The Trouble With Biofuels

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

The Trouble With Biofuels

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1713431,00.html

Maybe it was simply too good to be true. For proponents, biofuels — petroleum substitutes made from plant matter like corn or sugar cane — seemed to promise everything. Using biofuels rather than oil would reduce the greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming, because plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, balancing out the carbon released when burned in cars or trucks. Using homegrown biofuels would help the U.S. reduce its utter dependence on foreign oil, and provide needed income for rural farmers around the world. And unlike cars powered purely by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells — two alternate technologies that have yet to pan out — biofuels could be used right now.

But according to a pair of studies published in the journal Science recently, biofuels may not fulfill that promise — and in fact, may be worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they're meant to supplement. According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in. As virgin land is converted for growing biofuels, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere; at the same time, biofuel crops themselves are much less effective at absorbing carbon than the natural forests or grasslands they may be replacing. "When land is converted from natural ecosystems it releases carbon," says Joseph Fargione, a lead author of one of the papers and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "Any climate change policy that doesn't take this fact into account doesn't work."

Many environmentalists have been making the case against biofuels for some time, arguing that biofuel production takes valuable agricultural land away from food, driving up the price of staple crops like corn. But the Science papers make a more sweeping argument. In their paper, Fargione's team calculated the "carbon debt" created by raising biofuel crops — the amount of carbon released in the process of converting natural landscapes into cropland. They found that corn ethanol produced in the U.S. had a carbon debt of 93 years, meaning it would take nearly a century for ethanol, which does produce fewer greenhouse gases when burned than fossil fuels, to make up for the carbon released in that initial landscape conversion. Palm tree biodiesel in Indonesia and Malaysia — one of the most controversial biofuels currently in use, because of its connection to tropical deforestation in those countries — has a carbon debt of 86 years. Soybean biodiesel in the Amazonian rainforest has a debt of 320 years. "People don't realize there is three times as much carbon in plants and soil than there is in the air," says Fargione. "Cut down forests, burn them, churn the soil, and you release all the carbon that's been stored."

Worse, as demand for biofuels go up — the European Union alone targets 5.75% of all its transport fuel to come from biofuel by the end of the year — the price of crops rises. That in turn encourages farmers to clear virgin land and plant more crops, releasing even more carbon in a vicious cycle. For instance, as the U.S. uses more biodiesel, much of which is made from soybeans or palm oil, farmers in Brazil or Indonesia will clear more land to raise soybeans to replace those used for fuel. "When we ask the world's farmers to feed 6 billion people and ask them to produce fuel, that requires them to use additional land," says Fargione. "That land has to come from somewhere."

Industry groups like the Renewable Fuels Association criticized the studies for being too simplistic, and failing to put biofuels in context. And it's true that the switch to biofuels can have benefits that go beyond climate change. Biofuels tend to produce less local pollution than fossil fuels, one reason why Brazil — which gets 30% of its automobile fuel from sugar-cane ethanol — has managed to reduce once stifling air pollution. In the U.S., switching to domestically produced biofuels helps cut dependence on foreign oil, and boosts income for farmers. But in all of these cases, the benefits now seem to pale next to the climate change deficits. Fargione points out that if the U.S. managed to use 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015 — as is mandated in last year's energy bill — it would still only offset 7% of projected energy demand. That won't put Venezuela or Iran out of business.

This is all depressing news, especially if you're a corn farmer. Biofuels are one of the few alternative fuels that are actually available right now, but the evidence suggests we be better off not relying on them. But even Fargione doesn't argue that we should ditch biofuels altogether. Biofuels using waste matter — like wood chips, or the leftover sections of corn stalks — or from perennial plants like switchgrass, effectively amount to free fuel, because they don't require clearing additional land. "There's no carbon debt," notes Fargione. Unfortunately, the technology for yielding fuel from those sources — like cellulosic biofuels — is still in its infancy, though it is improving fast. In the end, the right kind of biofuel won't be a silver bullet, but just one more tool in the growing arsenal against climate change.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Seems no matter what we try, practically speaking, we're scrod

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see any one resource/technology that's solve world energy shortage problems.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

For now we need to start drilling in our own areas for oil, build more nuclear power and develop hydrogen fuel production and delivery network. Also LPG terminals, coal to petrol plants and coal shale to petrol plants. We also need to build more refineries. This is what needs to happen going forward.

[Dan J 277]

Anyone who says we need a hydrogen delivery network has no idea how its created.

All of our gas stations already have the two resources needed to make hydrogen. Electrictiy and Water. All we need is electrolysis machines.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

For now we need to start drilling in our own areas for oil, build more nuclear power and develop hydrogen fuel production and delivery network. Also LPG terminals, coal to petrol plants and coal shale to petrol plants. We also need to build more refineries. This is what needs to happen going forward.

ditto

The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

[Jamie76 0]

For now we need to start drilling in our own areas for oil, build more nuclear power and develop hydrogen fuel production and delivery network. Also LPG terminals, coal to petrol plants and coal shale to petrol plants. We also need to build more refineries. This is what needs to happen going forward.

ditto

The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Not really. We are now. Based on today's consumption. They figure we have around 250-300 years of coal reserves based on "todays consumption." Back before the industrial revolution, estimates were closer to 1000 years. Again, based on consumption for that moment in time. The amount of coal we use on a yearly basis is not going to decrease, most likely it will increase. Now, add to that, mining coal to produce liquid fuels. To produce 1 barrel of diesel fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process takes about 1 ton of coal. http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?...5-coal-fuel.inc

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Anyone who says we need a hydrogen delivery network has no idea how its created.

All of our gas stations already have the two resources needed to make hydrogen. Electrictiy and Water. All we need is electrolysis machines.

Ok Dan, order them up! Let's roll!

[peejay 327]

The way it appears to me is that the mainstream alternative forms of energy are just accessories of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base they can't happen or are severely limited in scope with present technology. I think people are delusional that there is something waiting in the wings that will allow America (and the world) to keep on keep keeping on like it has in the golden years of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base we are screwed.

Petroleum is an endowment and is finite. America reached Peak Oil Production in the 1970's and has declined to the point that we import roughly 60% of our petroleum needs. But what happens when we eventually reach World Oil Peak Production? Some experts believe we are already there or close to it. What happens when the remaining amount of the endowment becomes so difficult to extract and refine that we expend the equivalent of 3 barrels of energy to extract the equivalent of 4 barrels of energy? What happens when it takes 4 barrels of energy to extract 4 barrels of energy? In that case 1-1=0! Stating that we have only taken half of the endowment does not give the whole picture. The other half in the ground is not as easy to get or of the same high quality as the first half. It takes energy to make energy. Nothing is free or easy. Life with even reduced availability of petroleum would be disasterous to America and many other dependent areas of the world. There is no guarantee that science and technology can save the day.

One of the better recent books to explain our situation in layman terms easy to comprehend is, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The way it appears to me is that the mainstream alternative forms of energy are just accessories of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base they can't happen or are severely limited in scope with present technology. I think people are delusional that there is something waiting in the wings that will allow America (and the world) to keep on keep keeping on like it has in the golden years of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base we are screwed.

Petroleum is an endowment and is finite. America reached Peak Oil Production in the 1970's and has declined to the point that we import roughly 60% of our petroleum needs. But what happens when we eventually reach World Oil Peak Production? Some experts believe we are already there or close to it. What happens when the remaining amount of the endowment becomes so difficult to extract and refine that we expend the equivalent of 3 barrels of energy to extract the equivalent of 4 barrels of energy? What happens when it takes 4 barrels of energy to extract 4 barrels of energy? In that case 1-1=0! Stating that we have only taken half of the endowment does not give the whole picture. The other half in the ground is not as easy to get or of the same high quality as the first half. It takes energy to make energy. Nothing is free or easy. Life with even reduced availability of petroleum would be disasterous to America and many other dependent areas of the world. There is no guarantee that science and technology can save the day.

One of the better recent books to explain our situation in layman terms easy to comprehend is, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler.

Humans existed before the discovery of petroleum and can exist without it. I'm not suggesting that living without it would be great, but we can do so many things to reduce our consumption, which should be this country's focus....not looking for some magic bullet that is going to totally replace petroleum.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The way it appears to me is that the mainstream alternative forms of energy are just accessories of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base they can't happen or are severely limited in scope with present technology. I think people are delusional that there is something waiting in the wings that will allow America (and the world) to keep on keep keeping on like it has in the golden years of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base we are screwed.

Petroleum is an endowment and is finite. America reached Peak Oil Production in the 1970's and has declined to the point that we import roughly 60% of our petroleum needs. But what happens when we eventually reach World Oil Peak Production? Some experts believe we are already there or close to it. What happens when the remaining amount of the endowment becomes so difficult to extract and refine that we expend the equivalent of 3 barrels of energy to extract the equivalent of 4 barrels of energy? What happens when it takes 4 barrels of energy to extract 4 barrels of energy? In that case 1-1=0! Stating that we have only taken half of the endowment does not give the whole picture. The other half in the ground is not as easy to get or of the same high quality as the first half. It takes energy to make energy. Nothing is free or easy. Life with even reduced availability of petroleum would be disasterous to America and many other dependent areas of the world. There is no guarantee that science and technology can save the day.

One of the better recent books to explain our situation in layman terms easy to comprehend is, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler.

Humans existed before the discovery of petroleum and can exist without it. I'm not suggesting that living without it would be great, but we can do so many things to reduce our consumption, which should be this country's focus....not looking for some magic bullet that is going to totally replace petroleum.

If there are no alternatives, then reducing our consumption will only delay the inevitable, a return to the pre-industrial era where life was harsh and short...

[Dan J 277]

The way it appears to me is that the mainstream alternative forms of energy are just accessories of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base they can't happen or are severely limited in scope with present technology. I think people are delusional that there is something waiting in the wings that will allow America (and the world) to keep on keep keeping on like it has in the golden years of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base we are screwed.

Petroleum is an endowment and is finite. America reached Peak Oil Production in the 1970's and has declined to the point that we import roughly 60% of our petroleum needs. But what happens when we eventually reach World Oil Peak Production? Some experts believe we are already there or close to it. What happens when the remaining amount of the endowment becomes so difficult to extract and refine that we expend the equivalent of 3 barrels of energy to extract the equivalent of 4 barrels of energy? What happens when it takes 4 barrels of energy to extract 4 barrels of energy? In that case 1-1=0! Stating that we have only taken half of the endowment does not give the whole picture. The other half in the ground is not as easy to get or of the same high quality as the first half. It takes energy to make energy. Nothing is free or easy. Life with even reduced availability of petroleum would be disasterous to America and many other dependent areas of the world. There is no guarantee that science and technology can save the day.

One of the better recent books to explain our situation in layman terms easy to comprehend is, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler.

Humans existed before the discovery of petroleum and can exist without it. I'm not suggesting that living without it would be great, but we can do so many things to reduce our consumption, which should be this country's focus....not looking for some magic bullet that is going to totally replace petroleum.

If there are no alternatives, then reducing our consumption will only delay the inevitable, a return to the pre-industrial era where life was harsh and short...

In essence yes. But reducing consumption will give us more time to find an alternative (assuming there is one). On top of which we will still have petroluem based fuels for uses that don't have viable alternatives (Planes probably wont work well with hydrogen fuel cells).

[peejay 327]

The way it appears to me is that the mainstream alternative forms of energy are just accessories of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base they can't happen or are severely limited in scope with present technology. I think people are delusional that there is something waiting in the wings that will allow America (and the world) to keep on keep keeping on like it has in the golden years of the petroleum age. Without the underlying petroleum base we are screwed.

Petroleum is an endowment and is finite. America reached Peak Oil Production in the 1970's and has declined to the point that we import roughly 60% of our petroleum needs. But what happens when we eventually reach World Oil Peak Production? Some experts believe we are already there or close to it. What happens when the remaining amount of the endowment becomes so difficult to extract and refine that we expend the equivalent of 3 barrels of energy to extract the equivalent of 4 barrels of energy? What happens when it takes 4 barrels of energy to extract 4 barrels of energy? In that case 1-1=0! Stating that we have only taken half of the endowment does not give the whole picture. The other half in the ground is not as easy to get or of the same high quality as the first half. It takes energy to make energy. Nothing is free or easy. Life with even reduced availability of petroleum would be disasterous to America and many other dependent areas of the world. There is no guarantee that science and technology can save the day.

One of the better recent books to explain our situation in layman terms easy to comprehend is, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler.

Humans existed before the discovery of petroleum and can exist without it. I'm not suggesting that living without it would be great, but we can do so many things to reduce our consumption, which should be this country's focus....not looking for some magic bullet that is going to totally replace petroleum.

Humans existed well before the petroleum age, but not the 6+ billion we have today. There will be approximately 9 billion humans by 2050. Look at the graph below. The huge spike in human population coincides with the petroleum age. I'm no scientist, but I have read from several sources that this huge spike could not have occurred without the modern wonders that the petroleum platform has brought us. It won't be pretty for many when the platform falls apart. Petroleum may very well turn out to be a one shot deal in the blip of human history. Sure...humans may exist after the petroleum endowment ceases to exist, but 9+ billion may not be possible. Three billion may not be possible. The future may not be so bright for a big chunk of humanity. Look how dismal life is in a big chunk of the world today. It can get a lot worst. Petroleum has greatly extended the carrying capacity of our world. Easy come...easy go. What happens after the cheap and plentiful oil fiesta is over? How soon will it be over? It may be sooner than you think.

[Heracles 417]

Guys is there away way we can use Solar panels to fix this. For Stevens sake..

[russ 1]

Seems no matter what we try, practically speaking, we're scrod

Well, ethanol is certainly a boondoggle. If it really were efficient, we wouldn't need subsidies or mandates. The truth is, it uses tons of (scarce) water, lots of fossil fuels (fertilizer from natural gas, diesel for farm equipment, electricity (coal) to produce, and yet more diesel to transport). Most estimates are that it takes well over a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn. It would be better for the environment to just burn the oil in a car.

There are ways to improve things though. Electrical generation is a huge polluter. Switching from gas and coal to nuclear would cut US greenhouse gas emissions more than if all cars suddenly burned 100% ethanol. Heating homes with nuclear generated electricity is also cleaner. People moving to warmer climates would also help (Cold climates like Canada, Russia, and Norway are among the world's worst polluters per capita).

The reason electric utilities build gas fired plants is simple - low capital cost. The nuclear plant is far cheaper to operate per kW/h, but the startup cost is at least 10 times worse than a gas fired plant. Electric utilities are for profit corporations, they won't spend that type of money up front, since it will take 10 years for it to show them a profit. Management won't want that debt on their balance sheet - they will be long gone by the time it pays off. This is one case where government subsidies do make sense - subsidizing the loans to build such plants, and getting the money back when the plants are operating.

Taxing carbon emissions would also solve the problem. Probably a better long term solution, since a glut of nuclear generating capacity will push down gas prices, which will result in more gas fired plants when demand rises...

The best thing for cars? Drive them longer. It takes more oil to construct a car than it will consume in gasoline over it's service life. Driving a car for 15 years instead of 7 will greatly cut oil consumption. Building cars out of aluminum and fiberglass will also use less oil than the steel we use now.