The experiment

If biofuels are sustainable, we should be able to show it

Posted by JMG (Guest Contributor) at 11:35 PM on 28 Apr 2008

Read more about: biofuels | energy | fossil fuels

A friend recently sent me a one-page press release from an ethanol lobby group that purported to debunk "myths" of biofuels. Our ensuing discussion helped me clarify why even people who once were excited and optimistic about biofuels (like me) are now so opposed to production subsidies (as opposed to R&D).

My friend asked (paraphrasing), "If not biofuels, then what?" and noted that what we're doing now -- "squeezing oil out of rocks" -- is not exactly good for the planet.

For me, the bottom line is simply this:

Ethanol is no more a renewable fuel than hydrogen is.

Rather, ethanol is a way for us to consume natural gas, diesel oil, and coal (not to mention a huge volume of water and vast acreage of cropland) to make motor fuels. All this is on top of serious problems raised by studies about land diversion for carbon emissions and food availability.

It's important to remember that fossil fuels are biofuels (fuels made from once-living matter), so using that term alone isn't helpful.

Rather, we have to distinguish between fossil fuels, which we could call "ancient biofuels," and crops grown today, which we could call agrofuels or "current biofuels."

The primary difference is that nature made the fossil biofuels over eons, and stored them away below the earth in natural reaction chambers, tremendously intensifying their energy density and putting them into materially dense forms by removing everything but the fundamental hydrocarbons -- everything but the constituent molecules and the embedded energy is gone.

Fuels from current plant matter -- today's fresh biofuels -- capture around about 1 percent of incoming solar energy and lock it up as forms of matter most suitable for their own purposes (roots, stems, leaves, fruit/seeds, etc.). Corn ethanol starts with the plant's energy packet, the seed grain. Cellulosic attempts to use the other parts of the maize, which are much less energy dense. All of that structure must be broken down to access the hydrocarbon energy.

When we try to use current rather than fossil biofuels, we start out way, way down the energy density curve, because we lose the advantage of the eons and eons of free processing and concentrating.

To use corn ethanol, for example, we have to expend a lot of energy to grow it, then bring vast masses of crop together in one place, break it down so that yeast can process it, and apply a huge amount of energy to boil (distill) the resulting beer (ethanol/water mixture) to concentrate it enough to use. With cellulosic and biodiesels, we have to physically concentrate the energy from the bulky, low-energy parts of the plants and put even more into breaking those down.

So it will always be difficult to make "fresh" biofuels pay off, even putting aside the opportunity costs of using land and water this way. (What those could have been used for were they not growing fuel crops -- food crops, carbon storage in the soil, natural reserves for biodiversity, etc.).

And for what? So that we can forestall the switch off ancient biofuels (fossil fuels). But delaying this switch causes a net increase in carbon released to the atmosphere (without even accounting for the carbon cost of land use).

Thus the issue is clear:

If we are to have any hope of a stable climate, we have to dramatically reduce the use of ancient biofuels.
Current biofuels are designed to allow us to use more of those ancient biofuels.
We do not currently know how to make fresh biofuels without using significant quantities of ancient biofuels.

On that last point:

When when we make current biofuels, what we really do is launder the energy from the ancient biofuels by passing it through a crop so we can call the product "green." But it's not green in any sense of sustainable. Most of the energy content in current biofuels is provided by an ancient biofuel, hidden upstream in the process.

Most of the biofuels industry has implicitly (and often explicitly) conceded the point by agreeing that corn ethanol is unsustainable while trying to shift the discussion over to "next generation ethanol." (Talking about the ethanol we don't have rather than the ethanol we do have.)

However, a lot of folks haven't conceded the point and respond hostilely to anyone who claims it's true. Here's a proposal for reducing the conflict and getting to the bottom of the issue:

The Experiment

Let's find a county or at least a large set of biofuels growers and refiners and get them to agree to demonstrate their ability to make fresh biofuels sustainably by agreeing to discontinue all fossil fuel inputs to their operations after the first year (which lets them get a first crop). They can make any fresh biofuels they want, using any method they like.

That is, for three years, the biofuels growers and processors participating in the study have to run all the machines that they use to plant, tend, harvest, transport, dry, and otherwise process their fresh biofuels using nothing but the energy from their own products.

At the end of three years, we measure the resulting fresh biofuel energy stocks. We subtract the energy of the ancient biofuels embedded in the fertilizers and by the first year's ancient biofuels inputs and by the fraction of electricity used that was generated from ancient biofuels (mostly coal).

If we can subtract the ancient biofuel energy inputs and there is enough fresh biofuel energy left over to continue the experiment for another year, and to provide a contribution toward the energy required to remake or replace the farm and processing machinery (elevators, tractors, trucks, combines, crushers, refineries, etc.) used, then we can look at whether there is any left over for non-farm use for motor fuels and how much revenue it can provide to the participants.

If it's a lot, then maybe we've found a renewable fuel and we've learned how much net energy there actually is in practice.

Note that this is the most optimistic scenario possible because on-farm use of biofuels is most likely to be sustainable; you don't have an energy loss in transportation or distribution to distant markets.

I suspect the tiny residue of energy left over (if any) would, when you look at the size of the assets tied up in the experiment, produce a rate of return on investment that you would need a 100 power telescope to see. But heck, I could be wrong. But if fresh biofuels are as sustainable as the biofuels lobby says, then they should be able to show it.

For story: The experiment
24 Comments | Post a Comment

Uhm

JMG it sounds like this is more an issue about "Peak Oil" than it is Global Warming.

Which frankly, if that were the case, then it'd be very simple to deal with.

Just liquefy this:
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png

by GreyFlcn at 5:21 AM on 29 Apr 2008

Hmmm

Grey,

Yes, I take peak oil quite seriously, but that's mainly because of coal. If it weren't for that, I'd probably be a lot cheerier about the prospect of running out of oil. But there's usually no problem that we can't make worse by refusing to examine our assumptions, in this case the unquestioned American belief that keeping carburbia going by any means necessary is a good idea.

When I give presentations on the climate crisis, I always ask why, if burning too much fossil fuel is causing a problem, we shouldn't welcome peak oil. No one yet has guessed coal; in fact, in a presentation to a church group the other day, I was surprised when a middle-aged woman asked whether it was even possible to turn coal into fuel for cars.

One first condition for fresh biofuels to be considered sustainable would be that their use didn't require bringing ancient biofuels out of the earth's crust and putting the carbon they contain into the atmosphere. My intent with the post above was to suggest a way to help even the most committed advocate of fresh biofuels production realize that, in producing them, they are simply burning the ancient biofuels elsewhere in the process.

One problem with a site like this and the great work that you and people like Steenblik and biod do is that we get a misimpression about the level of understanding on this issue. I think it's very distorted; I think most of America thinks biofuels, even ethanol, are still just peachy. Worse, this is still true among environmentalists.

This month's Union of Concerned Scientists story on biofuels (titled "Proceed with Caution" or something similar) failed miserably: they show a big graphic of a red gas can with labels showing the purported carbon reduction of corn ethanol (20%), cellulosic (84%!) and biodiesel (I forget).

You had to read the article quite closely to see that they simply chose not to address the carbon released from land use changes. They acknowledged the studies but simply said that their figures didn't take land use into account. Thus, the take home message --- the only message that most people will see --- is the misinformation in the big print on the bright red graphic. The fine print caveat will be unseen by most.

That's what prompted my post: it's not the oil companies that are going to do us in, it's the well-meaning enviros who think that speaking out against fresh biofuels means that you're a shill for big oil.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 6:17 AM on 29 Apr 2008

The raptor may be right

As a quickie:
I think "Peak Oil" is a much graver risk to our "First World" comforts than the computer modeled AGW scare.
It is bed-time here so I will try to expand on that tomorrow!

by Black Wallaby at 6:46 AM on 29 Apr 2008

it's all the sun, son.

this is all just a question of how do we store solar energy, when you get down to the ultimate source. batteries? hydrogen? ethanol? methane? or gasoline?

by gzuckier at 7:24 AM on 29 Apr 2008

Grist is turning into Big Oil Proganda

If you look at sugar cane ethanol in Brazil you would to be highly profitable
Both financially and Energy use

Ethanol has its problems sure but It does have a role to play

by Orfintain at 8:35 AM on 29 Apr 2008

It is all about Peak Oil

Demand has out stripped supply and the immediate risk of a total industrial economic collapse makes global warming a back burner issue.

The ethanol from corn problem is the Iceburg and governmnet adjusting to the problem is like trying to turn the Titanic. It is not just the price of a bagel going to $2.00 from a price of .95 cents. The cost of food compounded by the cost of energy will divistate the poor and working class in the U.S. It will uterly destroy the poor in third world countries.

Many other viable sorces exist to make ethanol from, corn a food staple was an obvious bad choice. It just depends on how long it takes the governmnet to admit their blunder. The wheat belt is swithcing to corn that is also less disease prone and we are losing land once devoted to wheat and other grains. Corn ethanol is a bust and until we admit it corn will only continue to exacerbate the problem.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 8:36 AM on 29 Apr 2008

The Experiment Has Already Been Done

(1) Turn of the century America. The majority of cars run not on gasoline, but on alcohol...produced from stills...which were a commonplace item on the family farm (and at that point we were still a nation of farmers).

(2) 1980s Brazil...during 1st "energy crisis"...80 percent of fuel needs met by ethanol from sugar beets. Cheap oil drove that percentage down during the 90s. Not sure where it is today.

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

by jabailo at 9:41 AM on 29 Apr 2008

fossil fuels are earth energy, not solar

JMG, I'm glad you went through the energy differences between biofuels and fossil fuels. I think part of the reason people don't understand this is because fossil fuels are characterized as "ancient sunlight", or the result of solar energy. As you point out, these fuels have gone through enormous transformations within the Earth, which, by the way, has nothing to do with the Sun -- the Earth has plenty of its own energy, which we call geothermal when we want to use it. Perhaps it would help if people understood that fossil fuels are mainly geothermal energy, not solar energy (although I'm not holding my breath).

The other point, though, is, what replaces the fuel? Another way to put this is: we need to move toward a fuel-free society, not just a fossil-fuel-free society. Which leads to two possible alternatives for transportation:

Electric cars and trucks
Electric rail/buses

Unless people take those two alternatives seriously, they will be searching their toes, as Gore puts it, to find more places to shoot up fuels -- in other words, if I haven't completely mangled the metaphor, unless there's a transportation alternative that is generally accepted, people will be completely focused on new kinds of fuels, which will lead to disaster.

by Jon Rynn at 1:13 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Excellent post JMG

I toured a John Deere harvester manufacturing plant a few years ago and asked why thy did not have an ethanol engine option. They said not enough energy, the farmers don't want to be bothered refueling all the time.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 3:14 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Could this be a problem:

Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into perspective:

USA: 20,730,000 bbl/day (~25% of the world usage) (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
The World: 82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023 (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources: Population of India and China: ~ 2,450,000
Germany ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand. Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them! (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita! Will they ask why?

Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.

Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!

Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars. Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc

Still, the bridges need not be so strong, because most cars will start to get really really small, apart from the odd "look-at-me" Hummer/Humvee (?) with several tonnes of batteries aboard.

Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:

A) A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.

B) A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?

And that's without discussing any politics!

by Black Wallaby at 3:57 PM on 29 Apr 2008

The greatest threat

Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:
A) A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.
OR
B) A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?

The greatest threat to "our consumerism lifestyle" (speak for yourself, Wally) is the belief that it can or should be maintained despite the fact that it depends for its entire existence on a profound refusal to observe obvious ecological limits.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 4:52 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Consumerism

Attn JMG,

Did you not notice the significance of some of the numbers I quoted?

Did you not notice the satirical/ironic/acid tone in my comments?

Do you not notice that regardless of our individual lifestyles, "we live in a consumerism society"?

My question in A) OR B) is that I wonder why so much attention is paid to A), whereas a rational weighing of the evidence rather than to the hysteria of Al Gore et al, shows that B) is a more REAL threat given the current available technologies and expectations of the developing world etc

BTW, do you live in a house, use electricity, running water, and drive a car etc?

by Black Wallaby at 7:08 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Not a contest

Sorry, no, I missed some of the intent of your remarks -- although I apparently got some of it right, if I understand that you are suggesting that concern about a destabilized climate is of less import than concern about peak oil ...

I see the problems as two sides of the same coin --- we are running short on easy energy because we've blasted millennia of fossil fuels into the atmosphere heedlessly -- now we have to face the fact that we've made a huge step towards using up two natural resources that cannot ever be separated: fossil fuels supplies and carbon sinks.

The diminution of easy oil would be much easier to deal with were it not for the fact that the most tempting solution that will no doubt be luring many people (coal) is climate suicide, not to mention incredibly destructive of land and water resources.

As for calling Gore a hysteric, my only wish is that if you think that's hysteria, he should have been more hysterical sooner.

As for your queries, no, I am an immaterial being. I subsist only on sunbeams and I manipulate the electrons needed to type this with my mind (I can also adjust my cholesterol level at will.) Translation: what do you think?

The 5% Project

by JMG at 8:15 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Energy consumption is not the problem

Emissions are the problem.

The solar power intercepted by the earth is 175,500,000,000,000,000 watts. Dividing by earth's population, 6.5 billion, reveals that earth receives 27 million watts of solar power for each human on the planet. That's not just at high noon on a clear day, that's 24 hours a day every day.

The 11,300 watts that support our lives equals 0.04% of our share of solar incidence.

Developing energy sources that are low emission and cheaper than fossil fuel is the best way to reduce emissions.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 8:43 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Nice one, JMG

Make the corn ethanol industry use their own product, letting them sell only what remains, which would be little to nothing. This industry would die tomorrow without government support.

Biodiesel is a different story. It is less energy intensive to produce. But even Vinod thinks "Biodiesel takes too much land," and he's right. It takes much more land to produce biodiesel from food crops, unless you are talking about palm oil. And land displacement is probably the biggest problem with today's biofuels.

I'll be referring to this post in future discussions.

Have you noticed how everyone is now turning to cane ethanol, having given up on all of the others? We can't grow cane ethanol here. We will have to buy it from "ferners." Goodbye local jobs and energy security. What reason is left to support this BS?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:16 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Oil in ground

A quicky for you guys:

Have you really thought about the FULL consequences of none of that liquid stuff at fuel stations.

What about emigrating to Brazil, or breaking over the border, or..................

JMG, thanks your latest comments, will talk later

by Black Wallaby at 10:26 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Food in fields

There's enough food in the fields around me to feed everybody north of the Tehachipi's easy. If you're south of the Tehachipi's or east of the Mississipi you could be SOL. If you're living in Pheonix you're definately SOL if there's an infrastructure failure.

Lucky for all of you we can ship you food by rail. We're never going to get the oranges or the peaches to you fresh but OJ and dried peaches are nutritious and tasty. Almonds, raisons and walnuts are free for the taking and poached pigeon is supposed to be good.

The truth is that there is more than enough energy to keep everybody well fed, clothed, housed and warm/cool as needed. Some of that other stuff will have to go however.

Sell the bass boat unless you have a diesel outboard. The Navy is going to have lots of scrap steel handy for making bicycles.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 11:09 PM on 29 Apr 2008

biofuel bandwagon

JMG: So it will always be difficult to make "fresh" biofuels pay off

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record around the blog, but "biofuels" do not equate to only corn ethanol, whether you classify them by the geologic record (fresh, ancient, etc) or whatever.

JMG: Most of the biofuels industry has implicitly (and often explicitly) conceded the point by agreeing that corn ethanol is unsustainable while trying to shift the discussion over to "next generation ethanol." (Talking about the ethanol we don't have rather than the ethanol we do have.)

JAMES HANSEN, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies says, "biofuels can play a major part in our energy future....Biofuel investment should proceed with input from scientists and conservationists, because some industry and government biofuel production plans would clear more forest for plantations of oil palm and soy with consequences for wildlife and wildlands."
We should have a much better idea soon w/ cellulosic ethanol. Pilot projects are already under way.

by greenfire8 at 11:12 PM on 29 Apr 2008

hey now pangolin

"Sell the bass boat unless you have a diesel outboard."
I'm using my bass boat as a volunteer deliverin device / garbage scowl for a lake cleanup this weekend 8P

by greenfire8 at 11:15 PM on 29 Apr 2008

Folk art

I got a sculpture out front that's the exact size and shape of a Chevy S-10 pickup. Except a real truck moves once in a while.

Beware of folk art.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 11:23 PM on 29 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Yikes

Trailer trash. There goes the neighborhood.

http://www.missouritrailertrash.com/

There's your sculpture made out of trucks and bass boats. Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 3:48 AM on 30 Apr 2008

pot calling the kettle black?

I've met plenty of folks who live in trailers that dont come close to making the logical leaps you do..."studpid is as stupid does my momma always used to say" hehey

by greenfire8 at 10:23 AM on 30 Apr 2008

A comparison of fuels

shows that cane and palm are far and away the most efficient sources. Switchgrass shouldn't even be listed because it has yet to be proven economically viable. Palm and cane ethanol would have a net output if they used their own product for all energy use to make and transport it. However, it would cost a whole lot more. There is no way out of rising energy costs. We can only find ways to get by using less of the expensive stuff.

People have a hard time understanding that any increase in biofuel output will require the use of more land. This is the fatal flaw in the entire scheme. Palm and cane will use up less land than other crops, but it will use up land as production expands, land that is storing carbon and biodiversity. The wild orangutan is probably going to become extinct in the wild in the next ten years.

The latest studies have shown that because palm and cane produce so much energy, they will make up for the carbon sink they destroyed faster than other crops. This makes them the least environmentally destructive.

All the same, the less you use, the less damage you will do. What kind of mantra is that for a fuel?

Underutilized arable farmland is the last place competitors will grow it if they want to maximize yield and therefore profit (as is being demonstrated today).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:59 AM on 03 May 2008

Correction

Underutilized ~~arable~~ marginal farmland is the last place competitors will grow it if they want to maximize yield and therefore profit (as is being demonstrated today).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:07 AM on 03 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.