Biofuels on Science Friday 13

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:00 am
   11 Mar 2007

   BioFuels, it all depends on how it's doneCarbon based fuel standards are what we need.
   Corn based anything is stupid.  Especially when it comes from coal electricity, as is common.
   
   http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html
   SugarCane/PalmOil based fuel is overblown.  And encroaches on the rainforrests.
   
   http://new.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/segments/upload/Br ...
   
   http://new.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/segments/upload/Br ...
   The BlueFire process actually sounds like it'll work.  Since it uses industrial mechanisms, not fickle bio-enzymes.
   
   http://www.bluefireethanol.com/images/Technology_Comparis ...
   Where unless you have methane burners on landfills, it makes more sence to process that material.  Since Methane is 23x worse for global warming than CO2.
   BioButanol, is just like Ethanol, minus it's performance downsides.  And the newer production methods yield 42% more energy, including 12% hydrogen which would work perfect for onsite electricity.
   And lastly, we really should be pushing forward to getting more effective energy crops.
   
   Like switchgrass, chinese tallow, and algae.
   _
   The short of it is,
   
   While new plugin hybrids are the ideal step forward.
   They won't do anything for reducing carbon from existing vehicles.
   
   Only low carbon fuels are going to change that.
   But as with anything, the devil is in the details.
   
   How you do it, is just as important as what you do.

   Permalink

2. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 9:47 am
   11 Mar 2007

   To summarize:All three guests appeared to be against corn subsidies because they are sucking up funds that could be used for the development of cellulosic (hard to tell on this kind of format).
   One guest envisioned a future where cars are mostly electric plug-in hybrids, using biomass, electricity from clean renewable sources, and fossil fuels with carbon taxes in equal proportions. This sounds reasonable, but we have to get busy cleaning up our electricity or this plan won't work.
   No mention that sugarcane fermentation is far more efficient than cellulosic. Without a tariff, we will be swamped with sugarcane ethanol grown on freshly cleared carbon sinks even if we use cellulosic. Hey, I'm the same guy who predicted rainforests would fall to provide biodiesel for Europe (along with a few others).
   One guest hopes to build a commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia by converting pine trees and pine waste using a thermal chemical conversion process (the same method used by Nazi Germany to make liquid fuel from coal).
   No mention that this process is brutally energy inefficient and far from carbon neutral compared to burning wood directly to make electricity (remember, we have to clean up our powerplants for anything to matter).
   They all seemed to feel that Bush has no idea what the hell he is doing (I would add that none of our politicians do).  
   But, like all radio and newspaper media formats, it was short, and mostly empty of any real content or feedback.
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

3. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 11:19 am
   11 Mar 2007

   BioDGood summary. And I agree with most of what you say. But please do not defend the ethanol import tariff. In doing so, you are only playing into the hands of the industry.
   The tariff and the subsidy are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. To quote the head of the Renewable Fuels Association in their press release on the eve of President Bush's trip to Brazil:
   Simply put, the credit offset [translation: tariff] merely asks Brazilian ethanol producers to pay back the tax incentive for which their product is eligible. Congress correctly put this offset in place to prevent foreign ethanol industries' access to American taxpayer dollars while not preventing access to the U.S. market.
   That the tariff doesn't create a barrier to market access is a ridiculous claim, of course. But you can see the simplistic appeal of this argument.
   On the other hand, remove the tariff and the subsidy will be much harder to defend.

   Permalink

4. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:13 pm
   11 Mar 2007

   My bad, RonI did not mean to suggest that I support the tariff. I am just saying that when it goes away, all hell is going to break loose ecologically in South America. They have huge amounts of land that will be put under the plow.
   How long do our politicians plan to keep playing this ridiculous shell game and who are they turning to for advice?
   Our government has created a disaster that is starting to unravel as we write. Food prices are going up everywhere.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

5. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 5:25 pm
   11 Mar 2007

   No worries, BioDEven if the USA continues to maintain import barriers, Brazil could still be affected. Indeed, the thrust of the U.S. strategy is patently obvious: find a way to divert Brazilian production AWAY from the protected and highly subsidized U.S. market and towards other regional markets. In that way, the USA gets to keep its own market while stimulating new ones (and, it thinks, thereby poking a thumb in Chavez's eye). Already, Japan is gearing up to import a lot of Brazilian ethanol -- meaning more CO2 emissions from transport than if the ethanol were to be shipped the much shorter distance to the USA.
   Bear in mind also that U.S. and Canadian production of biofuels has a knock-on effect on Brazil. The more corn that is grown for ethanol in North America, the less acreage will be planted to soybeans. Moreover, a generous U.S. federal subsidy of $1.00/gallon ($0.264/litre) for biodiesel made from virgin oils is ensuring that an increasing amount of the soybean production that still takes place is being absorbed for fuel. The upshot is that the USA is becoming a less important supplier of soybeans to the world, and other countries, including Brazil, are moving in to make up the shortfall. Add in the absorption by the EU of significant volumes of oilseeds to meet its own biodiesel targets, and ever-expanding global demand for vegetable oils and oilseed meals for animal feed, and you have an irresistible market opportunity for Latin America.
   Which is worse: expanding cane production into Brazil's vast savanna, the Cerrado, or indirectly stimulating soybean production in the Amazon? I can't answer that question, as I'm not intimately familiar with either of those areas.
   But if you are going to criticize the support system for biofuels, please do not be selective: each policy forms part of a whole.

   Permalink

6. 

   amazingdrx Posted 9:57 pm
   11 Mar 2007

   Use the oil firstIt is less damaging in terms of GHG climate change to use up the rest of the oil reserves instead of going to fuel farming.
   Reduce fuel use to 10% of present levels using serial plugin hybrid drivetrains instead of internal combustion.
   It looks like the new big three, toyota, honda, and GM are in a race to introduce them.  But conversion will be needed too if climate change is to be stopped.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

7. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 11:13 pm
   11 Mar 2007

   Actually, Dr. XI've been hearing that idea expressed by more and more prople lately. But many would point out that even among oil supplies there are very big differences in the environmental impact of production among sources, just as there is among different sources of biofuels.

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:04 am
   12 Mar 2007

   Use up the oil instead of coal?Which is worse: expanding cane production into Brazil's vast savanna, the Cerrado, or indirectly stimulating soybean production in the Amazon? I can't answer that question, as I'm not intimately familiar with either of those areas.
   One can't really say the Cerrado is more or less valuable than the Amazon. They are both huge carbon sinks and reserves of biodiversity and should both be preserved.
   But if you are going to criticize the support system for biofuels, please do not be selective: each policy forms part of a whole.
   By that, I think you mean, be critical of both the tariff and the subsidies. I would say that both should go away together, but not one without the other. The problem of course is that if the tariffs and subsidies go away, we would be awash in cheap "Cerrado Brand" ethanol. Our politicians have put us in a corner.
   I have not heard anyone actually pushing the idea that we should use up oil instead of burn coal. Is the idea that biofuels are that destructive finally sinking in? Because I would agree.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

9. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 1:33 am
   12 Mar 2007

   Dr. XBy that, I think you mean, be critical of both the tariff and the subsidies. I would say that both should go away together, but not one without the other.
   Yes, both should end.
   I have not heard anyone actually pushing the idea that we should use up oil instead of burn coal. Is the idea that biofuels are that destructive finally sinking in?
   I've been hearing that privately from some people on this side of the Atlantic. And, yes, I think the potential downside of biofuels is sinking in.

   Permalink

10. 

    Ron Steenblik Posted 1:34 am
    12 Mar 2007

    WhoopsI mean, BioD

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 8:16 am
    12 Mar 2007

    ButDo they say that we ought to use serial plugin hybrids to reduce oil use yet Ron?  
    Or solid oxide fuel cell/microturbine backup generators in these cars?
    Or biodigestors to reduce methane from manure and fertilzer run off, as well as produce clean renewable kwh, plus organic fertilizer?  
    Or that aircraft engines should be hybrid, solid oxide fuel cell/turbofans?
    Or a Prairie National Park (and windfarm) and mechanized industrial organic farms to sequester carbon?
    If you start saying these things you will appear to be ahead of the trend.  Like I am.  Hehehey.
    (Sorry, just had to say I told you so, but in different terms.)
    Anyway, very encouraging sign thanks Ron!!!
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

12. 

    Ron Steenblik Posted 5:40 am
    13 Mar 2007

    Here is one exampleFrom a letter to the editor of the Aberdeen [Nebrasca] News:
    
    
    To the editor -- I did my little part to help the environment today: I filled up with unleaded. Yes, the truths are finally seeping into rock-solid corn country: Ethanol, as it's made from corn, is an environmental sham.
    Peter Carrels' recent [04 March 2007] piece hit the nail squarely with the reality hammer. He has thoroughly researched the issue - unlike the corn lobby, which simply recycles sound bites and has been doing so for years now. It is now well known outside the Midwest - and increasingly in the Midwest itself, as demonstrated in Carrels' essay and many others recently, including newspapers in St. Paul, Omaha, Des Moines and elsewhere - that corn ethanol offers no environmental benefits whatsoever. The charade is nearing an end.
    It is well past the time to end corn subsidies, ethanol subsidies and tariffs on ethanol imports. The energy dilemma, as Carrels so accurately portrays, warrants much, much more serious attention than the present corn ethanol boondoggle kept afloat by the ethanol lobby, Renewable Fuels Association (one of whose biggest donors is Archer Daniels Midland), Corn Growers Association, ADM, Cargill and, of course, a host of "corn-is-God" politicians from Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and elsewhere in the Midwest.
    Pete Letheby
    
    My emphasis added.

    Permalink

13. 

    Ron Steenblik Posted 5:41 am
    13 Mar 2007

    Zoot! I mean Nebraska

    Permalink