As war simmers in the Middle East and oil prices rise along with global temperatures, Midwestern farmers and politicians aren't the only ones banging the drums for biofuels. Now big-time investors, security hawks, environmentalists, and even George W. Bush have joined their ranks. But is environmentally responsible bioenergy a real possibility, or are we bio-fooling ourselves?
How green is your biofuel?
Photo: gov.mb.ca
The question is key, because current U.S. public policy is pushing biofuel production without giving much evident thought to sustainability. If present trends continue, the public could find itself funding environmentally ruinous projects in the name of "green" energy. Here's a strategy for avoiding that outcome.
Ready or Not, Here It Comes
Globally, biofuel production is booming. Since 2000, world fuel-ethanol production has more than doubled, and biodiesel production has expanded nearly fourfold, albeit from a much smaller base. In comparison, world oil production increased by only 7 percent in the same time period.
Recently adopted mandatory biofuel requirements in the United States and the European Union are increasing biofuels' domestic production and creating markets for imports. The developing world is pursuing biofuel production to offset oil imports, drive rural development, and earn foreign exchange through exports.
To understand the impact of oil imports on the developing world, look at some of Africa's poorest countries, where the recent increase in oil prices has all but wiped out their hard-won debt relief. Growing fuel at home rather than buying oil abroad means poor countries have more resources for development needs like health care and education.
With high oil prices and the perceived development opportunities, the incredible amount of political and financial momentum behind biofuels is not surprising. And as usual, environmental considerations, which don't fit easily into a system measured solely in barrels and bucks, struggle to find relevance in a rapidly expanding industry.
But without asking the hard "environmental" questions -- regarding greenhouse-gas reduction, soil conservation, biodiversity protection, etc. -- there is no chance of developing sustainable bioenergy.
Putting the Biofueled Cart Before the Horse
Historically, environmental action has been reactive, responding to crises already well underway. Bioenergy presents a unique opportunity to proactively guide a growing industry into the most sustainable practices.
For example, the U.S. ethanol industry is experimenting with new plant designs in response to higher natural-gas prices, the fuel's traditional power source. Some new plants are being built to burn coal, undermining claims of the environmental benefits of ethanol by creating more, not less, air pollution. But other innovators are figuring out how to reduce or replace their natural-gas needs in ways that improve the energy and greenhouse-gas balance of their ethanol product. Still others are designing their plants to utilize both corn starch and cellulose as feedstock. If biofuels are truly going to be part of a clean energy future, policy makers need to encourage these innovators and discourage regressive practices.
But from where I sit in Washington, D.C., the biofuels discussion is pretty simplistic: Either you're for 'em or you're against 'em. Although there are plenty in the biofuels camp who want to see new ways of growing crops and producing ethanol that further reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and protect water and land, so far the great bulk of biofuel subsidies have pushed brute production, environmental goals be damned.
In Europe, however, the question of sustainability dominates the bioenergy debate. The Netherlands has already established sustainability criteria for all biomass, whether domestic or imported, used for bioenergy. Their sustainability evaluation [PDF] includes greenhouse-gas balance, farming practices, biodiversity, and the economic and social well-being of the farming communities. Germany and other European countries are considering similar requirements.
The global dialogue on sustainable bioenergy is also beginning. The International Energy Agency has established a task force to help foster sustainable bioenergy trade, and representatives of eight European countries, Canada, and Brazil are participating in its activities. This past October in Bonn, the German NGO Forum and the U.N. Foundation sponsored a conference that brought together a wide range of government, industry, and NGO representatives from around the world to discuss the challenges and opportunities of sustainable bioenergy. The concern over destruction of tropical rainforests for palm oil plantations linked directly and indirectly to biodiesel demand has spurred the creation of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which is dedicated to developing a globally acceptable definition of sustainable palm oil and helping implement these practices.
The United States is not completely absent from the sustainability discussion and development of best practices. In response to a plan to increase electricity generation from wood waste, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and its partners facilitated the passage of a Minnesota statute requiring the development and implementation of best management practices for biomass harvesting forests and brush lands. To assess costs and environmental impacts, a variety of test harvests are now underway, which will provide crucial information on how to use biomass for energy in a sustainable way. Some parts of the industry are even tackling the issues: The Biotechnology Industry Organization recently released a report on sustainable production of biomass focused on crop residues that recommends, among other things, the development of a system to monetize greenhouse-gas credits for agricultural products and assistance for farmers to transition to no-till cropping and to better manage carbon in their soil.
Certifiably Green?
The two themes that consistently emerge from discussions of biomass sustainability are certification and linkage to carbon emissions. While not miracle cures, environmental certification programs, like the USDA organic label for food and the Forest Stewardship Council label for wood, have changed agriculture and forestry management practices and consumers' buying habits. Could such a program do the same for biofuels and other bio-products?
Possibly. Unlike food and wood, there is no real visible market for biofuels right now. In the United States, E85 (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) is still difficult to find outside of the Midwest. While small percentages of biofuels are increasingly blended with petroleum fuels sold across the nation, would an environmentally friendly seal for the 10 percent of the fuel that is ethanol make any sense on an ExxonMobil gas pump?
Certification does make sense as a way to enforce government standards, as in the Netherlands and Minnesota laws, or as the basis for government incentives. As the biofuel market matures and diversifies, individual consumers could support sustainable practices with their dollars.
But what will really empower a biomass certification scheme and drive bioenergy toward sustainability in the United States is integrating carbon emissions into the system. Although the recent elections have brought us closer to a national carbon cap-and-trade scheme than ever before, such a system is not imminent. In the meantime, Congress should make any new biofuel incentives performance-based, so that a farmer's success in improving her carbon balance is reflected in her bank balance.
It is time to get serious about a clean and sustainable energy future. The reauthorization of the Farm Bill next year offers an opportunity to promote biofuels in a way that maximizes environmental protection while creating new sources of revenue for farmers. To prevent biofuels from being an environmental bio-flop, we must confront their sustainability issues immediately.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Flat
ethanoloverload Posted 8:02 am
08 Dec 2006
Permalink
Maywa Montenegro Posted 2:15 pm
08 Dec 2006
On the other hand, he sides with P&P on their criticism of the high credits many research teams assign to the co-products. Instead, he adopts the more modest "displacement method," which only gives co-products an energy savings equivalent to the most efficient conventional method of feed production.
All told, McElroy's analysis still finds corn ethanol to be energy positive by "about 20 to 30 percent."
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:18 pm
08 Dec 2006
Where would this world be without curmudgeons?
Ethanolloverload,
"I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage"
Not to defend fossil fuel, but no biofuel can possibly hope to match the energy efficiency of pumping a highly energy dense liquid out of holes in the ground, cracking it into various forms and transporting it. The argument over energy used to make ethanol is moot in any case. It has enough environmental and economic negatives to bury it without that argument.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:55 am
10 Dec 2006
J.S.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:23 am
11 Dec 2006
This guy makes sense!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:30 am
11 Dec 2006
Permalink
millercs Posted 2:10 pm
11 Dec 2006
I lived in Ithaca, too, for 6 years and I understand the Luddite mentality of the place but that is no excuse for an Ag School scientist to put the skids to every attempt at progress to an industry that, up to now, has been a godsend to so many farmers.
According to renown business and national security advocate James Woolsey switching to biofuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel represent the fastest way out of the fossil fuel paradigm. Because our national security and environmental health is depending on successful deployment, how can we make it work?
Cellulosic ethanol can be made from (negative cost) waste using syngas fermentation. Using gasification to break the lignin bonds is much more efficient than enzymatic hydrolysis Pimental talks about and uses very little water. BRI has a good description of the syngas process. It has been proven in the lab and plans for commercial-scale development should be finalized soon. It would be interesting to hear how the esteemed insect doctor from Cornell would argue the results of the work of the biotechnology chemical engineer from the U. of Arkansas.
I lament the absence of a national conservation campaign as much as Pimental. But the campaign would have to be global to have much meaning - and Asia has too much invested in industrialization to make conservation here worth anything.
Permalink
jhoechst Posted 5:21 am
21 Dec 2006
Each and every year the sun shines on the earth and transfers its energy to all growing things. We humans plant and grow vegetation to feed both ourselves and the animals we husband and subsequently consume. The result is an enormous quantity of waste, both animal and vegetable which becomes increasingly difficult to dispose of, but which is potentially a never ending source for the production of oil.
The stated purpose of the government's search for alternative energy sources is to reduce or eliminate the need for importing oil. Time and time again the President has stated that "technological innovation" will hopefully produce a solution to the energy "crisis". Were it not for the obstinate refusal of the administration to recognize the existence of a currently readily available, technological innovative system, the nation could be three years down the road to real oil independence.
"Oil", as we all know has become a three letter dirty word in America's lexicon. However we view it, good, bad or indifferent, oil will be with us for many years to come, for it is not untrue that America's economy is literally lubricated by oil. Insofar as the future is concerned consider that the current population of the United States is roughly 300 million. Demographers estimate that by 2040, the U. S. population will exceed 400 million souls. That is a 33% increase in but 34 years. Where in the name of all that's holy, will the necessary energy come from? Other energy sources, hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear and others have unique properties and will obviously fill certain energy requirements but they do not compare to the manifold uses we have found for oil Oil will have a future for as long as we can see down the road for there is nothing else which can manifest itself in so many forms in our daily lives. Given that oil is a necessary "evil", and given the generally accepted postulation that oil is finite, where will it come from?
About a decade ago a patent was issued by the United States Patent Office for a process then called thermal depolymerization process (since changed for obvious reasons to thermal conversion process or (TCP) which can take any non-nuclear material containing carbon, which is anything which has ever grown, including you and me, and produce a diesel fuel quality oil in two short hours! Additionally, the system produces a number of useful and viable byproducts and ultimately discharges potable water. Everything emanating from this system is completely benign to the environment, and in fact, rather than creating environmental problems, resolves them. In this scenario "waste" becomes an oxymoron. As one small example, the city of Philadelphia is producing oil from its sewage. The oil thus produced may be additionally refined into gasoline or other useful byproducts used to manufacture plastics, and as a feedstock is useful for many other products. There currently exists in Carthage, MO, a pilot facility producing 500 barrels of oil per day from about 200 tons of turkey effluvia from a nearby Butterball turkey processing plant and the oil thus produced is sold as a heat producing fuel, demonstrating the viability of the concept. The efficiency of the TCP system runs in the range of 85%, meaning that 15% of the energy introduced is utilized to extract 85%. These are extraordinary numbers.
You might well ask why, if this system is so good, you have not heard of it and why it is producing a mere 500 barrels per day in this vast country with so much waste being produced. There are good and sufficient reasons.
First of all, as a fledgling industry, TCP encountered start up problems usually associated with any new development, and being relatively new, may still endure problems with different feedstocks. Given time these will be overcome. Feedstocks may vary from slaughterhouse effluvia to tires to discarded plastics, and each different feedstock requires a different processing modality, and the development of those methods takes time.
Secondly, and more importantly, as a new industry, subsidies in the form of tax credits have not been forthcoming from the federal government to enable this industry to become established. As an example of what is missing, ethanol, currently the darling of the energy and environmental policy wonks, has been granted subsidies (tax credits) running through 2012 resulting in a rush to construct new facilities which effectively guarantee profits. Ethanol is however a guaranteed loser in the long run, since its prohibitive cost together with less energy output than gasoline is actually counterproductive to its stated goals. (See http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/raceforsubsidies.html) If similar support were extended to TCP, entrepreneurs would correspondingly react, and TCP plants would spring up all over the country where source material was most accessible.
As examples of such conditions, a small town, Hereford, TX, has one of the largest stockyards in the country. They are faced with the monumental task of disposing of some 6200 tons of manure each day. If it can happen in Philadelphia, it can happen in Hereford.
A recent television program was devoted to the garbage disposal problem of Los Angeles. One of their dumps receives 2000 tons of garbage per hour to be deposited on a dump that is already deeper than the Statue of Liberty is high!
These are but two isolated illustrations of what is happening across the entire nation in cities, towns and hamlets facing problems of disposal of their agricultural waste, industrial waste, their garbage and their sewage. In many instances, dumps leak effluent such as PCP's and dioxin, into the groundwater contaminating it and endangering public health. When one becomes aware of the possibilities of TCP to resolve not only the oil crisis but concomitantly also resolve environmental problems one wonders why the federal government continues to support an expensive ethanol boondoggle (scam is a better word) while ignoring a system which more quickly than any other can substantially reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil, which is, after all, the purported goal. The deeper one looks onto the advantageous attending to this invention the more one uncovers.
Following is an incomplete list of benefits to be derived from the introduction of the TCP system into our economy. When reviewing his list, picture in your mind's eye these benefits working on behalf of the government and its citizens.
.
1. All manner of cultivated agricultural waste can be processed into oil and other valuable byproducts.
2. Recapturable animal wastes can be processed into oil and byproducts.
3. Slaughterhouse waste from all animal types can be similarly processed into oil, as is currently being demonstrated by the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, MO.
4. Bio-hazardous hospital waste can be safely processed for oil with the TCP system, with no hazardous output.
5. Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) (mad cow disease) material may be safely processed as with all other types of animal byproducts, with no harmful output. All prions are destroyed.
6. Unsightly landgrabbing garbage dumps are eliminated as all garbage is choice feedstock.
7. Tire dumps are eliminated because they already contain both oil and carbon.
8. Any community producing waste, including sewage, can produce its own oil and gas for use or sale as they see fit, therefore their waste becomes a source of income to the community.
9. Because the efficiency of the system is so high, (85%) the cost of production will
drop to competitive rates when large scale production is reached.
10. With reduced oil costs, all industries dependent upon oil for their source material could produce and sell for less. This could have enormous impact across the entire spectrum of the economy.
11. A whole new industry would be born with consequent creation of jobs and a whole
new tax base and revenue source for government.
12. Within ten years the U. S. could be independent of foreign (read Saudi) oil.
13. With all oil production entirely confined within the U. S., container ships could be virtually obsolete, and thus remove future oil spills. This has tremendous environmental impact.
14. Totally reliable, steady oil prices. This could become the bedrock for a more stable economy.
15. The beneficial impact of this development on the environment, including possible (probable?) reduction on carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and consequent global warning.
16. The creation of means to assist poorer nations to develop and sustain their own never-ending source of energy. For each nation, large or small, which utilizes this system to create its own source of oil, the pressure on the international oil market would be diminished to the point where oil could become one of the least expensive commodities on the international market.
17. The elimination of international charges that the United States' efforts in the Middle East and other regions is dictated by their need for oil.
18. Should the President announce that the Administration is supporting this new development, OPEC could respond by immediately dropping the price of its oil to protect market share.
19. Given a reliable never ending source of oil, the U. S. might well find the Strategic Petroleum Reserve an unnecessary luxury.
20. Since a facility may be rapidly constructed with off the shelf equipment currently employed in the
oil refinery field, new facilities may be rapidly constructed and the ten year dream of freedom from
imported oil becomes a reality not a pipe dream.
21.An entire new industry will supply the Treasury with a huge new source of revenue, as will the
thousands of new workers employed in the field.
22. Manufacturing oil within the U. S. will deny Iran, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern oil rich
countries the petro dollars they use to support anti-American terrorist groups
23. Last, but far from least, the reduction of oil imports will have an enormous effect on reducing the
trade deficit.
Further information concerning the process may be found at: http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/
And
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil
And at
CWT's web site at Changing World Technologies, Inc.and from Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocos...
Public ignorance of this remarkable development is an overriding reason why Congress and the administration give it such short shrift. Most assuredly if the general public knew of this system and the potential it contains to alleviate the reliance on imported oil and the resultant ultimate reduction in the price of all things dependent on oil, there would develop a huge hue and cry for the government to get off its duff and support this concept. Without the dissemination of that knowledge, the country will continue to rely on unreliable, insecure sources resulting in ever escalating oil prices.
If, after reviewing the above sources you are convinced that this system is worthy of implementation into our economy, pass the word to friends, family, colleagues, whomever, to join with us in not only spreading the word, but inundating Congress with the requirement that if they wish you to vote for them, they must support this invention. As Jack Kennedy once so famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
ADDENDUM
With the current cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, Hezbollah has reclaimed the streets of Behrut and proclaimed victory. They have informed the public not to accept aid for rebuilding from any organization but Hezbollah. Given the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars required for such an effort, where does the money come from if not from Iran? And where does Iran get its riches? From oil!
It requires no great leap of imagination to recognize that if petro dollars were denied Iran, their enormous expenditures for terrorist support and nuclear experimentation would require some rethinking of their priorities. The rapid development of this system into our economy is one type of "sanction", if one wishes to call it that, which can be benign, peaceful, far reaching and very effective.
The announcement by the United States government that one of their highest priorities would be the rapid implementation of the TCP system into our economy, would have not only national, but global significance as well..
J. W. Hoechst
Permalink
Feiner Posted 4:45 am
06 Feb 2007
Though the crux of Morris' well-intentioned piece is to celebrate the viability of an autonomous biofuel industry free from the serfdom of corporate globalization, as he points out, you may in fact be able to get there from here, but where exactly do you think you are going, and is there anyway to come back home?
An initiative based on government subsidies will get us nowhere fast. Off the top of my head, keep it much more local at the start if that is where you want to end up. State initiatives that fund locally owned production and distribution facilities from coffers filled by conservation and reduction efforts across the state cutting financial inputs into the energy grid as it operates currently. Citizens that want to see the potential benefit of a local, directly democratic biofuel 'industry,' will have to rise to the occasion, cutting need and overall use thus generating excess state and local funds to then 'subsidize' state and local alternative energy projects.
The last thing we need is the feds pulling more money out of health care and such for research and development into biotechfuels and deforestation, padding the same dirty lobbyist and industry accounts already getting rich in the agribusiness, biotech and energy sectors.
Please read my recent article, "Shattering the 'Royal Decption,' online at http://www.gefreemaine.org/article.php?story=200609261613 ... or in print in the January 2007 issue of Acres USA magazine, for more well-intentioned grease lightning.
Permalink
kgpc Posted 7:20 pm
30 May 2007
http://www.ethanol-news.de
Permalink
peter lauce Posted 1:17 pm
30 Jul 2007
Permalink
bailsout Posted 3:58 am
20 Aug 2007
Permalink
vismart Posted 12:21 am
05 Jun 2008
減肥, 成立公司, 鋼琴搬運, 搬屋公司, 運輸公司, 物流公司
Permalink
chow80715 Posted 4:03 am
26 Jun 2008
Permalink
chow80715 Posted 12:38 am
30 Jun 2008
網頁設計-
C.L 面膜紙-
MaybleSally 面膜紙-
Ki Kycehuaugn iackuen 面膜紙-
Joseristine 面膜紙-
Beauty Life 面膜紙-
面膜-
paper mask-
保濕 mask
美白面膜紙
泰拳-
Thai Boxing
Permalink
chow80715 Posted 4:35 am
30 Jun 2008
互聯網網頁製作-
網上商店-
網站設計-
網頁設計-
web design
Permalink
roywatson Posted 3:46 pm
06 Sep 2008
Permalink
roywatson Posted 4:01 pm
06 Sep 2008
Well conceived alcohol plants generate exponentially more energy than the non-renewable inputs required to operate them. What doesn't make sense is running alcohol plants with natural gas or coal...operating these plants on a massive, centralized scale...and turning the ethanol over the the oil companies to mix with gasoline. It's interesting that this is how they are being run now. It's almost as if they are being set up to fail spectacularly - and very publicly.
Alcohol for fuel can be produced locally and in a de-centralized way, very close to the fields where the crop inputs are grown, and distributed gasoline-style at local pumps. A system like this is massively efficient and sustainable, cuts the oil companies out the picture completely, and will substantially strengthen the farming economy in the US and in any other nation that converts to alcohol as fuel. You can see why oil companies and their allies who prefer centralized control (and with it the ability to turn energy on and off and raise prices at will) don't want you to know these basic facts.
Read David Blume-Author Alcohol Can Be A Gas: http://www.permaculture.com/
Featured on a series of videos at:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/422.html
Permalink