. Just that sugar cane ethanol IS a complement that could be (and will be) very important to bridge us to a final solution. We need time until we get somewhere near a technological miracle that would give us the amount of energy that we need with a small environment impact.
It is not only Brazil that can produce sugar cane ethanol. There are many countries in Latina America, Africa and Asia that could. Even in southern US.... there are sugarcane plantation in Florida, but this guys are making very easy money producing sugar with all the existing barriers inplace for importing sugar into the US, so why they would bother to produce ethanol?
One question, why not to promote sugar cane ethanol production in many developing countries around the world? This would be one fantastic foreign policy for the US as a way to promote international development!!! Technologic and financial (market access would be enough) for those democratic regimes that behave well!!!!
What about deforestation of the Amazon? Here we have certification... producers of sugar cane ethanol should be liable for their product, if they are not doing in a sustainable and social and environmental friendly way they should be limited - no access to the US and European markets! EU is having this approach.
I agree that US and some EU politicians have picked the wrong feedstock - they see ethanol not as a potential energy solution, but as tool for "rural development" and to buy votes through subsidies.... But biofuels is not only about politics!
Energy independece is not the way... energy diversification will lead to a solution!
(Quietamente, meu amigo! :)
These dumb gringos think renewable ethanol can only be grown in Brazil!
You Brazilians have a world monopoly on the only true renewable biofuel!
Don't start telling them that they can grow renewable fuels themselves!)
But cellulosic ethanol will change that. The upside is Brazil will be able to make sugar cane ethanol even MORE efficiently.
As for the EU, they need bio-diesel and that doesn't look CO2 friendly on land use grounds. Maybe you can sell them on a diesel-ethanol blend instead of bio-diesel.
Ecch! For the last time: nobody else can grow sugar cane like Brazil can! Just because it's all ethanol doesn't mean that Brazil's ethanol and the U.S.'s corn ethanol are in any way comparable! To say that they are (or that we're just too dumb to think otherwise) betrays a basic ignorance on the subject.
"Ecch! For the last time: nobody else can grow sugar cane like Brazil can!"
Chris N,
"It is not only Brazil that can produce sugar cane ethanol. There are many countries in Latina America, Africa and Asia that could. Even in southern US.... there are sugarcane plantation in Florida, but this guys are making very easy money producing sugar with all the existing barriers inplace for importing sugar into the US, so why they would bother to produce ethanol?"
Come clean!
Which giant Brazilian sugar cane corporation are you working for?
LOL!
majorian, the point is like Brazil can. Brazil is the world's top producer of sugar cane because it grows far better there than anywhere else. It would be silly to try to do the same thing at the same scale in the U.S. because we don't have the right climate. Sure, you can grow some sugar cane in any of those other places, but they won't have the same yields per acre, and so the economics of producing ethanol from them don't come out nearly as well. Here in the U.S., we do far better producing sugar from sugar beets, but I don't see you or the other ethanol boosters talking about that. You seem to believe that what works for one place will work equally well anywhere else, which is simple ignorance.
That other comment wasn't even mine...??
If you wanted to take 10 seconds to explore who I am and what I do, you would be able to answer your own question. But I can see that research isn't your strong suit.
I would put it differently. I would say that we need to learn to live within our means. That implies that we need to learn to live within the carrying capacity of what the earth can provide in the way of renewable resources, on a sustainable basis.
We need to identify what renewable resources can be economically developed, make a priority of developing them, and downsize our economy so that it can efficiently operate within the limits of what is available. Start from this premise, and work backwards from there - that will tell us what really needs to be done. As far as I am concerned, evertything we do that is not directly relevant and useful for taking us forward on that pathway is a waste of precious time and resources.
Ethanol looked promising on first glance, but Robert and others are proving it to be dead end (literally, in the case of the millions that would starve). There are bound to be some of those along the way, that's just part of the learning curve. The important thing is to actually learn when the lession is clear, and to stop doing what obviously is not going to work.
I've gone on record as contending that biodiesel may have a useful role as a low-tech, small-scale appropriate technology for farmers in circumstances where other energy sources are simply not available to sustain mechanized farming. I don't think that it is an ideal solution, but I do think that it can be an expedient one in extreme circumstances. That is just about the only role I can envision for biofuels in the future that does not end up doing more harm than good.
Will the American Petroleum Institute's 'go-to-guy' on ethanol please raise his hand?
The following excerpt is from a paper written by Dr. Bill Kovarik. His work, is without doubt, the single-greatest piece on ethanol and the 'politics of biofuels'... EVER.
---
The onset of interest in alcohol fuel in 1933 caught the oil industry off guard, but once alarmed, it reacted swiftly. The American Petroleum Institute urged formation of state level "emergency committees" in the spring of 1933 to oppose proposals for tax incentives. In a set of memos sent under a red cover marked "IMPORTANT," API introduced a "coordinated program to be connected throughout the industry" to combat alcohol gasoline blending. The memo explained the threat: compulsory blend of alcohol and gasoline, as was used in France, Italy and Germany in the 1920s and early 30s, "will harm the petroleum industry and the automobile industry as well as state and national treasuries by reducing [oil] consumption," the memo said. The only ones to benefit would be distillers, railroads (which would transport the alcohol) and bootleggers "to whom would be opened brand new fields of fraud." 149
API's campaign was waged across many states, especially the Midwest, in the spring of 1933, and at the federal level for most of the 1930s.150 Technical experts in the oil industry claimed that alcohol fuel blends "are definitely inferior to gasoline alone from every angle of motor performance."151 Editorials by Lowell Thomas and other radio announcers paid for by oil industry sponsors claimed that alcohol fuel would make "speakeasys" out of gasoline stations because bootleggers could easily separate out the gasoline and sell the alcohol. Thomas said: "The automobile manufacturer resents it [alcohol ] because it interferes with the horsepower of the motorists car, requires extensive carburetor changes and presents other difficulties..." (In fact, this might be true of pure alcohol but not alcohol blends with gasoline). Thomas' radio address was recorded in a cable sent from Sun Oil Co.'s J.Howard Pew to H.D. Collier, president of Standard Oil Co. of California, on April 26, 1933. "Confirming telephone conversation reference alcohol blend our radio announcement was as follows quote..." When an apparently large number of critical telegrams poured in, Sun took pains to distance Thomas from "our radio announcement," even writing a "suggested reply to Congressman Dirksen" in which Thomas was to say "This is news and not propaganda, which I myself nor my sponsors would for a moment tolerate over the air." The suggested reply was unsigned but written on stationary clearly showing the Sunoco watermark.152 It was not clear whether Thomas actually sent the suggested reply.
Other tactics involved private investigations of politicians and businessmen who supported alcohol blends. Sun Oil Co. investigated the private lives of the directors of Keystone Steel and Wire Co. and others.153 Then-Congressman Everett Dirksen, who supported Keystone, wrote constituents that he was being investigated by unknown people. "Here you have the proof of how the insidious oil lobby works in order to defeat any measure or any individual who opposes their interests," Dirksen said.154
---
This paper should be REQUIRED READING FOR EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM.
It is posted in it's entirety here: http://tinyurl.com/238ft2
---
The politics of biofuels indeed...
Will the American Petroleum Institute's 'go-to-guy' on ethanol please raise his hand?
Will the guy whose livelihood is dependent upon generous ethanol subsidies please raise his?
The onset of interest in alcohol fuel in 1933 caught the oil industry off guard, but once alarmed, it reacted swiftly.
Do you apply any critical thinking at all on this subject, or is it just an ad hom, followed by a cut and paste job of the bits you liked? Did you read the rest of it? The real lesson from that article is that governments worldwide were heavily subsidizing and promoting alcohol 100 years ago, and it still couldn't gain traction and fuel the world's cars.
Speaking of the "world's cars", if the big, bad API quashed ethanol here in the U.S., did their agents spread out and quash it everywhere else? Wasn't there one government able to resist the power of the API? All of these world governments heavily promoting and subsidizing ethanol, and even those with no petroleum didn't maintain ethanol as a significant fuel. Must be a worldwide conspiracy by the APE, eh?
Henry Ford thought ethanol would fuel his cars, until 1). Cheaper, higher energy gasoline came along; 2). Demand for his cars exploded, making it impossible for ethanol production to meet demand. So they moved to gasoline, and the rest is history.
The politics of biofuels indeed...
Required reading, indeed. If you do read it, read the entire article and not just the parts Syntec liked. Once you get to his cut and paste job, it is already clear why alcohol was a dead end almost 100 years ago: Could not compete with the economics, and couldn't provide enough supply.
"Henry Ford thought ethanol would fuel his cars, until 1). Cheaper, higher energy gasoline came along; 2). Demand for his cars exploded, making it impossible for ethanol production to meet demand. So they moved to gasoline, and the rest is history."
Um... you left out Prohibition, which was enacted as oil's congressional backed competitive move against alcohol as a fuel, not for drinking's sake.
Worldwide? You see, that's the problem all these conspiracy theories have. They have to explain why ethanol couldn't gain traction anywhere else. Also, if you read the article Syntec linked to, 1). Industrial ethanol was available during prohibition, but 2). The economic disadvantages were already clear by the time prohibition started. That isn't to say that the oil industry didn't oppose ethanol, but that's not why ethanol never caught on.
Also note the number of responses like Syntec's that don't address a single aspect of the original essay. People can't point to things I actually got wrong, but they will quickly say something like "You said Pimentel, therefore it isn't credible."
Here's a question: Could a major ethanol industry exist today without a major fossil fuel infrastructure underlying it?
Yes... just some crazy conspiracies theories.
"Attorney General Thurmond Arnold testified that anti-trust investigations had taken place into the oil industry's influence in the alcohol industry in the 1913-1920 period, in the early 1920s, and between 1927 and 1936. "Renewed complaints in 1939 were brought to the anti-trust division but because of funds no action was taken," Arnold said.60 Then the investigation of 1941 which exposed a "marriage" between Standard Oil Co. and the German chemical company I.G. Farben also brought new evidence concerning complex price and marketing agreements between du Pont Corp., a major investor in and producer of leaded gasoline, U.S. Industrial Alcohol Co. and their subsidiary, Cuba Distilling Co."
The title of your essay was 'The Politics of Biofuels'.
So here I am, showing you the politics of biofuels, albeit not in a timeframe to your liking.
I could be wrong, but I think methanol or wood alcohol was the preferred fuel for some of the early cars. It was cheap and easy to make, but the process could not be scaled up as quickly to meet the increasing demand.
Michael Wang replies to Searchinger/Science
Surprise, surprise; he's about as impressed as I was. He did, however, put it in a more politic way.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/news_stories/20080214_res...
Wang is a pro-ethanol poster boy, who has done a great deal to muddy the waters. My exchanges with him here:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/09/postscript-with-wang-and-khosla....
There.. so you know my livelihood is NOT dependent on ethanol subsidies. And no, I liked the entire article, not just the cut and paste sections.
Here's another one: "For different reasons, Henry Ford and Charles Kettering both saw the fuel of the future as a blend of ethyl alcohol and gasoline leading to pure alcohol from cellulose." And that, was almost a century ago.
Ford, Kettering, Bell, Edison... the greatest minds in America wanted to move to an alcohol-based transport system but they were blocked all the way by the Oil Trust. Greed won over Kettering, to such a degree that he contradicted his own work and poisoned millions with lead.
In a capitalist system it's the name of the game - crush your competition.
But I dare say we would be in a much different world if we had followed the ethanol path.
Syntec reaches 105 gallons of alcohol/ton
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/syntec-catalyti.html#more
There was a similar article about the Syntec achievement over at Biopact. I thought this was the money quote:
This level of achievement makes the B2A process profitable in relatively small scale facilities using a wide variety of waste biomass feedstocks in any combination. - Michael Jackson, President of Syntec Biofuel Inc.
That would be really good. Gasification usually required very consistent feed stock to suit the process design. You could change over, but the process would have to be changed to handle the new biomass. It is a matter of temperature, pressure, how much oxygen and other factors that determine what kinds of gases are produced and how much char and tar are left.