EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade 10 Posted 2 days, 10 hours ago
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more 0 Posted 4 hours, 56 minutes ago
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time 2 Posted 2 days, 15 hours ago
Biofuels debate
Hi, remember me? I used to blog here. I hope to resume blogging here some day. Soon even!
In the meantime, OurFuture.org, in the person of tireless blogger and activist Bill Scher, recently recorded a debate of sorts over biofuels.
Here are Josh Boger of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization and Joe Trippi, political consultant, talking about how great biofuels are could be:
And here is yours truly, giving the standard response to such speculations:
What did I leave out?
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
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.
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Comments
View as Threaded
Bart Anderson Posted 8:52 am
31 Aug 2008
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:27 am
31 Aug 2008
I mean, there's a highly sustainable biofuel being produced in Brazil, which has zero impact on forests, which cuts GHGs by 80% (as opposed to 0% for corn ethanol), which requires up to 10 times less land, and which has an EROI of 8 (as opposded to 1 for corn ethanol), and which costs 3 to 5 times less to produce.... and then you block this biofuel from entering the market, so that you can give U.S. agribiz huge welfare cheques to produce crappy biofuels.
It's really mindblowing.
What's more, liquid biofuels as such are not the way forward, not even for Brazil. You can much better use all that biomass to produce electricity for EVs. It's two to three times more efficient, WTW.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:28 am
31 Aug 2008
Josh made a good point about the importance of having these discussions about biofuels before it's too late (3:25). The discussion should have started several years ago. Weaning vested interests off the government teat at this point may not be doable.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:30 pm
31 Aug 2008
Tough crowd.
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:11 pm
31 Aug 2008
Oh come now Jonas, thats not true by any stretch of imagination.
If you want to compare it to Ethanol alone got over 3 billion dollars of subsidy in 2007.
(Although GSI thinks that figure is closer to 7 billion)
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
Solar and Geothermal got hardly anything. 14 million each.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
Meanwhile if we want to compare that to Coal and Nuclear, now THAT is obscene.
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:42 pm
31 Aug 2008
Distinguished and well spoken DR. The reason you have to look apologetic (look away, look away)when dissing biofuels is the massive green hype behind them.
Thus the (great?) compromise. Research sure, but stop the subsidies for what we know is NOT working, corn ethanol (doubling GHG,chemical fertilizer GHG and pollution)and palm and crop biodiesel.
R and D for cellulosic, algae, biotech (dangerous gene splicing and agrichem?), and so forth, that is ok.
Just like R and D for modular mass produced waste recycling nuclear power, "clean" coal, coal to liquid, and other dangerous technologies. Experiment, develop, and test. Verify their cost and effectiveness, then and ONLY then, allow mass production and subsidy.
Meanwhile wind, solar, plugin hybrids, ground source heating/cooling, smart grid technology, and biogas/organic fertilizer production are all ready for mass production, YESTERDAY! Proven GHG redicing, practical, cost effective in actual operation.
So target subsidies and mass production efforts on these clean, green technologies. Cut subsidies for corn ethanol and crop biodiesel, present coal and nuclear power, and especially cut corporate welfare for BIG oil!
Divert all these pork barrel tax dollar giveaways to real solutions, with a modest portion for R and D in the aforementioned cellulosic ethanol, algae biofuel, clean coal, and so forth.
But mainly use the corporate welfare cuts to subsidize what is proven to work. The technologuies that reduce energy and fuel costs and cut GHG. And are already proven cost effective.
The re-evolutionary renewable electron energy economy needs a level playing field.
Pork barrel political hackery that skews the market economy to favor gas guzzling and coal and agribizz corn/ethanol and crop biodiesel, has the real solutions to our economic, oil war, and environmental woes trying to run uphill against an avalanche of lobbyist bribe and propaganda driven cash.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:50 pm
31 Aug 2008
The rule is: "Don't look into the tomato can (the camera)".
Appear to be talking to an interviewer off to the side of the camera, have someone else hold the tomato can, hehey. Much more effective, it avoids talking headism. Does anyone trust talking heads anymore, since Walter Cronkite retired, that is? Nope.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 7:11 am
01 Sep 2008
The idea that the US, with more than twice the average world biocapacity, can have a "sustainable" energy source that is imported is quite idiotic. If the rest of the world follows the US lead with that "sustainable" energy system relying on imports "from elsewhere", it implies that we need more than Two Earths worth of biocapacity.
The trade barriers to biofuels are close to the only ecologically sound energy policy that the United States presently has.
And the "ecologically sustainable" ethanol from Brazil is already displacing food crops and ranching into newly deforested lands in the Amazon ... and that at levels of production less than the current production in the United States. So for the US to replace its current ethanol production by imports from Brazil would required more than doubling Brazilian production ... and somehow that is going to happen without impacting on the Amazon rain forest, when the current ethanol production in Brazil is already having impacts?
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 7:20 am
01 Sep 2008
Massive expansion of sugarcane in recent decades has trashed a lot of Atlantic Coastal Forest, imperiled watersheds and thousands of wild species. I know, I've been there.
A reason you might not have heard of it is because there's hardly any of it left (less than 10% of its original extent). Another reason is that narrow-minded journos think the only thing that matters is the Amazon. They get the willies when the Big A gets touched, but don't seem to notice as the rest of the planet goes up in flames.
It's super-biodiverse, and supplies water to many of the major coastal cities. Try putting 'Atlantic Forest' into wikipedia and see what I mean.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
ids Posted 7:41 am
01 Sep 2008
& the need for subsidizing sustainable solutions. The Libertarian vote is not going to vote Dem anyway and I'm sure similarly abhors the SC, so you can quit courting them.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:42 am
01 Sep 2008
You will see that wind and solar receive massive subsidies.
Wind: $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar: $24.34 per megawatt hour
Biomass: $0.89 per megawatt hour
In total, the small wind sector received close to $1 billion in 2007.
So please don't tell me wind and solar are not receiving lavish subsidies.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:49 am
01 Sep 2008
Brazilian ethanol is up to 8 times more energy efficient to produce than corn ethanol; it cuts 80% GHG, whereas corn ethanol cuts none.
According to the leading scientists in the field, there's more than enough capacity in Latin America and Africa alone, to produce more sustainable bioenergy than all energy that is currently consumed by the entire planet. (Sustainable capacity of these two regions: 600Ej by 2050).
Now you produce ethanol from a key food crop and have caused an entirely unnecessary food crisis.
This is almost criminal.
And all this while you could be importing ethanol from Brazil and other efficient ethanol producers, to replace all your gasoline needs, without seriously impacting the environment nor without impacting food markets.
Brazil is currently using 1% of its land for the fuel, and can replace world gasoline production all by itself, if it wanted to. Add the myriad of countries in the Global South who can do the same, and you understand that opening markets is the best thing we can do.
It's insane to subsidize American farmers to produce the crappiest of all fuels, while you could be importing ethanol that is cheaper than gasoline, solves climate change, and helps the developing world.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 9:00 am
01 Sep 2008
Some conservationists have tried to link the two, in vain, but it's a welcome warning.
However, if a warning or an outright lie is taken as truth, then we have a serious problem, and we should get to the bottom of it.
So I want you to point to a single scientific source showing that Brazil has cut rain forests for the establishment of sugar cane in the past 3 decades.
I will stick to the objective reality which shows the precise location of the plantations, and their historic roots.
The vast majority of these plantations are based on land that had been cleared many decades ago, some of it cleared centuries ago. And as you know, 80% of Brazil's cane is grown 1500 miles South of the Amazon, so there's no impact there either, not even an indirect one.
By the way, about these indirect pressures. This is a non-debate, because it puts all production processes - even for such 'innocent' technologies like wind and solar - into an impossible position.
For example, it would be easier to prove that the wind power industry has helped fuel the most lethal conflict since WWII - the Congo War which killed 5 million - because of its use of copper, than it is to prove the indirect pressures from sugarcane on the Amazon.
So let's stick to concrete evidence, shall we?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:07 am
01 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:45 am
01 Sep 2008
There is no doubt that the growth of the cane ethanol industry will destroy biodiversity and carbon sinks.
From an environmental perspective, the less we use of it, the better. This is why the push for high mileage cars and other ways to use less liquid fuel should be our highest priority.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:47 am
01 Sep 2008
You will see that wind and solar receive massive subsidies.
I have read that report, and frankly I think it's a complete joke.
If you ever looked into it's background, you'd know it was specifically requested by Republican Senator Alexander Lamar. And that he directly instructed that that pathetic benchmark be used.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/appen ...
A guy who thinks the Browns Ferry Nuclear Reactor is the best thing since sliced bread.
http://www.cleanenergy.org/mediaroom/index.cfm?pressID=3& ...
______
It makes absolutely ZERO sense to take the subsidies that an energy sector has gotten for 1 year, and then compare it to the capacity built up over a half century. (!)
Clearly, all that measurement does is tell you which technologies have been around the longest.
And also insists that the longer a technology has been around, the MORE subsidies it deserves.
_
You can't honestly be saying that that is an impartial way to compare subsidies. It's completely biased.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:18 pm
01 Sep 2008
About importing biofuels from Brazil or any other tropical country, it should be done only after a thorough check on where the biofuels are grown. If needed, video surveillance data should be given as evidence. Without thorough checks and balances, American hunger for liquid fuels will have a clear impact on deforestation.
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has a power density of 1.6 W/m^2. American corn based ethanol has a power density of 0.05 W/m^2. So tropical plantations use 20 times less amount of land.
Cellulosic ethanol of future will have a power density of 0.8 W/m^2. The same technology, if it uses tropical plantations will have an awesome power density of 1.8 W/m^2 to 2 W/m^2.
So, tropical plantations are ideal for bio-fuel cultivation. But tropics are the most at risk due to their very rich biodiversity. So, they require a lot more surveillance and safeguards. I am not sure if the current distribution mechanism is up for this challenge.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:08 am
02 Sep 2008
It all still amounts to burning biomass for energy. Which keeps that biomass from the soil ecosystem where it would sequester carbon. Basically sending soil out our tailpipes. Completely untenable as an energy source.
You could refine biofuel with GHG free energy, even farm it with GHG free energy and organic fertilizer. It would still strip the soil of organic matter, sending nutrients into the atmosphere.
The only exception to this is biogas from waste, it builds soil with organic fertilizer, offsets GHG, and provides clean backup power for the grid and plugin hybrids.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:10 am
02 Sep 2008
I've said this so many times that I'm probably going to stop, but this is just another example of why reduction of human population and consumption are the only solutions to these problems. You can't get something from nothing, no matter how much people like Jonas want to and insist you can. You either support the Earth and people who are willing to live on it naturally, or you support human destruction of it. There are certainly all manner of shades of gray, but those are the two choices. Even solar panels require a very toxic substance to manufacture.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:04 pm
02 Sep 2008
I realize you believe there are only two choices and you present this as fact: "support the Earth and people who are willing to live on it naturally, or you support human destruction of it." This statement of yours is really a rather old and simplistic way of looking at human life on Earth... coming from a time well before the 60's.
I know you preach the importance of a spiritual orientation to life and environmental issues, but I do not often see this reflected in your writings, tone or positions. Nevertheless, I believe you sincerely want to live with the least impact on the Earth and in peace with nature and other people, and I respect that.
I would simply suggest you consider that there is a way to live in harmony with the Earth and with people, while accommodating a far larger population and potentially higher (selective) resource demands from our world. It will require greater intelligence, considerably more creativity, and a much stronger commitment to "do the right thing", but it is possible... and I believe, it is the direction to which we are heading, despite the seeming insurmountable problems we appear to be facing.
I'm not saying we'll definitely get there, but I am saying your "two choices only" position is incomplete.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:22 pm
02 Sep 2008
I see you continue to persist in making statements you cannot back up with facts. Others here reminded you again and again that you lose credibility every time you do this, but you persist.
Each time we go through a round of debate together, it gets to a point where I back up my statements with fact, then you simply withdraw from the debate.
In this recent post of yours, you continue with your line of incredibly simplistic statements that have no basis in fact. You try to present the worst possible scenario for biofuels, then generalize it to imply that virtually all biomass-derived energy is bad.
I could easily present scenarios for wind and solar that make each look completely impractical and unproductive. But intelligent people don't do that. They look at renewable resources (like solar, wind AND biomass) and figure out how to make these work. You, on the other hand, because you don't understand biomass and forests, simply discount all of it (except for your little biogas pet project).
I've pointed you to the Menominee as one example of sustainable forestry. Clearly, despite more than one billion board feet of wood having been removed over the years, those forests have healthy soils. So your argument that using that harvested wood and converting some of it to biomass energy implies depleted soils, is simply silly and without merit.
Biomass can be used in a sustainable way to produce renewable energy with less GHG impacts than either solar or wind. This is a fact. If you wish to refute it, prove your case. Biomass energy can also be obtained very poorly and unsustainably, just like solar and wind. We need to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Richard
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:57 am
03 Sep 2008
And what is your evidence that this utopia is possible? Have you ever studied any ecology or wildlife biology, even informally? It is a fact that we would need several planets to accommodate the level of consumption you're describing for even our current overpopulation. And what about leaving enough land free of post hunter-gatherer humans in order to allow healthy ecosystems and species? Again, it is a fact that humans and their infrastructures, agriculture, and contraptions have occupied virtually the entire land mass of our planet. It is another fact that ecosystems and many of their species need a minimum of 50,000 acres of wilderness in order to be just viable, let alone healthy, and that they also need wilderness corridors between those ecosystems in order to prevent inbreeding and just to allow some species to migrate where they wish.
So, if you can answer all those concerns, I'm willing to entertain how humans can live in harmony with the rest of the planet without greatly lowering consumption and population. However, even if that were possible, which it's not, lust for material things is aspiritual and contrary to everything that is good about life, not to mention that it will always result in unhappiness. Same with overbreeding.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:37 pm
03 Sep 2008
I understand that you have a particular mindset and set of beliefs that compels you to follow a specific line of thinking. It's not likely you'll change any part of that because that would lead to a complete personal breakdown. And you're not willing to let that happen... not yet anyway. But the points you make are simplistic and simply don't reflect what is possible or even the trends of the past 500 years.
I never said "lust for material things" was a part of our sustainable future. I agree with you that this is not spiritual or sustainable... which is why we'll grow beyond it.
I never said we can sustainably increase population AND individual consumption across the board. I said we can increase our population while changing our behaviors and consumption patterns to live in harmony with the planet.
Your use of the word "overbreeding" is just silly and reflects an overly simplistic understanding of human life. Humans are far more than simply animals. If you have any spiritual knowledge at all (and I believe you do), you'll understand what I mean by this.
Ecosystems and species have evolved countless times over the course of Earth's history and have survived far more turmoil than is present now. Yes, there will be dramatic changes on this front, but the Earth will evolve as human society continues to change, eventually finding a new balance (with a substantially higher population).
Your desire to return to some kind of "natural" state, at least here in the US, is unrealistic. With 97% of our old-growth forests gone, that can't possibly happen for at least 250 years, at best. The pre-"white man" phase is gone, forever. But that hardly means we can't establish harmony with nature and maintain adequate "wild" places.
New technologies for efficiency (in everything), resource conservation and materials recycling will allow us to sustain more people with far less impact. Will we employ these "in time" and in sufficient volume to make a difference? I believe we will. You may believe otherwise. There's nothing you or I can say to prove this point one way or another. We'll just have to see what happens.
Richard
Permalink