Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Blueplanet Posted 3:04 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Krill Oil

   There is a worrying trend towards harvesting krill in large quantities. As the largest biomass on earth apparently, surely it will not be long before someone decides that this is an economical and readily available source of fuel?

   It must not be allowed to happen.

   Permalink

2. 

   GreenOx Posted 3:18 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Policy option for marginal lands?

   Enjoyed the post, but want to open a discussion about policy options related to use of marginal lands.

   The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a wildly popular financial incentive from the USDA that pays agricultural producers to take marginal and degraded land out of production. For as long as I can remember, I have known farmers in my home state of Kansas who have planted on marginal lands either because commodity prices were low and they needed to make ends meet, or because prices were high and they wanted to reap as much profit as possible. But, with the introduction of the CRP, those same farmers were able (and willing) to stop harvesting crops on degraded and marginal land, instead turning it into native prairie grass and creating habitat for animals.

   I think CRP funding should not only be increased, but should also allow farmers to grow harvestable biomass on it that can then be used for biofuels. This seems like a win-win situation for me:

   1. Farmers get paid to plant appropriate crops on marginal land that doesn't lead to erosion, overuse of herbicides and pesticides, and decreased animal habitat.

   2. Biofuel producers get low-cost biomass to use in their plants.

   3. Americans use these much more efficient and less-impactful biofuels in higher-mileage vehicles.

   Let's make it happen.

   -GreenOx
   www.greenox.blogspot.com

   -GreenOx www.greenox.blogspot.com

   Permalink

3. 

   justlou Posted 3:59 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Winter Cover Crops

   Vinod:
   "winter cover crops grown on current annual crop lands, using the land during the winter season when it is generally dormant (while improving land ecology)"

   Unless you wish to lose all credibility, you need to stay out of the agronomics on this stuff or hire yourself a good agronomist.  

   On "current annual crop lands" cover crops would be sown after harvest.  This leaves just about enough time to get the cover crop established before the cover crop goes dormant during winter.  Growth resumes in the spring but this is when spring tillage happens for the next annual crop of corn or beans.  So, when is this accumulation and harvesting of biomass of the cover crop going to occur?  The cover crops, except perhaps in the extreme southern states, will not be growing during the dormant season.  That is why they call it dormant!

   You would be wise to leave cover crops entirely out of your arguments (which I find to fantastically optimistic)!  

   Permalink

4. 

   1Eco Posted 5:47 am
   22 Jan 2008

   Cheaper energy prices and a domestic fuel source.

   Nice to find someone here who cares about biomass and is willing to make a case for low cost feedstocks.

   I admire what you have been doing and I look forward to reading your reports. I would only advise to go very slowly. I don't believe the numbers are there just yet myself. Maybe in 09 or 2010.

   I would never go in unless I see a more progressive sustainable leadership, but hey, that's just me.

   Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.

   Permalink

5. 

   rickeym Posted 6:02 am
   22 Jan 2008

   What About the Soil?

   I'd be more sanguine about all this if you could reassure me about the health of the soil. Sounds like we'd be working the soil to death ... but I'm not a farmer, so I don't know if my fears are valid.

   Also, monoculture is monoculture, which is not a good long-range strategy for the planet in general. We've already lost so much biodiversity owing to monocultural agribusiness, suburban and exurban development, roads, etc. We're just going to displace more critters just so we can keep driving to the megamall.

   Call me a romantic, but it seems to me that we need to rethink our living arrangements at the same time as we move toward energy independence and sustainability. Start with a LOT less driving (doubling of MPG is great, but far from the answer), much more efficient housing (the biggest user of energy of all), and something along the lines of cluster villages (dense, walkable to essential services and cultural - in the larger sense -- venues) connected by rail, more localization in general. Just for starters. Not my original ideas, cf. Richard Register and others.

   My point is, aren't industrial solutions to industrial problems misguided? Just wondering.

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 3:22 pm
   22 Jan 2008

   2,375 words about a fuel that has not

   proven economically or environmentally viable.  

   First, it is a given that if it is ever produced that it must be as cheap and less environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.

   Second, should that day arrive, it won't need a penny of tax support or long essays to support it. Consumers will eat it up like candy, like they do cell phones and computers.

   You used the words "assume" and "believe" eight times each.

   And then there were the can statements: "can" reduce, "can" increase, "can" yield, "can" make, "can" convert."

   When you "can" start saying "does" reduce, "does" increase, "does" yield, "does" make ...I'll be interested but until then ...

   I don't get what these essays are about. Your critics lambaste you for your support of corn ethanol and your usurpation of tax dollars for your cause. We would all love to see an economically and environmentally superior fuel to oil. The problem is, you don't have one.

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

   Permalink

7. 

   Ottawa Posted 10:20 pm
   22 Jan 2008

   Regulating small Ethanol distilleries

   Our community would like to begin regulating small ethanol distilleries which are primarily operated by local farmers.  Is anyone aware of any local ordinances which address setbacks, public safety issues, types of equipment that can be used, emergency response, odors, or any other issues associated with small operations producing ethanol?  
   

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:49 am
   23 Jan 2008

   Major false assumption

   "cellulosic ethanol can reduce emissions on a per-mile driven basis by 75-85%"

   This is the major false premise in Vinod's whole case.  He has yet to address it.

   What is this based on?  The idea is that since ethanol is extracted from biomass, biomass that absorbs CO2, then any release of CO2 from burning ethanol is offset by the absorption of cO2 by the plants that produce the biomass used in ethanol refining.

   It is claimed that this produces a cycle where CO2 released is always reabsorbed, except for fossil fuel energy used to grow the biomass (fertilizer, tractor fuel) and fossil fuel energy /GHG released in refining the ethanol (processing and distillation).

   Why is this a fallacy?  Because the soil and land from which the biomass was obtained would otherwise sequester CO2 in the soil, we burn biomass (in the form of fossil fuel or biomass conversion to fuel) and the biosphere absorbs it.  Thus a balance is produced and climate remains stable.

   As chemical agriculture and fossil fuel use expanded exponentially the balance was thrown off, creating the GHG climate crisis we now face.

   Turning biomass (that normally would restore soil and sequester CO2) into fuel and burning it continues and exacerbates that imbalance problem.

   The idea that Vinod's argument for cellulosic ethanol rests upon is fatally flawed.  So his whole case falls.  Burning ethanol from biomass or oil from ancient biomass both throw off the GHG/carbon sink balance.  Biomass use even moreso than oil use.  Since it devestates the carbon sink activity of land, soil, and the biosphere.

   Answer this objection or admit defeat.  Hehey.  That ain't gonna happen.

   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 11:33 am
   23 Jan 2008

   Interesting to note

   Alex Farrell is starting to quantify land use impacts from biofuels.  And it don't look pretty.

   http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-thats-about-f ...

   Permalink

10. 

    JohnMashey Posted 5:37 pm
    23 Jan 2008

    On corn

    1. I'd love it if we got rid of distorting ag subsidies which have created mountains of corn that seem to benefit ADM and Cargill a lot more than they benefit farmers.

    2. However, given that all that corn gets grown anyway (until the  Ogallala gets sucked dry, and they run out of fertilizer) ....

    Do people know what corn is actually used for?
    Food? For humans?  Not much.

    [Well, if CAFO beef is food, if High-Fructose Corn Syrup is food...  Is there any correlation with diabetes? We've only had HFCS since ~1980.]

    Are people really fighting to keep those uses of corn just like they are?
    Read The Omnivore's Dilemma, for example, and:
    http://www.iowacorn.org/cornuse/cornuse_3.html

    Put another way, over-produced corn, in general, is a real problem, and corn ethanol is just one outcome, and probably not even the worst.

    -John Mashey

    Permalink

11. 

    bookerly Posted 6:33 pm
    23 Jan 2008

    Water

       Water flows downhill, following the path of least resistance.

       Farmers are going to produce biofuels the easiest cheapest way they can.  Which currently means corn, soy, cane (in Brazil only) and palm.

       All of which displace food crops.  Food inflation worldwide is rising rapidly.  The UN (you know, those folks who told us about global warming) says that biofuels are a big part of this.

       No one is producing biofuels from anything other than food crops for commercial use.  NO ONE.

       The corn market is world wide, in much of the world, corn is a staple, not a source for sugar additives.  Americans should notice that they live not only in a country, but in a world.

       Mr. Khosla's arguments about biofuels benefiting farmers in developing countries DIRECTLY contradict his arguments that food crops won't be affected by biofuels.  Sloppy logic.

       It's nice that a few farmers are getting richer.  But the urban poor everywhere are suffering.  Why don't we see this as unacceptable?  Biofuels are a bad idea and need to be stopped, before we create more starvation.  NOW.

    patrick in Beijing

    Permalink

12. 

    spaceshaper Posted 9:14 pm
    23 Jan 2008

    Say again?

    GreenOx suggests continuing to pay farmers to take marginal land OUT OF production via the CRP program - while allowing them to keep those lands IN production for fuel farming.

    Win-win? No. Just another subsidy for agri-fuels.

    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

13. 

    MissCanthus Posted 2:30 pm
    25 Jan 2008

    Cellulosic Ehanol production

    Perennial Energy crops like Miscanthus, which substantially outyield Switchgrass and others, use no fertiliser/pesticides, once established and are more energy and land efficient, with a competitive cost/Gj. compared to other crop feedstocks (Miscanthus plantations last up to 20yrs, maybe longer, cropped annually at dm yields up to 20t/ac) Such multi use biomass crops, which offer a wider range of uses than just biofuels, will contribute to energy production, whether as cellulosic feedstock, power station fuel,as hydrogen feedstock.
    Reason? Responsibly planned, it offers environmentally benign and low input/cost production on most marginal and productive land. Serious competition with food crops is a fallacy, as such crops will largely be grown on land not currently in food production. Neither will it be at the expense of crucial environments like rain forest etc. Miscanthus delivers economic returns to both conventional farms and third world communities, already. Most importantly, it could deliver sustainable local electricity and heat to impoverished peoples, providing low tech employment and without the usual dependence on big business. Any economic benefit remains LOCAL where it needs to, as does energy production and efficient carbon use.

    Bical Miscanthus

    Permalink

14. 

    Realist2 Posted 4:16 am
    27 Jan 2008

    Population growth

    You need to assume 1 or 2% population growth to make your estimates credible. Over 23 years that almost doubles fuel consumption and would offset the gains in CAFE standards.

    As DARPA has found, biofuels should be used for high values purposes like AVIATION. Ground transportation should be electric powered. Why waste fuel in a 20% efficient combustion engine when we have electric motors.

    To solve congestion and avoid the problems with batteries, we should adopt electric powered guideway systems like http://www.skytran.net

    Permalink

15. 

    Doctor No Posted 9:57 am
    27 Jan 2008

    "Ten Sections per County"

    I love reading articles that make me actually think.

    I like Permaculturist David Blume who suggest we use cattails to clean primary treated sewage to tertiary levels using carbohydrate rich cattails. If every sewage treatment plant in America was feeding cattails:

    50 Billion gallons of Ethanol net. from distillation.

    100 billion gallons (Eq.) as methane net. from biodigesters.

    Captured nitrates and phosphates, cleaner rivers, lakes, air and Oceans. 6300 acres per US County.
    Not farmland, it could be empty gravel pits, certain tailing piles from mining, run down land, flood plains, etc.

    And the left over mash from distillation should be good for fish or livestock food.

    http://roberto-de-sonora.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

    Permalink

16. 

    JONHATKENN Posted 3:43 am
    29 Jan 2008

    winter cover crops

    Hi Vinod I think you are batting on a dodgy wicket with winter cover crops

    Jonathan Harvey
    Agronomist

    Jonathan Harvey

    Permalink