"World demand for transportation fuels is growing fast, and biofuels have a major role to play in meeting that demand. That’s why BP is investing in a range of biofuels-related activities around the world, all aimed at bringing biofuels into the mainstream by making them more widely available to motorists."
—From a BP press release hailing a partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
On Gristmill and other parts of the greenie blogosphere, the nomination of Steven Chu as secretary of energy has inspired a a kind of euphoric reaction. The title of a recent post by Joe Romm sums up the reception Chu has gotten: "A Nobelist for energy secretary who gets both climate and energy efficiency?"
No doubt, after eight years of knuckle-dragging by Cheney and the assorted oilmen who made up Bush’s energy policy, it’s remarkable to see a decorated scientist who understands climate change taking charge.
But Chu’s leading role in promoting cellulosic ethanol as a "solution" to both climate change and energy scarcity make me queasy. Here’s why:
Oil prices are hovering at about $50 per barrel. That represents a breathtaking $90 plunge since the summer—but oil is still pretty expensive. In today’s dollars, oil is up by a factor of about three since 1998. That’s a pretty steep gain. And by most accounts—see, e.g. this extremely interesting recent interview by George Monbiot with the chief economist of the International Energy Authority—prices will soon continue their long-term upward trend.
The upward march of oil prices, combined with accelerating climate change, means human societies need to start thinking of ways to use less energy and generally tread more lightly on the earth.
For me, that means rationalizing our transportation and food/agriculture systems, both of which suck in vast amounts of fossil energy while spewing out titantic amounts of greenhouse gas. Simultaneously, it means we have to switch to low-impact energy sources like wind and solar. For food and energy alike, regional, decentralized systems based on appropriate technology seem like the way forward.
Also, conservation, not substitution, will have to be the hallmark. The sun is powerful, but harnessing its energy will never be as easy as generating electricity by burning coal or moving cars by burning petroleum.
Will Chu push energy policy in these new directions? Possibly, but it doesn’t seem likely. As director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu works with the BP Energy Biosciences Institute, a consortium of oil giant BP, Cal-Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and the Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
BP is lavishing the effort with $500 billion over the next 10 years; the California state of California chipped in $70 million in startup funds. Rather than asking, "what are viable and energy-efficient systems for public transportation?," the institute is essentially asking, "how can we concoct liquid fuels from plants that can keep cars on the road, in a form that benefits the incumbent oil giants"?
Among its projects is one to genetically modify various grasses to make them more suitable to ethanol production.
The BP Energy Biosciences Institute presumes that plant matter is a "renewable resource"—when actually it takes decades to replenish an inch of topsoil. Topsoil is generated when plant matter decays on the ground; cellulosic ethanol is predicated on the harvesting billions of pounds of plant matter.
And here’s a problem that can’t be sorted out in a lab, no matter how tricked out it is in corporate and government cash: how are you going to haul around all those billions of pounds of bulky biomass from fields to factories?
I don’t intend in this post to argue the merits of cellulosic ethanol—which after all remains, as it has for decades, five (or 10) years away from viability (as Chu himself acknowledges.) I do want to question the wisdom of devoting national research resources into pursuing it when there are less-baroque options, like reinvesting in trains. I hope Chu charts new directions.
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
wanderer Posted 11:46 am
17 Dec 2008
A big pack of battery?
Solar panel?
Miniature nuclear power plant?
If not biofuel (using algae, etc...) then what?
Boeing is doing a lot of this stuffs (blended fuel) with a number of airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, so it's not that far off.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:23 pm
17 Dec 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:34 pm
17 Dec 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:46 pm
17 Dec 2008
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:49 pm
17 Dec 2008
Don't expect biofuels to fill the gap - they are expensive, inefficient and don't work well as an aviation fuel.
This is in addition to biofuels' devastating effects on food prices and the environment, if they are planted extensively.
We are approaching the Age of Limits.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:11 pm
17 Dec 2008
JMG is right, electrify transportation and get rid of oil based heating fuel with ground source heating, and oil will provide aircraft fuel for decades. Algae biodiesel won't be needed for decades, but it's feasible.
And even air travel can go plugin hybrid once batteries get to 1/4 the power to weight ratio of jet fuel. Why? Because battery electric drive is 80% efficient, turbines are less than 20% efficient.
Leading edge battery experimentation proves this is possible. Can it be scaled up and manufactured? That's the rub.
Solid oxide fuel cell/turbines are 75% efficient, that would cut fuel consumption down to a quarter of present turbine technology. Boeing is working on small versions of this for unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another renewable electric aircraft concept is powering takeoff with induction power strips under the runway and/or microwave laser power tranfer to antennas built into the underside of the aircarft.
Most of aircraft fuel is used for takeoff.
Too bad Chu and his upper echelon colleagues don't have the time to look at alternatives like this.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:23 pm
17 Dec 2008
That could replace maybe 90% of air travel? Only oversea flights would be needed. 200+ mph trains could beat air travel in most continental commutes, traffic, airport, and weather related flight delays keep trains competitive on time.
Frustration levels would be very low as passengers could be more comfortable at much lower cost on a train. Better than first class air travel, at less than coach prices. No weekends camped at the airport because of storms and airline inefficiency, incompetence, and greed.
Along with oil conservation, this reduction in air miles and better technology leaves air travel still part of our future, well maybe only for the wealthy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:36 pm
17 Dec 2008
You know, someone who comes to power with an agenda and bends the facts to support their preconceived beliefs.
I'd suggest that it might be wiser to treat him as a scientist, someone who looks at the data and makes their decisions based on the facts available.
(Lots of us who have been interested in getting our vehicles off petroleum were at one time excited about biofuels and about hydrogen fuel cells. Then we looked at the data and walked away. I would expect no less of Chu once he assumes the job of taking broader looks.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:49 pm
17 Dec 2008
Maybe you are right, Chu could see the light.
He's no creationist! At least let's hope not, will that be the next shoe to drop (fly)? Hehey.
After Chu repeated that lame old false dilemna fallacy talking point, coal radiation versus nuclear radiation, I guess it's possible?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
thu141 Posted 6:52 pm
17 Dec 2008
The project was rushed through with little public consultation, and violated certain rules governing academic appointments. While BP was putting together this project, it was also pushing with $3 million against a CA initiative that would use gas taxes for sustainable PUBLIC financing of alternative energy research. And it was investing in tar sands projects. This is all relevant, because Chu sincerely believes in that the climate change crisis has made BP turn green, and makes it imperative to work hand in hand with corporations like BP.
Permalink
thu141 Posted 7:03 pm
17 Dec 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:25 pm
17 Dec 2008
The Berkeley lab is headed by a Nobel laureate, for God's sake. He is a staunch convinced of AGW, and he is a brilliant guy looking for smart solutions. He doesn't need to tow to nobody's religion.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
KarenLOrr Posted 7:27 pm
17 Dec 2008
The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.
Mark Jacobson recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.
Best to worst vehicle options according to Jacobson's calculations:
1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles) 2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) 3.CSP-BEVs 4. geothermal-BEVs 5. tidal-BEVs 6. solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8.hydroelectric-BEVs 9. a tie between nuclear- BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs 11. corn-E85 12.cellulosic-E85.
See ~
WIND, WATER, AND SUN BEATS OUT BIOFUEL, NUCLEAR, AND COAL
http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_solar_wind_beat_coal_nu ...
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:26 pm
17 Dec 2008
The problem for many Grister's, as I've said before, is that when it comes to carbon based solutions that involve growing things... as opposed to wind, solar and other non-carbon energy sources... the issues become far more complex. Simplistic, quick assessments of cellulosic ethanol, for example, are of little value.
Obama (Chu and others) recognizes the complexity of this issue, but also the many options and potential benefits inherent within it. They see beyond analyses like those of Mr. Jacobson, who for all practical purposes, understands only the smallest sliver of the CE pie.
One of the reasons there is so much attention to CE is because it can create jobs... hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs. The right kind of jobs. Dispersed. Rural. Good paying. Low tech. This factor alone places it in a category different from solar and wind. But then, maybe Grister's just don't put much weight on this.
In fact, the nature of CE is decentralized, making it relevant to every section of the country. No need to focus on siting a massive solar plant in the desert or restricting a wind farm to a few key locations.
Further, the raw material is already present in forests, allowing the sector to get underway immediately after CE has been proven commercial. Current knowledge will allow us to grow massive volumes of new biomass from a wide range of plants... ALL in a sustainable manner.
I could go on and on (as I've done in the past), but it doesn't really matter. It's coming, folks. Get over your agenda's and start to think creatively. Use your brilliance to help direct it toward a sustainable end. Become informed about the options. And tell Mr. Jacobson he's not helping himself by narrow analyses of a direction he seems to know little about.
Richard
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:59 pm
17 Dec 2008
Others questioned: what about flying? Also have to ask what about diesel that propels the nations' trucking industry, rail freight, agriculture, etc. This diesel segment of the oil market is growing much more rapidly than is the demand for gasoline (and ethanol).
All of this begs the basic question: Why are we so dependent on being able to move billions of people and ungodly quantities of material all over the freaking planet? Basically, the problem lies with our design of a commercial sphere that is inherently unsustainable requiring us to wrack our brains to find "sustainable" substitutes for unsustainable energy sources. Thus we end up with such monstrous "solutions" as cellulosic biofuel.
We, depending on our world views, either faithfully or hopelessly depend on technocrats like Chu to keep the wheels on. But the real solution lies in something much more radical -- redesigning a commercial system wedded to native ecosystems that evolved over millions of years with the native intelligence selected by a changing planet. In wildness is the preservation of man and the earth. We look too much to the stars for solutions while we burn the ark to our survival.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:26 pm
17 Dec 2008
Nobody is stopping you.
If you are successful, well and good.
But please stop crying after "technocrats" trying to do their best to solve the problem. If you can't do your job, at least let the scientists do their job ! We are in a crisis situation here.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MClemens Posted 11:48 pm
17 Dec 2008
But here's my take on it. We may now be seeing strong initiatives by auto companies (Toyota, the one in China, now Chrysler) to electrify their vehicles. Thus, maybe (and that's a hopeful "maybe") we're seeing a transition in our personal transportation sector. Big-O has promised big investment in renewable electricity generation in his proposed economic package so maybe soon we'll be able to charge those electric vehicles with renewably-generated electricity. I don't have any numbers to cite, but I can't help but assume that those two efforts alone would cut way down on CO2 emissions and they're both feasible in the near future. Couple that with an apparent shift among many of the large municipalities toward implementing some sort of sustainable public transportation system, and we've actually made some big steps toward fixing the biggest problems we're faced with today (i.e. climate change, dependence on foreign oil and over-use of coal-generated electricity).
Granted, that's not all we should be doing but we can get that done quickly. We still have to deal with the long-distance transportation issues associated with airlines and semi-trucks. If, in the short term, we can a) use less of both, and b) power them with domestically-produced, cleaner burning biofuels while we work on developing other, more sustainable equivalent transportation systems, then I suppose we should. It continues to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it's less polluting, albeit not by much. If we're poised to get production going quickly, then it might not be that bad of a transitional effort - so long as we keep working toward completely sustainable systems for the not-so-distant future.
Now, don't think for one second that I'm an ethanol supporter - I'm not. However, cellulosic ethanol is better than corn-based ethanol, no doubt about that. The rub lies with our ability/inability to harvest the raw materials for it without completely degrading the land. I cringe at the bioengineering idea - we don't need any more genetically altered species out there. But here in Iowa, using switchgrass (or better, mixed grass stands) for ethanol production would be better than corn from a soil-holding and water-quality standpoint. In the timber regions of the country, maybe wood products can work. Keep it localized, and implement some conservation measures and it might be a decent way to bridge the gap between where we are today and where we want to be in future.
MClemens
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 11:51 pm
17 Dec 2008
I heard Chu lecture on his work that led to a Nobel Prize a few years before it was awarded. Pretty cool, and he headed the physics department at Stanford. But he became increasingly worried about climate change and left physics to head a national lab if they agreed to take on the Helios Project, which would use solar power (photovoltaics and cellulosic ethanol) to address climate change.
No one in Berkeley thinks BP is green. However, there is a tradition in the US, which has led to US science being pre-eminent (it wasn't just the mass exodus of European scientists), of scientists and industry working together to solve problems both are interested in. The Silicon Valley folks offered to work with MIT/Harvard, who showed no interest, before the collaboration began with Stanford/UC, Berkeley, and guess which two schools are considered to have better computer science programs.
There is a problem that scientists desperately want to solve, how to provide fuel or electricity or something to vehicles which the public is showing little tendency to give up. Without destroying the Earth. There is quite a bit of discussion in Berkeley and elsewhere about how to achieve this. Every scientist working on cellulosic biofuels is aware of the latest peer-reviewed attacks on cellulosic biofuels--in their talks, they mention the work that has just been published and what they see as correct or incorrect about that work. Over time, we'll see how the thinking evolves.
But rather than attack people who have turned their intellect and passion on solving the world's problems, who engage in give and take on a high level (the garbage disappears much faster than in public discussions), why not work on how to get people out of airplanes and cars? (Yes, vakibs!)
And again, I have not seen Jacobson's analysis being accepted by the policy community. The quality of our lives, and the existence of many species, depends on getting the solutions right. Towards this end, we want to help those who are trying to find solutions, by adding money and a more coherent way of spending it, as so many high level reports recommend. The question I have for those of you who attack mainstream policy thinking is the same as I have for climate skeptics: what if the overwhelming majority of those who study the issues and engage in peer reviewed discussions are getting the answers right?
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:29 am
18 Dec 2008
As a whole, scientists have been much more active in researching new forms of energy, rather than improving efficiency and conservation. This despite the fact that efficiency and conservation are cheaper, more effective and with fewer side effects.
Why this irrational choice? Because new forms of energy are where the research dollars are. (Many scientists will admit this.)
It's also sexier to do high-tech research than to talk about insulating houses or mass transit.
Another point of irrationality. As a scientist one wants to get one's ideas implemented, so one tends to exaggerate the benefits of one's high-tech ideas and downplay the costs.
Slowly ... the scientific journals and conferences are coming around. And some scientists are fearless in speaking out. But, in general, the scientific establishment is behind the curve.
Richard: Obama (Chu and others) recognizes the complexity of this issue, but also the many options and potential benefits inherent within it.I wish this were the case, Robert, but in my experience, the claims put forth for ethanol (in all varieties) are consistently exaggerated and misleading. This includes information from industry and government sources.
If I remember correctly, several years ago David Roberts put together a series of articles giving the pro's and con's of biofuels. The skepticism of Gristmill readers has only developed over time, as more evidence has come out.
The same seems to be true of educated opinion around the world.
As I dig into the biofuels story, I keep finding one bad piece of news after another. I'm particularly disturbed by the misleading arguments of biofuels advocates (for example about EROEI). Unreasonable claims have a habit of coming back to bite.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
GMBiofuelsGuy Posted 4:39 am
18 Dec 2008
I work for General Motors in Biofuels and I bought new bicycles for my entire family earlier this year. Love 'em. But I work 42 miles from home and there is not a train anywhere near me except for the freight line than runs east to west when I am driving north. I have my pick of E85 ethanol stations from which to choose as I drive my crossover SUV to work. And while E85 is upside down on price right now, corn-based ethanol is the only alternative to oil that has made a difference in reducing fossil fuel use. As to your dismissive reference to cellulosic ethanol being five to 10 years away, I'll take the under on that one. Just hope secretary-to-be Chu and others don't skip over cellulosic ethanol altogether to focus on algae or whatever the next big thing is. A lot of investment (including GM's) is riding on cellulosic ethanol and while it is not without challenges, it is pretty exciting stuff -- if we give it a chance.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 5:19 am
18 Dec 2008
It's as if what I said went in one ear and out the other. It's why I don't bother reading or posting much here anymore. Closed minds. Closed ears.
No matter. Cellulosic ethanol is coming, in a big way, whether Grist folks like it or not. Must be Obama and Chu are just out to lunch because some select group of "experts" know better. Looks like we're all screwed.
A lot of folks here really need to learn how to listen more openly and not be so damn afraid that someone else might notice your not an expert on everything. Because no one here is an expert on all things energy.
A little humility is in order.
Richard
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:42 am
18 Dec 2008
What if, instead of this incredibly baroque and expensive process, we merely reinvested in train infrastructure -- and challenged (and paid) our finest scientific minds to come up with more efficient rail systems?
Bart, that was actually me who edited that biofuel series in 2006: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/biofuels/ Two years on, I'm still pretty proud of how it came out (although stunned at its sheer volume).
GMbiofuels guy, I'm sympathetic to what your saying, but the government has been for 20 years defunding mass transit projects, ignoring CAFE standards, and pumping cash into ethanol: which is why it seems more rational to drive a flex-fuel, corn-gulping SUV to work than take the (non-existent) train.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:54 am
18 Dec 2008
There are problems with cellulose ethanol. And we may not need it, at least for surface transportation.
There is serious thought, for example, that it will take a long time for liquid fuel demand to return to the level it was when gas hit $5 (here). And before it can climb to those price levels electric vehicles may have started to create new demand decay.
Stamping your feet and threatening to take your ball and go home is not a valid way to make your point.
---
Bart - people who work in one lab/on one problem/for one institute/etc. tend to wear blinders to other things outside their daily experience.
Chu is about to get flooded with all sorts of inputs from areas of expertise.
And he's now going to be asking questions about how to fix problems given our economic constraints rather than how to research his area of interest with research funds available.
It's going to be something like stepping up from company commander to commanding general in the theater.
(I think we're both saying good things about Chu. Smart guy, reality based, ....)
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 5:58 am
18 Dec 2008
I hear this same old silly argument again and again about how the cost of hauling the biomass will kill cellulosic ethanol. This simple statement most clearly speaks to the lack of basic knowledge even so-called experts have about CE.
I'll say this one more time (it gets tiring after a while). Woody biomass is transported every single day up to 100 miles from forest to end user (pulp plant, biomass facility, sawmill, etc.). The cost of doing this is simply not a major factor. It'll be no different for CE. Every CE company has factored this in. It's a KNOWN cost... proven over the past 30 years.
Folks who are establishing dedicated wood energy plantations (for CE) understand these costs as well. There's no guessing here.
With switchgrass, there's a bit more unknown, but it's not rocket science and it's definitely not a show stopper. There are options to compress and even dry the material before it leaves the forest or farm, both of which will allow for even further transport distances.
Corn?.. well that's a different creature I personally have no interest in.
Cash to build the facilities? It's standing by the sidelines. Just keep watching.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:02 am
18 Dec 2008
You, too, have simply failed to listen to anything I've said.
My point is that Obama, Chu and many others on Obama's team stand firm behind cellulosic ethanol... not to mention the investors and government agencies that have pumped more than $1 billion into it over the past 18 months.
But all of us must be mad, Bob... just delusional. And you must have the answers.
Right.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:12 am
18 Dec 2008
grist.org
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:18 am
18 Dec 2008
By "close minded", I specifically mean people who are not willing to put their own beliefs aside to fully and openly consider different views. Debating is not the point. You can't have a sensible debate with a close minded person. It's pointless.
As I said, cellulosic ethanol involves many complex issues not familiar to people who study wind, solar and other energy technologies. The information they need to make informed judgments is not intuitive or easy to learn. It requires a certain maturity and self reflection to accept this. I often don't find this here.
Richard
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:22 am
18 Dec 2008
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:29 am
18 Dec 2008
I tend to avoid making definitive statements about any energy technology I don't have first hand experience of us, because they are all complex.
People here should learn to ask questions first... not reach conclusions first. It would make Grist a far better site.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:40 am
18 Dec 2008
All that aside: if you have information you think is relevant to people's assessment of cellulosic ethanol, share it. Or don't share it. But hanging around talking about how it's not worth sharing it here seems rather like a waste of time.
grist.org
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:49 am
18 Dec 2008
As far as discussing the specifics of cellulosic ethanol, I would guess I've made 20-30 posts here over the months that contain specific data and answer questions on this subject. Perhaps a reorganization of this site so that data like that can be more easily found, would be in order. To post the same thing again and again... I certainly don't have the time or patience for that.
Richard
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:01 am
18 Dec 2008
And quit assuming that other people here know nothing.
I've looked at switchgrass, for example. I think there's a valid argument for using it and for creating small conversion plants to process it.
I believe that someone calculated that plants every six miles or so apart in prime growing land would be the most efficient, for example. That seemed the sweet spot for maximizing volume while holding transportation costs to a reasonable level.
I've also looked at other biofuels and at hydrogen fuel cells as answers to our problems. I find none of the three "best answers".
You're free to present additional information that might change my mind and the minds of others.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:01 am
18 Dec 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/user/RDMiller/comments
If you want to round up the relevant information and links into a single place, I'll put it into a post on the main page. In the future, instead of putting it in again you can just link to that post. Just send it to me in an email. Sound good?
grist.org
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:18 am
18 Dec 2008
I'll work on something over the next couple of days and see if it meets your approval. Thanks for the offer.
Bob... I don't recall calling anyone names here. And I certainly never said "other people here know nothing." Where do you come up with these things? I said too many people here draw conclusions about some things they know too little about. That's a far cry from saying people here know nothing. It's this kind of twisting of statements that drives me away from Grist (and I know David... it's not Grist specifically... it's the Internet. I'm sure the folks behind Grist would like to see the discussion go up a notch).
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:27 am
18 Dec 2008
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/magazine/story?id ...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:29 am
18 Dec 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:33 am
18 Dec 2008
My impression is that you are saying the same things over and over, and not listening to the objections that are raised. If you want to understand and influence the rest of us, it's vital to have a good grasp of what the opposition is saying.
David R. once interviewed a neo-con PR consultant whose excellent advice was to listen to the people who disagree with you.
For me, there are two aspects of the biofuels debate.
The first aspect is pure con job. Industry, investors, and their government supporters are lobbying for research dollars and subsidies. Misinformation and exaggeration are rampant.
The second aspect is a more objective analysis of the technology. This has been difficult to find. Even scientists and researchers are prey to wishful thinking. However, the discussion has been improving, as we begin talking about concepts like EROEI (energy return on energy invested), working conditions in the biofuel industries (e.g. on Brazilian sugarcane plantations), and the long-time environmental effects of growing biofuels (e.g. on the soil).
If you come as a Missionary to spread the biofuels gospel, it is just as well that you are frustrated by skeptical natives.
If you are willing to listen and to discuss, then more power to you.
BTW, another place that biofuels are discussed is The Oil Drum - in particular the posts by Robert Rapier. The discussion is more technical, but biofuels get no free pass there either.
---
To Tom Philpott: Sorry, my mistake about the biofuels series. That was an excellent job of reporting I thought. A couple of years in advance of the mainstream media!
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:37 am
18 Dec 2008
"I don't bother reading or posting much on Grist anymore, as it's really too close-minded a community for me"
Shall we now argue the meaning of "is"?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:44 am
18 Dec 2008
(I agree with you that a dense urban, shared-transportation lifestyle is the most efficient. It's just that an awful lot of us don't want to live that way if we don't have to. IMHO you need to work more "other people's values" into your solutions. 'One size fits all' only if we are wiling to cut everyone with the same sized cookie cutter.)
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:45 am
18 Dec 2008
I agree with almost nothing you've said. That aside, I'll make just one point now (which I've made many times before and which will be in whatever I write). Jon has made this point several times as well, but it's not quite getting through.
There are "biofuels" (as the public has come to know this term) and then there is cellulosic ethanol from wood. It's a huge mistake to confuse these two. They have little in common in terms of sustainability, EROI, costs, history, etc.
Many in the CE sector are basing their business plans on wood (whether from natural forests or plantations) because just about everything about this.... other than the technical process of converting the wood into ethanol... is very well known. As I said before, the same wood that is harvested in large volumes every day for one product or another could go to CE. It can easily be sustainable, in every sense of the word. This is proven... it's not up for discussion. There is over 100 years of solid evidence to back this up.
So Bart... if you and others want to discuss biofuels (as defined above), I'm not interested in that discussion. That's a subject I know enough about to know it's on troublesome grounds. But this is NOT the discussion to be had about cellulosic ethanol.
Richard
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:52 am
18 Dec 2008
The ones we should ask if we're pursing CE are:
Where do we find the most available/affordable land to grow our C? (Along with needed water.)
Where/what can we grow without disrupting other activities such as logging for timber/pulp?
How can we structure our process so that it is maximally efficient?
On this last one, I'd guess that it's a lot more energy efficient to grow something like switchgrass close to a processing plant than to harvest logs in the mountains and haul them to market. As we cut distance we can tolerate less mass per load.
It might turn out to be more efficient to use a crop that is close to the final market/point of use than one that required the CE to be transported large distances.
If we were going the CE route (which I doubt) then we might chose switchgrass for Oklahoma City and wood chips for Bangor.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:19 am
18 Dec 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:19 am
18 Dec 2008
This is proven... it's not up for discussion. There is over 100 years of solid evidence to back this up.
... if you and others want to discuss biofuels (as defined above), I'm not interested in that discussion. This is not a discussion, Richard, this is stamping one's foot. Not sure what the deal is, but you've alienated me and perhaps others.
About CE and biofuels. By definition, CE is a biofuel, and needs to be examined in terms such as EROEI, sustainability and working conditions.
You're right that the answers will be different ... corn is not switchgrass is not wood. Where did I or anyone else say otherwise?
Is CE different from the rest of human enterprises from the beginning of time, in which those involved in a project tend to exaggerate its benefits and downplay its negative effects?
Still, if there is a good presentation on CE (especially one that deals with objections), I'd be open to reading it.
I read the article about CE you linked to. It's pretty good for an industry article, but it doesn't pretend to address the concerns that people outside the industry would have.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:43 am
18 Dec 2008
I don't believe this discussion between us will get anywhere. I'll not waste your time anymore.
Richard
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:44 am
18 Dec 2008
I assume that CE enthusiasts know that the amount of biomass that can be sustainably harvested from forests is pretty limited. The real hype is around stuff like switchgrass.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:56 am
18 Dec 2008
But there are some that I think of as the bike-nazis. They enter and leave every discussion with "Destroy the Car! Ride a Bike!" and by implication add "Live in a tiny urban apartment where you are constantly bombarded by your upstairs neighbor's hip-hop!".
What we are facing is a radical change in the way we transport ourselves around, either by changing our fuel or moving closer together.
I think we all need to realize that there are significant numbers of people who don't want to live close to others.
I think we also need to realize the vast amount of "wealth" we have stored up in our suburban/rural properties.
Seems to me that we should be finding ways to make our cities more livable, thus attracting to and retaining more people in order to cut the amount of energy needed to transport people.
But at the same time we need to realize that if we do not attempt to find ways to keep people in their "split level ranch" dream house they are going to greatly resist change.
I think it a lot more affordable replace my ICE with a BEV and a bit of a wind turbine to fuel it than to build me a new city apartment.
A $20k car and $3k worth of turbine vs. a million dollar plus city place to live while abandoning my current $500k place....
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:02 am
18 Dec 2008
Wood is denser than switchgrass, but the equation is more complex than that... especially if you assume the switchgrass is dry and the wood is green and of a less dense species.
The issue of availability of forest biomass is also more complex than it might seem, because while a sustainable harvest rate for a given forest is relatively low, the one-time, initial harvest could be very large (on the order of 50 times the sustainable rate). This would kick start the CE bandwagon, leaving time to develop dedicated energy plantations from switchgrass and fast growing woody species like poplar and willow. I don't think anyone in this business is overly concerned about biomass supply for CE over at least the next 15 years.
Richard
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:00 am
18 Dec 2008
Too bad, because conversations on Gristmill are usually pretty good, and people are usually considerate even if they disagree.
You have not responded to any of the issues that were raised -- which will be questions that will be raised by any good journalist or researcher. If you are associated with the CE industry, you'd better get ready for them.
For me the key dilemma is that our current energy needs are big and growing. Cars, in particular, need an incredible amount of energy.
We've been spoiled with our abundant supplies of oil. Oil's flexibility and high Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) has made us forget how difficult it is to get energy. We tend to think that our high-energy lifestyle will continue, no matter what. So, when we turn to the fields and forests for energy, we come with that expectation.
All biofuels have a low EROEI compared to oil, and cropping them has inevitable environmental consequences. This is especially true if the process is scaled up to meet the needs of millions of automobiles.
The industries pushing the different biofuel schemes are pursuing their own interests. To make wise decisions, we need to ask hard questions and not be intimidated.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:38 pm
18 Dec 2008
Oh yeah, the flex fuel chips.
A lot of the life on planet earth is invested in using cellulose in the natural way. Please switch to renewable electric plugin hybrids, thanks.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:42 pm
18 Dec 2008
I found out that the Menominee Indians have been sustainably harvesting wood for over 150 years, while all the forests around them have disappeared. What was it, one ton per acre per year? I don't know if that's enough for much fuel, although it might be good enough to replace the use of oil for feedstocks. So if Richard could put those numbers together again, that would be great.
Speaking of the Menominee, it would helpful to distinguish between regimes and technologies that have been in use for a long time, those that are coming on-line in some kind of commercial scale now, things that we should see Real Soon Now, and speculation. Obviously, Menominee practices are rock solid (their ecosystems are even thriving). Anything that is currently in research and looks promising is Real Soon Now, the riskiness level is vastly increased (and this includes batteries for cars).
Wood is also used for electrical generation, as in Burlington Vermont, but I'm not sure whether that is a better use for sustainable wood than for fuel. And we have to always be aware, it seems to me, that if people are faced with the choice between having no fuel for their cars and forests, well, I'm not optimistic.
Bob, I think we're basically on the same wavelength -- my preferred argument is why cities are good, not why suburbs are bad, and I'm much more concerned with making cities better, as you suggest, than dissing suburbs. It's ridiculous that a 500 sq ft apartment in NYC that I used to own is worth more than a 3000 sq ft home in a suburb. That's more a function of the lack of housing in cities, which people have been yelling about for decades, than an inherent problem with cities-- well, partly inherent, because city property, in a well-designed city, is almost always more expensive because it is more desirable, simply because it is in the middle of a well-designed cities. But let's hope that batteries come out that make suburbs, or at least ones with town centers, livable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:34 pm
18 Dec 2008
I pointed out that gas guzzling ought to be curtailed instead. Saving the trees for building products and fiber, then using only the waste at hazard of forest fire for energy production via biodigestion.
6% of the energy in the fuel in a gas guzzler actually gets applied to moving the vehicle. A tiny percentage of the orginal biomass energy gets turned into fuel. The whole process is obscenely wasteful.
Imagine all the fuel burned getting the trees to the cellulosic fuel plant and all the energy and GHG the plant itself uses and produces.
Compared to a battery electric drive at around 80% efficiency it's especially obscene. We don't need to spew our forests out our tailpipes, so why do it? Profit? Jobs?
There's plenty of profit in renewables. And millions of green jobs.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:30 am
19 Dec 2008
I would suggest that property values are higher in cites because jobs are concentrated there. The bright, ambitious kids around here pack it up and head for the big city because they want to "get ahead".
I wouldn't at all be surprised if a poll wouldn't find a majority of city dwellers to prefer a less congested lifestyle if employment conditions permitted.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:40 am
19 Dec 2008
I suspect that we're not quite far enough down the transition from petroleum path to be able to tell where the path leads.
It's not that long ago that a lot of us thought that we could grow our fuel on farms. (And then someone did the math.)
And then we thought hydrogen fuel cells were the answer. (And then someone did the math.)
Right now we're looking at two options, some sort of non-food sourced liquid fuel and electricity. Lots of us think that electricity will win out because good batteries are only weeks/months away. Others aren't that optimistic about batteries and see liquid fuels as the solution.
I don't think there's much doubt that 'teh math' swings in favor of electricity. If the batteries show up. But they haven't yet....
And then there are those applications that will require not only BEV-appropriate batteries, but something more. We've got 18 wheelers and airplanes to power. It might be years, decades, or never before we figure out how to run long range heavy vehicles on something other than liquids.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:58 am
19 Dec 2008
And it doesn't have to be so dense that people go crazy, and if commuter rail was dependable and better, it would be easier at least to have close suburbs handle much of the excess. Much of what are considered "cities" are really close suburbs, so it's not necessary for people to live right in the dense part of the city (try it, you'll like it!)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:15 am
19 Dec 2008
Anyway, here's a very nice high profile project. Get a used VW bug buggy conversion, with a light tubular frame, that has a VW title and is toad worthy. Remove the engine and body. Install a used golf cart motor/controller and a battery pack assembled from NiMH power tool batteries.
Enough batteries for a 30 mile range, along with a used 10 to 20 kw generator, would be a good start.
Adjust the number/weight of batteries to your daily driving range and the generator hp/weight to the minimum speed you could live with, maybe 50 mph for my driving.
If you go on a road trip on the freeway, replace the usual battery pack and small generator with another more powerful, maybe 25 kw generator that will propell the car at freeway acceptable speeds, maybe 65 mph cruising?
Buying everything used would make it a challenge. I would add a carbon fiber body molded from an old VW body. Keep it black, "Black Sunshine". That's my perfect conversion, what's yours?
Neil Young's 59 Lincoln is an early entry.
A contest to see which do-it-yourselfer could make the auto industry look the lamest would be nice, how about it Grist? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:00 am
19 Dec 2008
Sure, there are reasons why clumping people together works in terms of efficiency. But that doesn't mean that it's an enjoyable way to live.
I understand that if you love to be able to go to clubs/bars/theaters/galleries at night, hate gardening/mowing lawns, don't mind the lack of privacy once you go outside your door, and aren't bothered by noises then city life could be fine.
But if your idea of a great evening is to watch the sunset and cook up dinner with things fresh from your garden....
It's a different strokes for different folks issue. And in designing our transition away from petroleum we will probably be most successful if we design for the continuum of human desire as opposed to trying to force everyone into one single lifestyle.
If we were building a country from scratch then a system of "villages" with dense centers giving way to burbs which morph into farms and those village centers being connected with speedy rail would make a lot of sense. People could titrate and find their density satisfaction location.
But we're basically stuck with what we've got. So we need ways to move large distances rapidly, ways to move into and out of our dense centers, and ways to get around were our density does not support public transportation.
I hold that it will be much, much less expensive and much, much more politically feasible to design "green" private transportation for people living in the less dense areas than to build new housing for them in the dense areas and force them to move, abandoning their properties as they make their sad journey to the city.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:58 am
19 Dec 2008
the idea of raising rural populations seems to me more practical than letting circs force them to the cities
(as during the US dust-bowl era and as in Russia now)
for the simple reason that farming the land well takes far more people than currently dwell on the land.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:36 am
19 Dec 2008
Current large crop techniques are incredibly efficient. I've raised grain (more accurately been around grain raising as a kid) and it works better to have great big machines in great big fields rather than bunches of little machines spending a lot of time turning around.
I think where we could use more small farming is in the creation of "truck farms" close to population centers. (Re-creation, we used to have them.) Growing vegetables close to where they are eaten makes sense. Eating fresh, eating in season, providing jobs for those who enjoy that type of work, ....
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:18 am
19 Dec 2008
within current BAU huge machines on huge fields with huge inputs of FF-based fertilizers, biocides, liquid fuels and machinery spares,
alongside an utter minimum input of man-hours,
is of course the most efficient.
But we face the steep decline of those non-human inputs' affordability
both in price and in ecological damage,
so that efficiency is plainly strictly temporary.
A true capitalist economics, that is the economics of conserving and raising the capital resources,
most particularly soil fertility and human integration in the ecology,
would regard the present agribusiness techniches as being the most wildly profligate abuse of the land yet committed.
That is, distinctly innefficient.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:51 am
19 Dec 2008
First, small field grain production means a lot of wasted growing space because you have to turn the rig at the end of each run. We used to have what was essentially a "road" all the way around a field. Larger the field, smaller percentage the road takes.
Those big plows and combines - they can be run using non-food biofuels or electricity.
Specialty farming - one crop per large area means that we can afford to develop specialized planting, cultivation, harvesting, and shipping technology which in the long run saves labor. And shifts other labor to machine creation rather than swinging a hoe or scythe.
The crops - they can be organic, non-organic, or somewhere in between.
The fertilizer - it can be petroleum based or we can use other methods to boost the productivity of our fields.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 11:06 am
21 Dec 2008
GMBiofuelsGuy, in case you don't know this already, the term "crossover" like the term "SUV" is a marketing gimmic. Your "crossover SUV" is a stationwagon with oversize tires, making you along with the rest of the American public, an unwitting dupe of car commercials. Few use them for sport or utility (although all claim to when asked).
According to the latest science, ethanol is worse than oil. It somehow does not surprise me that you are either unaware of that or have chosen to ignore the latest studies.
Give cellulosic a chance? To do what? E85 pumps are a waste of money. We could blend up to 10% (5 times more ethanol than presently produced) into our national supply without even changing the tubing in our engines let alone install new pumps at stations.
Living 42 miles from where you work was your decision. Your commute on E85 is on the backs of other tax payers who fund it with billions in subsidies.
<blockquote...corn-based ethanol is the only alternative to oil that has made a difference in reducing fossil fuel use</blockquote>
Only alternative? Even the most upbeat studies show corn ethanol barely returns as much energy as it consumes in fossil fuels and many show it uses more energy than it produces. It is at best, a push, whereas you could run out tomorrow and purchase a five-person hatchback that doubles the average American mpg, reducing liquid fuel use 50% without raising food prices, or displacing crops into tropical carbon sinks.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink