I borrowed this title from a post by John Guerrerio over on Examiner.com.
When several scientific studies began publishing reports that supported the common sense contention that food-based biofuels usurp farmland the Renewable Fuels Association (which just spent almost a quarter of a million dollars last quarter on lobbying) had to cobble together some kind of defense.
Bob Dinneen, head of the RFA, has been using the Huffington Post blog to disseminate this false dilemma, see here and here.
I’d debate John on the Examiner blog in the comments but they only allow a thousand words characters and no active links to verify claims. So I have to take him to task here.
In some ways biofuels are worse, and in some ways they are not, depending on what metric you are measuring and what biofuel you are talking about. For example, tar sands do not have nearly the impact on food prices, biodiversity, or the Rhode Island sized Gulf of Mexico Dead zone as corn ethanol, but corn ethanol produces less GHG than oil from tar sand (although not less than conventional gasoline depending on type of land displaced, nitrous oxide released from fertilizers, and time given to displace fossil fuels).
In addition, “biofuels” can be gaseous, liquid, or solid. They can come from landfill gas, used restaurant grease, or our food supply. They can help drive the orangutan to extinction as is the case with palm oil, or capture a powerful green house gas as is the case with manure treatment methane digesters.
At some point, environmentalists are going to have to face some harsh realities. In addition to subsidizing and mandating the use of environmentally destructive corn ethanol our politicians have just permitted the construction of a pipeline to deliver oil made from Canadian tar sands. Jobs, pork barrel politics, and the illusion of energy independence will always trump environmental issues.
The market funds Canadian oil to satiate consumer demand while corn ethanol is kept out of bankruptcy via subsidization by taxpayers who are then forced to consume it via government fiat. It does not matter which is worse in the aggregate. Both ideas are worse than just using regular sources of petroleum and certainly worse than investing in the replacement of our conventional internal combustion engine car technology, which wastes 80% of the fuel in a gas tank regardless of what it is made from.
Here is a study, for example, that measured several types of biofuels against their fossil fuel equivalent and found in most cases that biofuels were actually worse and this does not even include land displacement or higher than realized nitrous oxide releases from nitrogen fertilizers (which can make corn ethanol up to 50% worse than gasoline).
Ironically, in this post, John tells us about the latest finding from NOAA:
The report shows that nitrogen emissions from natural processes are basically static, while manmade emissions such as the nitrogen fertilization of agricultural soils and fossil-fuel combustion have been growing steadily…
Whoosh, right over his head.
And here’s a nice piece of contradiction where he begrudgingly concedes that:
While factorially ommissive [sic] in its considerations, the Nature Conservancy report’s ulitmate [sic] finding, “Energy sprawl deserves to be one of the metrics by which energy production is assessed,” is a good one that should enter into the debate on energy.
Factorially? The Nature Conservancy, as you might guess, is all about conservation. Conservationists (hunters and fishers) are often “conservative.” In a masterful piece of diplomacy, these researchers coined a new term for indirect land use change (a term the RFA and the likes of John here have been busily denigrating) called “energy sprawl.” It’s like an atheist calling herself a secular humanist in an attempt to dodge the negative connotation religionists have given to the word atheist. It’s a robust term because to denigrate it you have to defend sprawl.
In the above article John tells us that the Nature Conservancy is just as wrong as every other researcher that has findings not supportive of food based biofuels. Biofuel missionaries are prone to cherry pick their science.
I know this post is getting long but I have just barely scraped the surface. I begin the line by line parsing below:
The simplified argument against biofuels states that “cutting down forests to clear more land for growing biofuel crops could double greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years,” according to Wilson School research scholar Timothy Searchinger.
The concept is simple to understand, not simplified. If you divert food into gas tanks, someone will make up the difference by putting more land under the plow.
Critics rush to judgement against biofuels saying that it is not intelligent to spend money in this way, but these sme critics remain silent when it comes to figuring the direct land use costs associated with increasing our oil supply with imports from the Canadian oil sands.
The dozens of recent peer reviewed studies have hardly rushed to judgment. Claiming that biofuel critics are not also critical of oil from tar sands is a strawman argument. The land displaced by tar sands is minuscule on a gallon per gallon basis compared to food based biofuels.
A recent report by WWF highlights some of the direct costs of Canada’s dirty oil.
Unlike John, who feels compelled to refute the Nature Conservancy study in defense of food-based biofuels, I wouldn’t want to refute the WWF study. But don’t fall for this false dilemma. Oil sand has nothing to do with biofuels. In addition, here is what the WWF said to Obama in 2008:
Reconsider corn-based ethanol and support the development of best-practice performance standards. The demand for biofuels has increased food prices and accelerated deforestation that releases as much CO2 as gets saved at the tailpipe. Biofuels have a role to play in our response to climate change, but the rush to produce them has been ill-considered. The administration should support the development of performance-based standards to ensure that biofuels are part of the solution, not the problem.
John continues ...
Using biofuels to power our vehicles reduces overall emissions.
Again, no. How badly a biofuel increases emissions depends on what kind it is, where it is grown, and how many decades or centuries it will be grown. This has been documented in several studies now. From Wikipedia:
“Ad nauseam” arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.
He continues ...
For this reason, the debate over whether or not to commercially produce biofuels has shifted to include these indirect costs associated with chopping down forests or taking land out of conservation status to grow plants to turn into fuel that we hear about so much in the media. Have these anti-biofuel number crunchers seen the landscape of the Canadian oil sands development? Can biofuel production really destroy a forest worse than this or this or this?
“Anti-biofuel number crunchers?” I think he means authors of published peer reviewed science papers. He goes on to link to photos of tar sand mining, which is analogous to coal mining except you get a liquid fuel instead of a solid one.
“Destroy a forest worse?” A destroyed forest is destroyed. It is a step function, not a matter of degree. It is destroyed or it is not. And yes biofuel production really can destroy forests just as bad. But the real clincher is that most of the destruction done by biofuels is in tropical forests, which are far more biologically diverse and store far more carbon than high latitude northern forests. It takes decades to centuries to recapture the carbon released by a destroyed forest.
From here:
“…The area of rainforest in the process of being deforested—razed but not yet cleared—surged in the Brazilian Amazon during 2008…”
”…24,932 square kilometers of Amazon forest was damaged between August 2007 and July 2008, an increase of 10,017 square kilometers—67 percent—over the prior year. The figure is in addition to the 11,968 square kilometers of forest that were completely cleared, indicating that at least 36,900 square kilometers of forest were damaged or destroyed during the year
”…The surge in activity is attributed to the sharp rise in commodity prices over the past two years. While grain and meat prices have plunged since March, higher prices have provided an impetus for converting land for agriculture and pasture. Accordingly, the burning season of 2007 (July-September) saw record numbers of fires in some parts of the Amazon as farmers, speculators, and ranchers set vast areas ablaze to prepare for the 2008 growing season
”…U.S. consumption of corn to supply domestic ethanol production created a global corn frenzy which drove up prices and spurred expansion of croplands around the planet. Two examples are Brazil and Laos. Brazil increased production of soy to essentially make up for soy acreage lost to corn in America. In Laos (pictured), returns from corn were so high that Vietnamese traders pressured national park officials to open up protected areas in parts of the country to corn fields. They refused.
”…falling grain prices early in the year coincided with a sharp slowing in deforestation. As food and fuel prices peaked through late 2007 and early 2008, it appeared that Amazon deforestation would climb to levels not seen since 2005—more than 15,000 square kilometers were expected to be lost. The sudden downturn changed all that. When the final numbers came in for 2008, they showed that deforestation only increased a modest 3.8% to 11,968 square kilometers….”
He continues ...
One square kilometer is roughly 247 acres, so the Canadian oil sands cover roughly 34.5 million acres.
That number represents the total area of tar sands in Canada, not what is actually being mined and according to Wikipedia, only ten percent of those reserves are concentrated enough to be economically mined. So, make that 3.5 million acres, or 5,400 square miles. You could drive a car at 60-mph around a circle that big in 4 hours. Our ethanol crop alone usurps about 30,000 square miles every year, never mind the impact of canola, soy, palm, and cane, and the area of land converted to biofuel crops grows every year along with government mandates for biofuel use.
Joule Technologies with their 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year technology could make 691,600,000,000 gallons of biofuel on the very same spot in Canada that we have already clearcut for oil sands production.
What does this have to do with food-based biofuels? This is another case of bait and switch. Not that I wouldn’t support a magical technology like that, but good God, Joule Technologies is just another snake oil sales firm. How naïve can you get? The EPA was counting on Cello for most of our cellulosic fuel next year, a company just convicted of fraud.
Why do biofuels get strapped with ILUCs until their production capabilities are so hindered with doubt that investors run for the hills, while oil sand development gets a free ride?
Note that John’s argument oscillates between calling land use change a crock, and claiming oil sands are just as land intensive (land use change isn’t a crock), one argument contradicting the other. The EPA looked into the land use issues associated with tar sand oil and found what I did. Gallon for gallon, and over all they are not anywhere near as land intensive as today’s food-based biofuels. This is a false dilemma, don’t fall for the bait and switch.
The simple fact of the matter is that biofuels will never be as dirty as the oil sands in Canada, both in terms of energy cost to extract it and environmental degradation from its recovery.
The term “dirty” is not well defined. This is a debate technique where you deliberately choose words that can mean just about anything. It is left to the imagination. And he is flat out wrong about the energy balance of corn ethanol being better than oil sands. Roughly 70 percent of the energy contained in a gallon of corn ethanol came from fossil fuels. His contention that the environmental degradation gallon for gallon of tar sands is worse than corn ethanol is also pure conjecture.
Note how he conflates the fact that tar sand oil is more carbon intensive than food-based biofuels with land displacement use issues. Don’t fall for it.
We ought to be placing the the same level of scrutiny upon our fossil fuel industry that we are placing on biofuels. Since ‘experts’ say biofuels cannot sustain our society, we dont’t foster their development; the same experts say that oil can no longer sustain our society, and we throw billions of dollars at securing the resource for the future…no common sense.
The above comment is riddled with errors. For starters “we” do scrutinize fossil fuels. Our politicians ignore that scrutiny for personal gain, just as they are allowing continued subsidization and mandated use of corn ethanol.
It is a strawman to say that because biofuels can’t sustain our society that we don’t foster their development. The government is flushing billions down the toilet on corn ethanol and cellulosic. The government isn’t throwing billions of dollars at Canadian oil, we consumers are. That is being driven by and paid for by the market, not by government handouts. I agree that our government should not allow the use of such a carbon intense fuel. The hard reality is that oil is fungible. If we don’t buy it, someone else will.
Perhaps a closer look at today’s biofuel technology will reveal that the ILUCs for biofuel are far lower than the direct costs associated with oil sands and OCS driling as well as mountaintop mining practices in Appalachia. We need to start looking at the costs of the alternatives to biofuels and comparing production them.
The above comment continues the attempt to connect tar sand oil to biofuels. There is no connection. Why would a serious researcher compare apples to oranges? Direct costs obviously favor tar sand oil over biofuels, which is why one has to be subsidized and use mandated and one does not. One is kept out of bankruptcy only by continued government largess and the other sustains a profit in the market. Biofuels disrupt food supplies, destroy vast carbon sinks and biodiversity. The tar sand oil creates more CO2 than conventional oil but usurps very little in the way of carbon sinks and biodiversity.
We are already getting oil from Canadian oil sands; biofuels definitely stack up cleaner than the oil sands process.
Here we go with the vague terms again. What exactly is the definition of “cleaner?” This is also pure conjecture, but even if future scientific studies prove biofuels “cleaner,” there still is no connection between tar sand oil and biofuels.
The tar sands blow
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 10:01 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:00 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
schnail Posted 7:24 am
18 Sep 2009
That's a pretty serious charge to whip out. Does the author have any facts to back up his assertion? Or is it just that some other technology company somewhere got convicted of fraud, so all new technology companies must be fraudulent?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:20 pm
18 Sep 2009
"...These people haven't even built a pilot plant, yet they are talking about widespread production at $50/bbl. Please. Just once I would like to see one of these far-fetched press releases end with "Product is currently for sale for $50/bbl." If you notice, this is always what is expected. It just never materializes...."
Permalink
72JAG Posted 10:48 am
19 Sep 2009
My article on Examiner advocates next generation biofuels (non-food based biofuels) to replace a portion of the oil that we import here in America. The facts and figures cited in the criticism above come predominantly from food-based biofuel sources. It is disappointing to see Grist not delve more deeply into this space with more thoroughness.
I have written other articles on biofuels, and in no way advocate worsening the environmental problems to solve our energy problem, but the way I see it, next generation biofuels have a place in the energy matrix of the future.
The number one destroyer of rainforest in the Amazon is the cattle industry; the main uses of palm oil (responsible for rainforest destruction in Indonesia and Malaysia) is for food and cosmetics. Russ Finley, biodiversivist, does not go after these industries, he goes after biofuels using the argument that all biofuels are made from food crops. The truth is that the biofuel industry has developed to include non-food based feedstocks.
Scientists disagree about the future prospects of biofuels; read my take on that here: http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energy-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Jacobson-and-Chu-offer-different-futures-for-biofuels
I have also written in the past, "The recent reports issued by many environmental and food groups, however, on face value, seem to make recommendations that will improve the viability of the biofuel industry in the long-run…if it survives" in a piece called Bashing biofuels to make them better here: http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energy-Examiner~y2009m2d25-Bashing-biofuels-to-make-them-better
I have also written about how the conflict in Indonesia and Malaysia over rainforest destruction is unfairly placed solely on the shoulders of biofuels when in reality a variety of factors are influencing it here: http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energy-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Blowguns-and-biofuels
The central argument of this criticism by Mr. Finley is valid to the extent that food-based biofuels have problems; but my post on Examiner that this Grist article reposts refers specifically to next generation biofuels that do not use food crops; I have been consistent on this theme.
Mr. Finley's 'ad naseum' argument is only going on in his own head; my view of biofuels has been evolving with recent advances in the field. His argument that all biofuel technologies are the same (based on food rops) simply relies on the repetition of that single argument to the exclusion of all other developments in the field of biofuels and all of the other factors responsible for rainforest destruction.
I thought the editors over at Grist were better than this.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:40 pm
19 Sep 2009
My guess is that you had a surge of testosterone when you saw the comment left by amazingdrx, and if so, my apologies for that.
"…I thought you guys over at Grist were better than this… I thought the editors over at Grist were better than this…"
However, if you are going to throw turds at somebody you should make sure they can't just pick them up and throw them back, which I just did:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energy-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Are-biofuels-really-worse-than-Canadian-oil-sands?commented#comments
This is also known colloquially as a taste of your own medicine ; ) . Feel free to remove the comment, as you did my first one, but understand I will point out the fact that you did so.
I noticed while I was there that you had removed my comment from your article and replaced it with a direct link to your rebuttal on my blog, which by the way, was a much more civil and better thought-out response than your comment here, IMHO.
I enjoy many of the articles found on the Examiner. I especially liked this one by Michelle Andujar about biofuel impacts in Colombia:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19327-Salem-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Biodiesel-fueling-displacement-in-Colombia
I left a comment on that particular article as I did on yours (and it is still there).
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:40 pm
19 Sep 2009
I hope you appreciate the way Grist generously allows you to plaster links to your articles all over your comment (although the software bugs make this a real hair pulling exercise). The Examiner gives commenters a thousand characters (not words mind you) and does not allow any links.
"…My article on Examiner advocates next generation biofuels (non-food based biofuels) …; but my post on Examiner that this Grist article reposts refers specifically to next generation biofuels; I have been consistent on this theme. ..."
I am glad you are not a supporter of food based biofuels but neither the term "next generation," nor the term "non-food based" is found anywhere in your article.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:49 pm
19 Sep 2009
"...but the way I see it, next generation biofuels have a place in the energy matrix of the future. ..."
I also would like nothing better than for humanity to develop liquid fuels that are less destructive in the aggregate than the liquid fossil fuels they replace. The fact that they don't exist is problematic for you. Where are they? That makes your above comment the first of several strawman arguments I will be pointing out.
"...The number one destroyer of rainforest in the Amazon is the cattle industry; the main uses of palm oil (responsible for rainforest destruction in Indonesia and Malaysia) is for food and cosmetic..."
We all know that agriculture (livestock and other forms of food production) is the number one destroyer of carbon sinks. That's nothing new. The additional strain on the biosphere from growing biofuels, however, is new. They are exacerbating the damage being done to provide food. Now we are asking Mother Earth to also provide our SUVs with fuel.
"...Russ Finley, biodiversivist, does not go after these industries, ..."
This particular article just happened to be about biofuels, not logging, not cosmetics, not overpopulation, not poverty, not war, not the wildlife trade, not [pick from one of hundreds of related topics]. I've written plenty of others about the destruction of nature from an unending variety of causes.
"... he goes after biofuels using the argument that all biofuels are made from food crops. ..."
Strawman number two. From my article:
"...biofuels" can be gaseous, liquid, or solid. They can come from landfill gas, used restaurant grease, or our food supply. They can help drive the orangutan to extinction as is the case with palm oil, or capture a powerful green house gas as is the case with manure treatment methane digesters…"
John continues:
"...The truth is that the biofuel industry has developed to include non-food based feedstocks. ..."
If that statement were not so vague I'd be tempted to say that it's not true. There certainly are a lot of companies out there trying to develop non food based next generation biofuels but the truth is, nobody can go out and fill up their car with it at a retail gas station.
"...over rainforest destruction is unfairly placed solely on the shoulders of biofuels..."
Strawman number three. Nobody claims rainforest destruction is solely caused by biofuels. Biofuels pour gas on the fire that is consuming the biosphere. That's an analogy, not to be taken verbatim. Essentially you are saying,
"Hey, don't blame this fire on the biofuel I just poured on it. It was already raging before I got here!"
I followed the link to your article, which claims over and over again that Americans think that the only thing destroying rainforests are biofuels, making it one long string of strawmen, built on a strawman. Had I seen it at the time of publication I probably would have ripped it as well. Shame it escaped my attentions.
"...His argument that all biofuel technologies are the same (based on food rops) ..."
Strawman number four. I have of course never made such a claim. There are literally dozens of biofuel technologies (not proven commercially viable or scalable) I could list that are not based on food. What I have critiqued are the biofuels that we all burn in our gas tanks whether we want to or not, of which, 95% are grown on land usurped either from food production or from carbon sinks.
Permalink
72JAG Posted 9:02 am
24 Sep 2009
In it, they highlight three companies: Joule, Poet, and Verenium.
"Joule has developed a 'SolarConverter' that will be the breeding ground for these still-unnamed organisms. The converter looks kind of like a solar-photovoltaic panel, but instead of generating electricity, it generates liquid fuel."
Poet makes their ethanol from corn.
"Verenium makes concoctions of enzymes extracted from different organisms and uses them to break down sugarcane bagasse for ethanol production."(Bagasse is the fibrous residue remaining after sugarcane or sorghum stalks are crushed to extract their juice and is currently used as a renewable resource in the manufacture of pulp and paper products and building materials)
Verenium is close to commercial production,"Poet operates 26 ethanol plants around the country with a capacity of more than 1.5 billion gallons per year", and Joule is still in the experimental phase.
The question asked in this article whether biofuels are worse than oil sands was pretty straightforward. The fact that I highlighted Joule Technologies implies my stance that next generation biofuels have the potential to replace the more energy intensive Canadian oil sands in the future. Your stance, in this context, can be viewed as advocating expansion of oil sands production (and can be verified by the government of Alberta responding to your post). By 'ripping' biofuels without turning your critical eye toward oil sands does not adequately answer the question posed in the title you chose to reprint (twice).
The Reuters article does address your concern that "There is no market for cellulosic fuels if the blendwall is not increased. The blendwall is a rule that is in contradiction to a law." I agree here; the way the RFS is stated now, first generation biofuels will only exasperate the environmental problems with liquid fuels, but working on developing biofuel technology alongside advancements in the EV battery market makes sense if energy independence and emission reductions can be achieved. If we simply plug EVs (non-combustion engines) in and don't transform the electrical energy generation process away from coal, we only make emissions worse. Both Verenium and Joule use non-food feedstocks and, therefore, do not contribute to rainforest destruction. They should be developed alongside electric vehicles and renewable energy for grid applications.
Your statement referring to my previous comment, "Had I seen it at the time of publication I probably would have ripped it as well. Shame it escaped my attentions" makes me think of conversational styles that lean more to creating conflict rather than ones based upon discussion. Your acknowledgment in your comment on your blog "My apologies for remarks that were construed as personal attacks. I certainly could have been more polite" was appreciated. I wanted to post this comment not to add fuel to the fire, but rather to say that I agree with many of your points in your criticism. However, without addressing the environmental effects of oil sands, you only offer a one-sided argument to a two-sided question.
If your readers want to look more into the effects of oil sands, they can look them up here: http://oilsandstruth.org/
or here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:20 am
25 Sep 2009
Do you plan to delete every comment I leave on your article? Can you tell me why I should not delete all of your comments as well, quid pro quo?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:37 am
25 Sep 2009
Repetition of previously refuted points is a tried-and-true debate technique, but on the Internet, one can easily cut and paste the refutation as often as another cares to repeat the refuted point. Grist is peppered with articles pointing out the negatives of oil made from tar sand. As I have said "repeatedly," I don't defend oil sands any more than I defend mountain top coal mining. Here is what I said the last time that you insisted I address all environmental ills simultaneously in every article:
"…..This particular article just happened to be about biofuels, not logging, not cosmetics, not overpopulation, not poverty, not war, not the wildlife trade, not [pick from one of hundreds of related topics]. I've written plenty of others about the destruction of nature from an unending variety of causes….."
Your attempts to suggest that biofuel critics support Canadian oil sands are highly unoriginal. You are parroting the Renewable Fuels Association (a well-funded corn ethanol front group that spent a quarter million on lobbying last quarter) argument, which was cobbled together in response to the CARB ruling that eliminated corn ethanol as a low carbon fuel thanks in part to land displacement issues.
The RFA is attempting to counter scientific studies linking indirect land use change to corn ethanol by claiming Canadian oil sands are just as land intensive as corn ethanol, which they aren't. In addition, they are trying to make corn ethanol look more palatable by comparing it to Canadian tar sands, which is an apple to orange comparison. That makes you either an unwitting dupe or an accomplice. I provided two links to Bob Dinneen's ( the CEO of the RFA) Huffington Post articles on that subject.
As I have said many times now, oil sands are an environmental disaster, falling somewhere between coal to liquids and conventional oil production (the same position held by today's biofuels). But that fact does not make today's biofuels any less of an environmental disaster. Two wrongs do not make a right. Biofuels of the future will require higher standards thanks to the critique and scientific scrutiny given to today's biofuels. Anyone reading your article can see that you are critical of the concept of land displacement (ILUC) along with researchers who have published on the subject.
"…..Why do biofuels get strapped with ILUCs until their production capabilities are so hindered with doubt that investors run for the hills
Have these anti-biofuel number crunchers seen the landscape of the Canadian oil sands development?
Meanwhile, the biofuel discussion is bogged down by the concept of indirect land use costs (ILUC). The simplified argument against biofuels….."
On the subject of funding:
"…..Critics rush to judgement against biofuels saying that it is not intelligent to spend money in this way….."
Go here to see how that money is being spent:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif
"…..Today, Reuters posted an article called "Are Biofuels ready for a comeback?" You can read it here….."
There is nothing I'd like better than for humanity to find energy sources less environmentally destructive than fossil fuels but you can't really debate the pros and cons of something that does not exist. The debate over next gen biofuels awaits their arrival. The article you link to is a clone of literally hundreds of other lay press articles I've seen over the years. From your link:
"…..Without having a pilot plant built and without independent verification of the fuel, the company [Joules] is essentially asking potential investors to "trust us."….."
Sounds familiar. I have nothing against investors gambling with their money:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/08/disruptive-technologies-are-so.html
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/07/cello-lesson-in-due-diligence.html
As for Verenium:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/03/aventine-verenium-on-ropes.html
They are just one of dozens of companies trying to economically unlock sugars from cellulose so they can be fermented into alcohol. BP has jumped in to save them, which lends evidence to my contention that all biofuel production will eventually be controlled by the oil companies, the same ones that biofuel enthusiasts rail against. From Verenium's website:
"…..Working to produce cellulosic ethanol from items such as sugarcane bagasse, agricultural waste, and wood products….."
And the third company (Poet), the one producing 99% of the ethanol between the three, uses food.
"…..The question asked in this article whether biofuels are worse than oil sands was pretty straightforward….."
That question is a canard. In many ways food-based biofuels are worse, particularly when it comes to usurpation of arable land, carbon sink destruction, the expansion of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, and destruction of biodiversity, not to mention screwing with grain reserves and food prices. Which is worse in the aggregate is irrelevant since they are both worse than conventional oil sources. Peer reviewed science papers making such apples to oranges comparisons are not likely to materialize.
"…..The fact that I highlighted Joule Technologies implies my stance that next generation biofuels have the potential to replace the more energy intensive Canadian oil sands in the future….."
In other words you have a hope, one that we all share, but that does not mean we should give the food-based biofuels that we all burn today a free pass. I'm all for pouring government and private funds into research. Today's government support of food-based biofuels is not a giant research grant.
"…..Your stance, in this context, can be viewed as advocating expansion of oil sands production (and can be verified by the government of Alberta responding to your post)….."
Oops … coffee just came out my nose. I advocate the expansion of oil sands production because the government of Albert left a comment on my post? If he had left one on your article would that have meant that you advocate the expansion of oil sands? How about this blogger, who also got a comment from the government of Alberta:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/09/how_dirty_are_the_tar_sands.php#comments
It will take more than next gen biofuels to end the production of Canadian tar sand oil. The 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol produced last year corresponded to an increase in tar sand oil production. The popularity of Canadian tar sand oil is the result of the "energy independence" canard, the same canard being used to promote food-based biofuels. Although Canada is a technically a foreign country, we have yet to piss them off to the point that they will stop trading with us and I suspect they suspect we would just invade them and take what we want anyway.
"…..The Reuters article does address your concern that "There is no market for cellulosic fuels if the blendwall is not increased. The blendwall is a rule that is in contradiction to a law….."
I don't recall ever saying, "there is no market for cellulosic fuels if the blend wall is not increased." I have said on many occasions that there is no market for ethanol as a transport fuel period. Its use is mandated, paid for by taxes, and then forced down citizen's throats as a blend in the fuel they purchase. That really twists the definition of a market where consumer demand spurs entrepreneurs to find ways to attract their business with lower prices and or better quality or service.
The blend wall dilemma serves to highlight just how incompetent our politicians really are. What did they think was going to happen when the blend of ethanol hit ten percent? They figured they would cross that bridge when they got there? Ethanol was not chosen because it provides better gas mileage (it doesn't) or because if will reduce health costs (it wont') or because it is compatible with existing engines (it isn't) or because is will save citizens money (it does not do that either). It was chosen because it bought votes from the farm belt.
Now that you have broached the topic of ethanol blending, let me suggest that an increase in ethanol will further stiff the poor. The poor drive older cars. Older cars are more susceptible to ethanol damage for several reasons. One reason is that rubber seals in the fuel system have aged. When rubber ages it becomes brittle and develops cracks. These cracks can increase the surface area exposed to ethanol a hundred fold. My older car recently failed an emissions test because the rubber seal around the gas cap looked like a rat had been chewing on it. A few months earlier a rubber seal in my fuel pump had failed. Replacing it cost a thousand dollars. Not a big deal to me but that is a big deal to a lot of people. The poor continue to be screwed to line the pockets of the fat cats. Nothing new under the sun.
"…..but If we simply plug EVs (non-combustion engines) in and don't transform the electrical energy generation process away from coal, we only make emissions worse….."
Precisely. If we don't find ways to replace coal, it won't matter what kind of cars we drive. One way to displace coal is to co-fire with biomass. So who gets priority over that biomass, liquid fuel purveyors or power generators? Burning biomass for power has been shown to be upwards of 100% more efficient than turning it into a liquid fuel.
Permalink
72JAG Posted 5:30 pm
25 Sep 2009
Thanks again for the attention; I'll give you the last word!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:09 pm
25 Sep 2009
You presented yours. I presented mine. The rest is up to anyone who happens to stumble on them. A rant is in the eye of the beholder, usually one on the receiving end.
The accusation that quotes were taken out of context has little impact in today's Internet comment fields where the entire text the quote came from can be found two inches away by simply placing one's index finger on one's scroll wheel. All quotes can be seen in situ by any reader motivated enough to wriggle said index finger.
A word of warning to anyone interested in the food-based biofuel debate. Proponents of food-based biofuels (and John has made it clear that he is not one of them) use a tactic that the WSJ calls bait and switch. From the WSJ (a publication I don't often quote):
"..The ethanol lobby is attempting a giant bait-and-switch: Keep claiming that cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, even as it knows the only current technology to meet federal mandates is corn ethanol (or sugar, if it didn't face an import tariff).."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389966385274413.html
The the last thing the RFA really wants to see is a competitor for corn ethanol. It is the only fuel they are really interested in and it isn't even renewable.
Permalink