[[editor's note, by David Roberts] In addition to the updates below, I wanted to make it clear that this post does not meet Grist's standards. Had I been around (I'm on vacation), I would not have published it. I've sent Khosla a personal apology, which he has graciously accepted.]
[UPDATE: Dave has requested that I update this post, which I have done below with some clarifications and added links.]
Vinod Khosla recently posted this comment titled: "Numbers Matter Here: Support your statements" over on Joseph Romm's post.
There is nothing wrong with an individual investing in a product that he or she believes in. The problem arises when perversely wealthy individuals try to further line their pockets by putting their paws in our pockets, using our tax dollars to fund their get richer schemes. Get your hands out of our pockets and keep them out, you money-grubbing rascals.
When Vinod Khosla takes E-85 fueled car trips with the likes of Sen. Tom Daschle, he is quite obviously lobbying for support of ethanol. Our government process has become seriously compromised thanks to wealthy special interest seekers buttonholing politicians to line their own pockets. It is a two-way street of course, with the senator hoping to receive campaign donations from those who want his support of ethanol. There are almost 35,000 registred lobbyists in Washington. How many of those lobbyists get to ride in a car with a Senator?
Vinod, that may be how business has been done in India but that may also explain a lot of India's past problems. We need to fix the problem here before we end up like India (the country you bailed from).
[UPDATE: The above comment has been taken by some to be xenophobic (and therefore racist). I am referring only to the Indian government's low CPI score (corruption perception index). I should have been more clear that it is this political corruption that Khosla has left behind. Commenter pangolin read my intent correctly here:
The OP points out that the rise of ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is the product of rampant political corruption and crony capitalism in the US Federal government. He vaugely mentions the well documented rampant political corruption and crony capitalism that has been widely acknowledged to be preventing India from solving it's many problems.
All bloggers eventually get into hot water when what they write is misinterpreted or flat out wrong, as many of my fellow contributors can attest. It comes with the territory. And yes this is a harsh critique. Market distortions by special interests are wreaking havoc on the the environment. My apologies to anyone offended.]
As a self-professed life-long Republican, you helped put the most anti-intellectual, anti-environmental, ham-fisted president in the history of this country into office who for the first time in our history took us to preemptive war and on erroneous data at that, essentially by accident. We may never recover from his legacy. Based on that decision alone I would not trust your judgment any further than I could throw you.
Now let's talk about your numbers and especially about the assumptions made to get them.
First, bloggers jump the gun without understanding the details of what one is saying. My paper on Biofuels Pathways (www.khoslaventures.com/resources.html ) explaisn the details. The key question is how many people will pay $5000 more for a basic hybrid car that reduces carbon emissions by 25% (about the same as corn ethanol by the way) versus ...
The Prius, a commercially viable product spawned by market response to consumer demand, doubles average gas mileage. The Prius fleet saves more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in America in 2001. That is a greenhouse gas reduction of how much? Surely you are familiar by now with the study showing corn ethanol to be up to 50% worse for global warming than gasoline? Your 25% figure for GHG emissions is closer to -50%. Surely you have seen the numbers showing how the flex-fuel car campaign has cost Americans billions of gallons of gas by promoting SUVs and trucks?
a flex-fuel car that costs no more and can reduce emissions by 75% or more when run on cellulosic biofuels...
What flex fuel cars running on cellulosic? They don't exist, or have you lost sight of that fact? Cellulosic ethanol does not exist in a commercially viable format.
A plug-in hybrid would cost $15000 more for the average buy and may reduce carbon emissions by a larger percentage today depending upon the location and source of your electricity (how much fossil fuel is used in your power grid). That might reach 100% reduction when we have all renewable power in a region and all cars are fully plug-in, but when might that happen?
All cars do not need to be fully plug-in. Your cost estimate is an educated guess based on what is known today. It will not withstand the test of time. When might that happen? I'll make a guess. About the time cellulosic fuels become commercially viable? If we don't find ways to make electricity without coal, it won't matter what fuel we burn in our cars.
Even if we could get 50% of the cars in the US to be hybrids, reducing emissions by an immaterial 10-15%,
Average American gas mileage = 24 MPG. A 10% improvement would be 26.4 MPG. Average Prius = 48 MPG. Half of America's cars as hybrids would produce an average gas mileage of 36 MPG. That's an improvement of 50%, not an immaterial 10-15%.
could we get people in India and China, the fastest growing car markets, to ante up this much additional money when the biggest thrust in volume cars in India is to reduce the cost of the whole car to $2500?
The Chinese appear to be just as status hungry as Americans and are happily paying small fortunes to own SUVs which they perceive to be hip as they try to emulate those who they think are the cool kids. So, yeah, no problem. As for that $2500 car in India, well, it won't be an SUV running on ethanol that's for sure.
When can we get enough cars on the road? Battery costs will decline and performance increase but once one gets inside the technology one understands that the upside with known chemistries is limited to maybe 2-4x change in cost/performance - not nearly enough to change the hybrid or plug-in hybrid cost dynamic.
When will cellulosic ethanol become commercially viable? You just are not even trying to think out of the box. The internal combustion engine exists only because of cheap liquid fuels. The answer is to replace the internal combustion engine, not the source of liquid fuels, which is a physical impossibility.
Having said that we are investing in batteries to try and enable breakthroughs that might change this. Other technologists are doing the same but the outcomes look very uncertain.
Cellulosic looks pretty uncertain to me, considering that I'm already putting most of my mileage on a plug-in hybrid vehicle.
We will need 50-80% of the car buyers to pay for these new technology automobiles to make a material difference.
Didn't you just say that a 50% market penetration would reduce emissions by an immaterial 10-15%?
When will that happen and at what cost point in the US? In the world? Add 10-15 years after new car sales to reach these percentages and you have a "low carbon fleet"! long term I still believe we can reach this laudable goals but probably not in the next decade or even two!
Don't know Vinod. My crystal ball is in for repairs. I am fairly confident of one thing. Your attempts to further distort an already distorted market need to stop. You obviously are not smart enough to single handedly lead the world into a bright new energy future. Neither am I but I am smart enough to know that answers will come from the millions of entrepreneurs out there testing ideas in response to market forces, not from rich individuals begging money from public coffers. The ramifications of cellulosic fuel production on global warming are unknown. Studies are beginning to show that existing biofuels are worse for global warming than fossil fuels. What will future studies show for cellulosic?
You are an alpha male. Your sense of well being largely depends on a steady drip, drip of a hormone called serotonin. To get that fix, you need high status. Status seeking urges explain why people buy expensive cars, live in big houses. If the driver of a Hummer were mocked and laughed at instead of envied, he would never have bought his Hummer. What makes a Hummer a status symbol? A Hummer is a rolling billboard advertising that the owner has enough disposable income to afford one, just as the Prius is a rolling billboard suggesting that the occupant is a thinking, caring individual, who can also afford to drive a Prius. Toyota is already contemplating a cheap hybrid for those who desperately want one but can't quite swing a Prius. In other words, people will continue to buy vehicles largely based on the status it will bestow and that status may be a function of the cars perceived environmental benign-ness, as is the case with the Prius. Smallish super efficient cars may very well eclipse the comical bloated SUV as a status symbol worldwide.
I hesitate to point this out to you because I fear you may shift gears and begin lobbying my government to drop its tariff on Brazilian ethanol and begin investing instead in the destruction of the Amazon to grow sugarcane. Ethanol made from sugarcane is less energy intensive and far, far, cheaper than cellulosic. The Amazon and the virtually free land it sits on is vast. Cellulosic does not stand a chance against Brazilian cane ethanol in the long haul. Using biofuels to feed internal combustion engines will eventually destroy the last great carbon sink if we don't find a way to replace the internal combustion engine fed with liquid fuel.
Comments
View as Flat
ModSquad Posted 12:21 pm
28 Dec 2007
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:41 pm
28 Dec 2007
Permalink
Adi Posted 12:58 pm
28 Dec 2007
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:29 pm
28 Dec 2007
The OP points out that the rise of ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is the product of rampant political corruption and crony capitalism in the US Federal government. He vaugely mentions the well documented rampant political corruption and crony capitalism that has been widely acknowledged to be preventing India from solving it's many problems.
How is this racism? It's the same problem in two different contexts one larger, India and one smaller, the U.S. Both countries are quite willing to leave their citizens to die in the streets if to a different degree. The results are the same to those individuals abandoned to such a fate.
I'm sure that when "Vinod Khosla takes E-85 fueled car trips with the likes of Sen. Tom Daschle" they don't concern themselves with the fate of those who had resources diverted from them so as to line their pockets.
Painting the elephant to match the wall and hide our greed does not make it go away. Ethanol vehicle fuel is driving the cost of food past the starvation point for many millions the world over. A solution to climate change that does not lift up the very least everywhere in the world will not work.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:53 pm
28 Dec 2007
No need to be jealous of billionaires, they are just like the rest of us. Except they have access to capital that can produce change.
If you can't rise above class prejudice, how can you fight for environmental and social reform?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:01 pm
28 Dec 2007
Adi,
Differentiate between xenophobic comments and comments about a country's CPI score (corruption perception index). I'm a big proponent of immigration. It is an extremely efficient way to redistribute wealth to the poor. Xenophobia has nothing to do with my critique of Khosla's attempts to manipulate US politicians (legally, which is the problem). If I'm going to be critical of the US political system then I should be free to be critical of India's as well without being labeled a xenophobe.
What you have mistaken for xenophobia is my admittedly undefended opinion that I would be more impressed if he were using his great wealth to help the poor in India rather than continue to try to parlay it into even greater wealth here in the land of milk and honey, although he has every right not to do so. I'm sure he spends a great amount on charity. I'm thinking more in terms of him using his wealth and influence where it might do more to raise people out of poverty, rather than make rich Americans richer. It is admittedly a self-righteous viewpoint and self-flattering to think I would act different if I were a billionaire from India.
ce1907,
In this country we are all free to say what we think about our president. You can call my description of Bush a personal attack if you like but I would not call it that. I would call it a simple statement of facts. But that isn't what you are talking about is it? You are saying that I can get as rough as I want with Bush but I can't with a billionaire who is lobbying politicians to support his latest investments. We can disagree.
ModSquad,
Would you like to add anything useful the discussion? Your definitions of vicious, racist and ad hominem are apparently way different from mine. Why don't you cut and paste official definitions of each word followed by quotes from my article that are examples of each. That should be interesting:
Viciousness:
Get your hands out of our pockets and keep them out, you money-grubbing rascals.
Based on that decision alone I would not trust your judgment any further than I could throw you.
Racism:
We need to fix the problem here [political corruption] before we end up like India (the country you bailed from)
Ad hominem attack:
The problem arises when perversely wealthy individuals try to further line their pockets by putting their paws in our pockets, using our tax dollars to fund their get richer schemes.
As a self-professed life-long Republican, you helped put the most anti-intellectual, anti-environmental, ham-fisted president in the history of this country ... or does that one belong under vicious?
You obviously are not smart enough to single handedly lead the world into a bright new energy future. Neither am I but I am smart enough to know that ...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:02 pm
28 Dec 2007
Not good at all.
Calling him a bush supporter (if it's true)and ethanol booster who lobbies the extremely corrupt US government that continues to encourage lobbying, that's fair.
The nation you fled? Just right out of line.
I'd apologize if I were you.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:08 pm
28 Dec 2007
Ok, I see.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:23 pm
28 Dec 2007
Vinod might have a point, too. From an economic point of view, something that makes quick profits is much better than "going long" and gambling on a very advanced technology that might take 5-10 years to mature. Shorting the market is the only way many of the auto manufacturers can even stay in business these days, since the technology comes at great expense.
There again, Vinod simply may have simply had a preference for "fill and go" technology. Sorry, don't know the man well enough to say. I am sure he is well aware of alternate technologies. He's a successful businessman and gambles how he is comfortable, considering risk, price, and margin.
Oh, and if you want the "by-the-ocean-rust test" give me a plug-in hybrid so I can be a beta tester. Gotta have the garage recharging unit, too! South Padre Island, mon, and you can visit whenever.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Adi Posted 3:38 pm
28 Dec 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:43 pm
28 Dec 2007
Vinod is wrong, this Audi plugin hybrid beats ethanol guzzling all hollow. It sips gas ocasionally but mainly runs on the plugin rear wheels. Those kwh can come from a renwable grid eventually.
Leave the conservation reserve land and rain forest that will be stripped of it's carbon sink storage and release huge new amouints of CO2. That is how cellulosic ethanol will be made, from biomass that ought to be returned to build the living soil, that stores carbon.
Leave the 4.5 gallons of drought limited water it takes to make 1 gallon of ethanol alone. That water means life itself.
Don't burn the oil it takes to run the tractors and trucks and trains to grow, harvest, and transport the crop or process the oil based fertilizer and chemicals.
Just charge up cars like this on clean renewable power. You always have enough gas for longer or unexpected trips, no problem.
Will cars like this Audi be affordable? Yes with mass production.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:50 pm
28 Dec 2007
Wolfowitz and Rummi, pearle.. and the rest, they invented modern corruption. And are it's most dangerous users of these techniques of taking over government with corporate lobbying.
The former head of halliburton is our VP! Incredible.
Meanwhile ethanol drives up grain prices to starve millions around the world. How can Khosla in good conscience lobby for this?
It's a valid question, not derogatory in anyway either. He ought to answer it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:50 pm
28 Dec 2007
The OP points out that the rise of ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is the product of rampant political corruption and crony capitalism in the US Federal government. He vaugely mentions the well documented rampant political corruption and crony capitalism that has been widely acknowledged to be preventing India from solving it's many problems.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:56 pm
28 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:58 pm
28 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:21 pm
28 Dec 2007
you will be ignored
suit yourself
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:48 am
29 Dec 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:43 am
29 Dec 2007
There was no insult intended. But mixing nationality with the political problems of a person's nation of orgin can appear to be an insult. But none was intended.
India is corrupt, but the US is the heart of modern corruption. Corporate shills appointed to prez and VP. kidnapping, torture, murder, secret prisons, war based on lies, canceling habeus corpus and privacy rights.
Vinod maybe an ethanol investor and lobbyist, but he still could be convinced to switch to a better, more profitable investment path.
Gates backs ethanol too. and Branson backs biodiesel for his aircraft fuel. Gotta get Khosla and these others to go with the winners in this energy revolution. It'll make them richer and the rest of us more financially secure. Revive the economy with renewables and conservation you billionaires.
Wake up and smell the profits, pennies per kwh hour profit equals trillions in return on invstment over the next century.
Capitalism, it can be a very good thing (thanks martha).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:32 am
29 Dec 2007
But why couldn't we just say that in any reputable cost benefit analysis, ethanol is a clear loser?
Second, you might have mentioned that ethanol programs have little to do with climate change and efficiency, but rather fuel switching? Given increased demand due and tighter hydrocarbon supplies, ethanol makes sense from a fuel switching perspective, despite the greenhouse gas disbenefit. So why are we even talking here?
Third, and if you really wanted to make a point, good governance would dictate that since there is a greenhouse gas disbenefit to use of ethanol, it should be taxed and not handed a subsidy. Ouch, you just kicked a businessman right where it hurts!
At the end of the day (like right now) this is a classic gas of arguing energy against environment. In this case, ethanol is an alternative fuels and transportation energy program, not an environmental program.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:17 pm
29 Dec 2007
You call yourself a champion of biodiversity? Start in your own back yard. Do you know that some 97% of our original US forests are gone... those which had the most biodiversity? The loss is perhaps most striking in your neck of the woods. What's your plan to recover some of this loss? You think it's responsible to simply leave the mess behind without making an effort to repair it?
There are some of us who have been working hard on this front for a long time, while waiting for a market like that of cellulosic ethanol to become realized. Why? Because to undo the mess in our forests, we need a market for the millions of tons of low-quality, diseased and over-crowded trees which saturate too many forests today as a direct result of poor forest management from the past. We need markets to support the undoing of decades of "scientific" forest management which has left too many forests seriously lacking in biodiversity, looking more like wooded corn fields than diverse natural forests.
It doesn't matter much to me whether these markets take the form of cellulosic ethanol, biomass-to-cogeneration plants or some other technology. The important thing is that SOME markets show up quickly so we can get this work underway.
No one knows for sure how things will unfold on this planet over the next 10-20 years. However, I can imagine a number of scenarios in which a direct replacement for oil and gas here in the U.S. could be vitally important. It's a serious stretch to imagine much of the current liquid fuels sector being replaced with some other technology during this time frame. Bottom line: we need a renewable, indigenous replacement for liquid fuels ASAP, and cellulosic ethanol has perhaps the best chance of being that. For those who don't yet know, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are two very different creatures. The latter has few of the major disadvantages of the former, though this potential is certainly not firm or realized yet.
Beyond the issue of energy and climate change, however, there is a perhaps equally compelling reason why we need to pay more attention to the benefits of using biomass to solve some of these problems... and it's a reason that cannot be addressed through solutions like wind, solar and electric vehicles. I speak of the health of rural communities.
Our rural communities are dying as jobs continue to flee to cities here and abroad. What can change this? The single greatest option for dramatic revival of these communities stems from increased SUSTAINABLE use of their natural resources... this being forests in many parts of the country, but also numerous other types of plants which already grow, or could be grown, throughout the U.S. to support a biomass energy marketplace. This resource is sorely underutilized now because markets don't yet exist for much of this material (yes, there are obviously markets for wood, but I'm speaking of markets for the lowest-quality wood... the trees which have tended to be left behind while we have removed the better quality ones over the past 100+ years or so). Instead, we import oil into countless rural communities, while we watch these towns slowly die out, all the while sitting on an oil replacement right in their own back yards.
Yes, an approach like this would need to be handled sustainably, but mechanisms for this already exist (for example, the Forest Stewardship Council's forest certification system). Tens of thousands of new jobs could be created across rural America through more effective use of this vital natural resource.
Mr. Khosla may well see a bigger picture than you give him credit for. I suggest you rethink your commitment to biodiversity and pay more attention to solving the problems in your own back yard. Electric vehicles (while a great part of the overall climate change and energy problem) just won't undo the mess in our forests...nor save countless rural communities from extinction.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:32 am
30 Dec 2007
But I will take issue with this statement:
"Our rural communities are dying as jobs continue to flee to cities here and abroad. What can change this? The single greatest option for dramatic revival of these communities stems from increased SUSTAINABLE use of their natural resources... this being forests in many parts of the country, but also numerous other types of plants which already grow, or could be grown, throughout the U.S. to support a biomass energy marketplace.
The notion of cellulosic ethanol production as the primary economic savior of rural communities is for many reasons so deeply flawed as to be ludicrous. Most obviously, commodity silviculture for whatever purpose has high energy, land and capital demands and very low labor intensity - vast acreages, big machines, few people working them. These are exactly the conditions that have been a major driver of rural depopulation. One is tempted, as so often, to quote Will Rogers: "if stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us out?"
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 1:42 am
30 Dec 2007
You wrote this:
Most obviously, commodity silviculture for whatever purpose has high energy, land and capital demands and very low labor intensity - vast acreages, big machines, few people working them. These are exactly the conditions that have been a major driver of rural depopulation.
Do you not understand the definition of sustainable forestry as defined by the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)? If not... as is obviously the case...please educate yourself before responding. Had you understood something on this subject, you would know that sustainable forestry is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you described in your post. As you stated.... and as I stated...commodity silviculture HAS been the problem. What I said we need is the opposite of this... a change to sustainable forestry practices which focuses first and foremost on biodiversity and the health of rural communities.
Please get informed about subjects at hand before responding and calling other people's comments ludicrous.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:12 am
30 Dec 2007
There was a lot of government money for biofuels in the prelude to the Iran war. I felt that was eye wash for public support of war and a distraction. Investments followed government ethanol subsidies and now those investments are endangered. Ethanol in cars does not make economic thermal dynamic sense, just good political spin.
Biomass can be burned directly in homes that use oil and gas, and in power plants. But that can cause an unmitigated environmental disasters like that caused on Molokai Hawaii, rapid deforestation from rural people hauling and selling plants to their biomass power plant.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:52 am
30 Dec 2007
Please do a little research into the meaning of sustainable forestry as defined by the Forest Stewardship Council (http://www.fsc.org) which was founded, in part, by most of the major environmental groups. If you do, you would understand that it is pointless for you to talk about "rapid deforestation" in response to a post that is discussing the role of sustainable forestry in the production of biomass-based energy.
Also, as has been pointed out before, you simply can't lump corn-based ethanol production and cellulosic ethanol together in the same breath. To say "ethanol in cars does not make economic thermal dynamic sense" is simply an incomplete, if not useless, statement. While it may be true corn ethanol has a questionable energy balance, the balance for cellulosic ethanol is expected to be far different... perhaps by a factor of 10 times or more. Yes, it's true that much of this is still speculative, but it is founded on good research. We'll know for certain in a couple of years if the work being done now yields the hoped for results. If it does, cellulosic ethanol could make a lot of sense. If it doesn't, so be it. In that case, there are numerous other options for effective, sustainable use of biomass as an energy source. The point is, sustainable forestry and wood for energy are part of the solution in addressing the issues of energy, climate change and the health of rural communities.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:20 am
30 Dec 2007
Major energy parasitics of all ethanols are distillation and transporting raw materials. As rural people know, selling firewood must be local. Moving firewood is expensive. When local, the cost is $40-60/ton.
Local rural cellulosic refineries are planned to burn dirty coal distilling biomass moved with oil.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:45 am
30 Dec 2007
Do you really know all the ways cellulosic ethanol will be produced? Are you sure they all involve coal? Are you certain the transport of the biomass would use oil?
Let's see now. The facility would produce an oil substitute, but will need to rely on oil to move the feedstock. That makes sense.
You might want to consider cutting out the coffee breaks.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:40 am
30 Dec 2007
OK, moving right along, I'd sure like to hear more about sustainable forests but I'm sure that's a different thread than about our wayward ethanol marketer from India. Not to take away any wind from your sails, sir.
One think bothers me about cellulosic ethanol and perhaps I need to be educated there. My understanding is that cellulose such as from switchgrass must be "hydrolyzed" before it can be brewed into ethanol. This process involves high doses of acid, or some milling and ... less acid. Anyway, it looks like we'll be dealing with metric tons of sulfuric acid and acid waste here!
Am I wrong?
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 5:10 am
30 Dec 2007
My sense is that there's a lot at stake here with CE and a lot of people watching carefully from the sidelines. I think the likelihood of a company succeeding with misguided or inappropriate technology is far less likely than in the past. But that doesn't mean it won't happen, and I'm probably just as concerned about this as you are. It's good to ask these kinds of questions and keep a close eye on developments in this sector. I believe it holds tremendous promise, but it could also go very wrong if short-sighted technology is used or unsustainable harvesting methods (regardless of the feedstock).
It's simply far too early to make any educated statements about the ultimate value of cellulosic ethanol in solving energy and climate change problems. But educated and fair questions... those are great.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:21 pm
30 Dec 2007
Dear BioD,
The style you employed in your attack has left you open to charges of racism. So, instead of talking about the issues you raised, you end up talking about racism. While I personally think this is a useful subject to discuss, I don't think it was your intent in starting this thread.
Language matters.
About corruption India vs the US. The US is perhaps the most corrupt nation on earth, but we cheat. Our definition of corruption excludes the ways in which we mostly practice corruption.
Our lobbying and campaign contribution system is nothing but corruption codified into law. And allowing corporations to have the rights of citizens without the responsibilities is in itself a form of corruption.
Americans always recite the mantra that developing nations are corrupt, and developed nations are not. LOL. Yes, but that is only when Americans get to define corruption.
OTH, biofuels are evil, except on a local level in rural areas. As a large industry, they are like adding fuel to the engine of a train heading for a cliff. Gee, look, it goes faster!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
danielbell Posted 4:58 am
31 Dec 2007
I've enjoyed your posts in the past, and hope to in the future. You got over-heated an attacked the person (ad hominem), when you should have been attacking his statements, arguments, and specific actions.
You moved from critiquing to attacking, for this you should apologize.
On to Khosla's comments, he's so wrong! There are so many arguments to contradict what he's saying. Let's examine those in further detail on a different thread.
sustainable car discussion - http://wiserearth.org/group/hypercar
http://wisereath.org/user/danielbell
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 6:55 am
31 Dec 2007
RDMiller's comments are good.
Can I get some comments:
Suppose you get to write the US laws. From what I can tell, a number of people here would BAN biofuels, permanently. If you believe that, or with a few qualifications, can you say so? thanks.
-John Mashey
Permalink
robertogreen Posted 8:10 am
31 Dec 2007
insane, i know.
however, my previous car was more expensive than that, and it got 20 mpg. this one will get more than 100 mpg, and will be running (Starting next november) off of my solar panels.
and it is happening. today. for real. hybrids-plus can't scale up, but toyota can look at what they (and hymotion) are doing, implement it, and all of the sudden a 35k car (probably less, but let's be conservative) is massively available. every car it replaces (minus the cost of actually building a new car versus running the old one, an old debate and one that actually makes a STRONG argument for recycled french fry oil biofuels for the legacy cars) makes a difference.
cellulose and other potential solutions (particularly hydrogen) are all too late. it sucks, but the numbers don't give a shit about suckiness. they just don't. PPM of carbon go up, the world gets crazier. though i spent a lot of money on my car, given that i can afford it it seems like a moral imperative. you can take your money and behave however you want, but the way mr khosla is behaving strikes me as short-sighted and ultimately evil.
having said that, this post was poorly written and should be retooled to avoid the charges made above, IMHO.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:46 am
31 Dec 2007
I won't get into all of the reasons as to why they have been led to believe that, although it would probably be an interesting discussion.
Calls are going out in Europe for an end to government mandates and subsidies, not to make biofuels illegal. Although I think it would be wise to continue to heavily fund alternative fuel research.
There are also people who support biofuels because they have been led to believe that they will protect America from economic shock if the Middle East were to stop selling us oil. The problem being of course is that if the Middle East were to stop selling us oil, they would continue selling it to someone else, freeing up oil from someone else for us to buy. In other words, the Middle East could only trip up our oil supplies by not selling oil to anyone, which would screw them as bad as it would screw us. If this were truly a concern for our government it would mandate very high gas mileage very rapidly. The fact that we don't suggests that maybe our government really does not take the issue of oil independence all that seriously.
The last major argument in favor of continued government mandates and subsidies is that corn ethanol will build infrastructure that will be in place ready to accept mass quantities of cellulosic once it finally takes over for gasoline. One problem being that it may never take over, something else might. This infrastructure consists mostly of rubber tubing in tanker trucks, cars and gas stations. Replacing tubing is inexpensive, fast and easy to do and certainly would be a waste of resources if cellulosic turns out not to be the fuel of the future.
This infrastructure also ostensibly includes ethanol refineries. The idea is that you could convert a corn ethanol refinery into a cellulosic one. The problem is that you can't. Only the last stages in the process are similar (using microbes to convert sugars into ethanol). Not to mention that the location of feedstocks is critical for profit margin. Transporting millions of tons of bulky plant matter to refineries could greatly increase costs and today's refineries are located near corn, not whatever the future holds for cellulosic feedstock should it ever arrive.
Note that our government does not pour tens of billions annually into the Prius fleet, cell phones, Ipods, home computers and on and on. That is because these are things consumers want and businesses therefore supply, at ever decreasing cost to the consumer. Biofuels on the other hand look more like a gigantic scam to benefit businesses and politicians at the consumer's expense. This is not how a free market is supposed to work.
And then there is that fly in the cellulosic ointment called cane ethanol. Sugarcane is largely sugar already. You don't have to try to break cellulose down. You can also burn the waste to make electricity for the cane mill. The stuff grows like weeds in tropical climates. Simply switching internal combustion engines from oil to ethanol will more than likely simply switch our dependence to tropical ethanol producers at the expense of our remaining biodiversity and carbon sinks. Cellulosic is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.
We need four things, five, five things:
Massive research funding
An end to mandates
An end to subsidies
Regulations requiring biofuels to be overall less environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.
Regulations that do not allow biofuels to compete with food.
Not going to happen of course, but that is what we need.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:04 am
31 Dec 2007
Doesn't that sound a lot like feudalism? There's another model developing.
What if a biofuel plant could convert every kind of plant matter sometimes even green matter and some manures into town gas, liquid fuel and long lasting fertilizer for fields. The area around the plant thrives with life because of the cheap, long lasting and readily available soil amendment works with only one application. Farmers can plant whatever they want and bring any carbon rich biomass to the plant and are given a fertilizer in return that more than makes up for the loss of mulch in the fields. There are multiple process to use from backyard plants to full blown refineries allowing for local resource availability to be optimized.
That is the possibility of bio-char or Terra Preta and is being demonstrated independantly all over the world. Ag waste goes in and charcoal, ammonia, hydrogen, methane and bio-oils come out. Returning the char to local soils provides a permanent fertilizer that actually pulls more carbon into the soil than simply mulching the waste would have.
Terra Preta does not require a massive plant with a CAFO attatched to pretend to operate efficiently. It yeilds a positive return on invested energy even when you don't capture the off-gases from the pyrolysis process.
Any village that can afford a few small cars could afford a pyrolisis cooker and would then be able to have wood-gas for cooking and water heating as american and european towns used to have coal-gas plants. Deforestation would be reduced because ag waste would feed the plant replacing inefficient wood burning stoves in kitchens. Captured methanol would be available to power some vehicles and machinery on a modest basis. Perhaps most importantly the addition of char to soils increases yields, reduces NOX emissions from fields, and sequesters atmospheric carbon.
The contrast from a fuel process that increases GHG emissions, commercial ethanol, to one that sequesters atmospheric CO2, Terra Preta couldn't be more great. The only tragedy is that it's open source so there is very little leverage for billionaires to play with. Therefore it is ignored by everyone but bloggers and gardeners. It's up to us.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 11:20 am
31 Dec 2007
1) Massive research funding: when you say that, can you give a rough breakdown of:
a) Where the funding goes?
b) What's the profile of spending over the next 10-20 years?
I.e., I'm trying to understand where the money goes, and who spends it, and how, and to get beyond generalities.
2) Regulations that do not allow biofuels to compete for food.
If I understand this right, that is a law that forbids any farmer from growing any biofuel crop on any land that might grow any food. Yes?
Again, just to understand what you mean, it would be illegal, for instance, to grow something like miscanthus on grazing land (unsuitable for grains)?
Would it also be illegal to raise grain to be fed to animals? (I.e., only grazing-fed meat is allowed?)
Presumably, these laws happen after the law that outlaws tobacco growing? [Which after all, consumes prime farmland, and fuel for curing.]
-John Mashey
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:48 pm
31 Dec 2007
John,
Research is cheap in comparison to the many billions spent propping up the corn ethanol industry for three decades. Once in a while research will uncover something consumers like and it takes off, like the Internet or the nano-phosphate lithium ion batteries that blow me and my bike around Seattle and power Dewalt tools.
If I understand this right, that is a law that forbids any farmer from growing any biofuel crop on any land that might grow any food. Yes?
Again, just to understand what you mean, it would be illegal, for instance, to grow something like miscanthus on grazing land (unsuitable for grains)?
Good questions. Off hand, I would think it would be better to limit the production of any given fuel that is increasing the cost of food. Farmers could grow and sell whatever they want based on a market that is regulated to create a level playing field. It makes no difference to consumers if they must pay 20% of their earnings for gas or food. Today, thanks to government meddling, consumers pay more for fuel through taxes (subsidized ethanol blended into fuels) and for food.
Would it also be illegal to raise grain to be fed to animals? (I.e., only grazing-fed meat is allowed?)
I don't see how this applies to biofuels. Feeding grain to chickens is no different than grinding it into flour and baking it into bread. Both methods consume energy to process raw grain into a more palatable food.
Presumably, these laws happen after the law that outlaws tobacco growing? [Which after all, consumes prime farmland, and fuel for curing.]
Look at it this way, John, rather than subsidize the production of cigarettes, government now taxes the bejesus out of them and bans the smoking of them in public spaces. You also can't advertise them on television. Continuing the analogy, the government would tax the crap out of biofuels, ban their use on public highways and make it illegal to advertise flex fuel vehicles on television.
Great critiques. Lots of food for thought.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 4:57 pm
31 Dec 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:38 am
01 Jan 2008
To RDMIller:
"As you stated.... and as I stated...commodity silviculture HAS been the problem. What I said we need is the opposite of this... a change to sustainable forestry practices which focuses first and foremost on biodiversity and the health of rural communities."
I would love to be better informed. I am certainly not an expert on sustainable forestry practices, though I do know something about the economic viability of small rural communities. Please explain for me therefore how the production of biomass (switchgrass, forestry thinnings, whatever) on a scale appropriate to the production of cellulosic ethanol as a substitute transportation fuel would not be the kind of commodity practice which we seem to agree would be in conflict with both biodiversity and the health of rural communities.
On the other hand, if cellulosic ethanol is not to be a commodity product as a mass market fuel but a local cottage industry serving only those few fortunate communities with enough of the right kind of land lying around available and otherwise unused (whatever that might mean), what's the justification for the huge R & D costs?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 4:21 pm
01 Jan 2008
I ask again:
"1) Massive research funding: when you say that, can you give a rough breakdown of:
a) Where the funding goes?
b) What's the profile of spending over the next 10-20 years?
I.e., I'm trying to understand where the money goes, and who spends it, and how, and to get beyond generalities."
I'd be really ecstatic with a good answer, which would basically propose an allocation of research dollars for next year, plus a strategy to go with it.
An OK answer is "I don't know much about R&D management, but I know research is good." If that's true, it's OK to say that, so I can stop asking about it.
Again, without arguing in favor of the current structure of ethanol subsidies [or many other farm subsidies, many of which I consider multiply pernicious), I note some facts:
2) "Feeding grain to chickens is no different than grinding it into flour and baking it into bread. Both methods consume energy to process raw grain into a more palatable food."
At first read, this statement is a total credibility-destroyer, but maybe I misunderstand...
Without wishing to enter vegetarian-vs-carnivore arguments, the following is relevant:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3761/is_199702/ai ...
"Grain provides at least twice as much food energy when it is consumed directly by humans than when it is fed to livestock that produce meat and dairy products. Beef cattle are especially inefficient users of grain on average, seven kilograms of grain produce only one kilogram of beef, while it takes less than three kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of chicken (see Table 6). Animal products are also a less efficient source of food calories than grain. The amount of grain it takes to produce 1 calorie of beef would yield 10 calories if eaten directly. For poultry, the ratio is 1 to 6.15."
I'm not sure about the 40%, but I've seen the other ratios elsewhere, more-or-less (this is a bit of simplification, the full article has more details.)
Again, without wishing to get into vegetarian arguments:
If 60% of grain is eaten, and 40% fed to animals, and assuming poultry at a round 6X, if no grain were fed to animals, there would be 60% + 40% x 6 = 300% of the current calories from grain.
3) Here's a quick webpage from Iowa about corn, both in USA and Iowa.
http://www.iowacorn.org/cornuse/cornuse_3.html
Feed/Residual 6.1 billion (54.5%)
Exports 2.1 billion (18.8%)
Ethanol (fuel) 1.6 billion (14.3%)
High Fructose Corn Syrup 530 million (4.7%)
Corn Starch 275 million (2.5%)
Corn Sweeteners 225 million (2.0%)
Cereal/Other 190 million (1.7%)
Beverage Alcohol 135 million (1.2%)
(Feed = to animals).
I don't know mix of sweet corn (i.e., which humans eat as a vegetable directly) versus field corn (which is most of these other uses), although from experience I'd expect the fraction of sweet corn to be very small. I don't know the breakdown of actual usage of the export corn, although I suspect much of it, likely an increasing percentage, goes to feed animals.
Finally, I don't know the numbers offhand, but it is a long complaint of developing countries that first-world agriculture subsidies (for food) end up generating surplusses and causing dumping of food, which usually damages local farmers there.
Hence, when someone argues:
CORN MUST BE DEDICATED TO FOOD
they are (whether they realize it or not) saying:
a) We want to keep animal feed-lots going strong.
One might want to read about corn-fed versus range-fed cattle, for example. As noted above, if one really wanted to produce calories efficiently, feeding to animals isn't the way... [Again, this is not an argument about vegetarianism (I'm not, quite), simply an observation about what people really do with corn.]
b) We want to keep producing lots of high-fructose corn syrup. [Americans really need that in everything.]
c) We want to keep shipping surplus corn elsewhere, including developing countries.
d) As well as a few modest other uses.
Anyway, perhaps I misread what you say, so explain what you mean some more. Do you mean a-d) above? That's what the numbers says...
(Done for now, although I haven't yet gotten to the really interesting questions. And again, I am not saying I love the current ethanol subsidies, so we need not argue about that.)
-John Mashey
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:19 pm
01 Jan 2008
Let me be clear that I am quite concerned with the possibility that the production of biomass for cellulosic ethanol COULD become a problem for many rural communities. My point is simply that it doesn't have to... and, it could turn out to be very positive. It depends on a number of factors.
1. First and foremost, how is the production done? Is it done in a truly sustainable manner (for example with wood, is it done under Forest Stewardship Council guidelines) or more in line with "standard" forest industry practices (excessive cutting, conversion of diverse natural forests to monotypes, etc.)? If it's not done sustainably, it could become a serious problem. If it is done sustainably, the potential ongoing yield from CURRENT forests in most forested regions of the U.S. is large enough to support a very significant CE marketplace... enough to dramatically and positively impact all of these communities, and beyond. Let's keep in mind that most of our forests in these rural areas are still privately owned, so the decision as to what happens on this land will be in the hands of millions of private landowners.
Add to this the potential for dedicated "energy farms", whether they be farmed with trees, switchgrass or other woody crops appropriate to each locale. This can also be done sustainably (let's call it organically) on abandoned or otherwise underused land. Again, the potential contribution of liquid fuel from these lands could be very large... more than enough to supply the liquid fuel needs of every one of these local communities... and then some.
Let me stress again, though, that we still need to see if cellulosic ethanol technology works AND becomes the most intelligent way to use this biomass. There's a good possibility the answer will be "yes", but if not, this biomass should, and will, go into other forms of energy production.
2. There is the distinct possibility oil prices will go out of control over the next 5-20 years, whether due to geopolitical crises, weather problems (causing a shut down of refineries) or some other unforeseen factors. What do you think might be the response of our government to this problem? I believe this concern is perhaps the primary reason why there is so much government focus on accelerating the development of CE technology. Many see CE as the only viable, relatively short-term, substitute liquid fuel for gas. Yes, we all know that other forms of transportation are possible (hybrids, electric, etc.), and in many cases, perhaps preferable, but none of these could quickly become a substitute for the millions of liquid fueled vehicles that make up our transportation sector today. There is the distinct possibility CE and other biomass-to-liquid-fuel technology (for example, biodiesel) will need to be ramped up very quickly. With this comes the real possibility that much of the production may be done in a less-than-sustainable manner. It's hard to say what can be done in a situation like this to encourage sustainability... when the very viability of our economy is at serious risk. What is chosen then... sustainability or economic survival? I hope we never have to make that choice.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:59 pm
01 Jan 2008
You make the argument that if supplies were curtailed from the Middle East, we'd simply be able to buy our oil elsewhere, as supply availability shifted. This is a seriously flawed and simplistic argument. Yes, oil at some price might be available elsewhere... though there are certainly no guarantees of that. But the bigger problem is that the shock of the shutdown of Middle Eastern oil would drive the price of oil so high that our economy would be seriously threatened. THIS is the concern... pricing... not just availability.
Next, you seem to be implying that converting the entire infrastructure of service stations over to something other than liquid fuel shouldn't be too difficult or expensive. You're saying that the argument that corn-based ethanol is helping to "prime the pump" for cellulosic ethanol is flawed. I'd like you to document why you think it would be fairly easy to convert the existing infrastructure from liquid fuel to some other type of transportation system. I can't seem to find that evidence anywhere.
You then go on to infer that a substantial part of the argument for the existence of our current corn ethanol refineries is so they can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol when the time comes. Are you serious? I know of no expert who has put this forth. It would make no logistical, economic or technical sense and would not be viable.
Next, you say that a free market would not, by its nature, need millions (or billions) of dollars of investment from the government into the development of new technology. What? Have you ever heard of the Internet? Or perhaps space travel? How about genetic research? I'm guessing there might be another... I don't know... few hundred instances in which government funding was the catalyst for new and useful technologies that, following a very risky development period, were taken over by the free market.
Finally, you argue that there's a real possibility what will actually happen is that we'll turn our attention to importing ethanol from sugarcane-based producers in Latin America... leading, in turn, to destruction of the rainforests. Therefore, cellulosic ethanol, according to you, could all be just a scam.
How do you come up with this stuff?
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:59 am
02 Jan 2008
Biomass fuels are, generally speaking, mechanisms for turning soil nutrients into atmospheric contaminants with outputs of usable amounts of energy in the process, and cellulosic ethanol seems to be no exception to this rule. Fortunately for the planet and our tenure of it, there are natural mechanisms which operate in the reverse direction, pulling contaminants from the atmosphere and returning them as nutrients to the soil using inputs of energy which are largely from photosynthesis. Oh, the glory of a balanced system!
For the system to remain in balance however, the speed and volume of the one half of the cycle cannot continuously exceed the speed and volume of the other half, or it is by definition not sustainable: instead of a balanced cycle we will have a conventional resource extraction system similar to say, mining or quarrying, which is to say quite finite. This is a rule which we may bend in a small way, but which we cannot with impunity break.
There are biofuel opportunities which may indeed find themselves on the bend side of that line. A farmer may decide to burn a portion of her straw by-product as process heat for a small dairy operation rather than use it for animal bedding and soil amendment. This is a very different proposition however from dedicating a substantial acreage of that farm to biofuel cropping to produce liquid fuels.
So for me the intractable problem with cellulosic ethanol (even for now bypassing the energy balance and energy density issues, no small problems in themselves) is this: either we produce a lot of it and thereby seriously destabilise our ecosystems, or we produce very little of it and thereby protect the biosphere but have nothing worthwhile on the energy production side to show for all the effort.
And I still don't see any answer to my comment that no version of CE production is likely to be a major sustainer of rural communities for the reasons I mentioned above: high resource requirements, low labor intensity.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:31 am
02 Jan 2008
This is being done right here on Wisconsin dairy farms. The wood chip bedding is softened by the biodigestion and comes out a better bedding material.
Organic fertlizer prevents run off and methane release from surrounding wetlands, as it builds up the natural soil ecosystem, that is destroyed by agrichem farming.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 am
02 Jan 2008
Most of that cost appears to be adaptation of computer hardware and software, the batteries, A123 lithium ion, a minor part of the cost.
It would be a big surprise if the new Audi plugin hybrid cost over 20k. But when if ever will it be available in the US?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:58 am
02 Jan 2008
Who wouldn't support biofuels that are less environmentally destructive than fossil fuels? I suppose lots of people, come to think of it. This isn't some future potential that we may one day have to deal with, that "could become a serious problem." The environmental destructiveness of the biofuels presently being produced is today's reality. But maybe we are dancing around the definition of sustainable. Do any of our crops meet the definition of sustainable?
I have only two concerns about biofuels. First, that massive government interference in its favor will prevent the dance between entrepreneurs and citizen consumers from finding the best answers. For example, here in Seattle, thanks to government support of prices, many people are opting to buy diesel cars to burn biodiesel instead of hybrids or other economy cars. Something they might not have done if they had to pay a buck a gallon extra. They are also ignorant of the fact that they are stuffing 15 acres of soybean oil into their cars annually. My other concern is that they will continue to accelerate global warming and biodiversity loss.
...With this comes the real possibility that much of the production may be done in a less-than-sustainable manner. It's hard to say what can be done in a situation like this to encourage sustainability... when the very viability of our economy is at serious risk. What is chosen then... sustainability or economic survival? I hope we never have to make that choice.
I do see your point of view. I also do not want to see economic upheaval. So we don't disagree there. Keep in mind that economic disruption would come from high liquid fuel prices, and it does not matter if the expensive fuel is alcohol or oil, the effect would be the same. So cellulosic liquid fuel has to also be inexpensive to avoid upheaval. Humanity has burned through about half of its oil supply. The half that is left will contribute to global warming and will forever more get more expensive. Biofuels are presently contributing more to global warming per gallon than fossil fuels. And the cost of biofuels will rise as well if demand for it increases. Humanity cannot escape the fact that energy costs have no where to go but up as we wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The only answer is to use much less energy--URGE2.
But, instead of emphasizing efficiency (using much less oil) you appear to emphasize displacing gasoline with biofuels, putting the lowest priority on the environmental damage biofuels are doing (including an increase in greenhouse gases). I emphasize efficiency because a high priced cellulosic fuel will be just as economically destabilizing as a high priced fossil fuel. My family has decreased oil use roughly 80% by simply changing the vehicles we use. No sacrifice, no usurpation of food crops or carbon sinks, no destruction of biodiversity, and we saved money doing it. Fuel cost will have to increase 80% to negatively impact our personal transportation costs.
I also have no problem with improving rural economies, as long as it is not in the form of welfare, and as long as it does not further degrade the environment. If economic forces suggest that we should leave forests and grasslands alone, we should leave them alone and people who choose to live rural lives should find ways to support their lifestyle without government assistance or maybe do what many of their children choose to do, move to where they can.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:13 am
02 Jan 2008
As far as the "high resource requirement" argument goes, by definition, "sustainable" production of biomass governs the amount of material that can be extracted so that we never cross the "too high" limit. At the same time, if you do the calculations, you quickly discover that the amount of biomass potentially available from most forested rural areas is more than enough to produce all the energy required for that locale, with plenty more available for export to more populated areas... all on a sustainable basis (meaning, you can do this indefinitely; you never use timber better suited for other applications; and you leave enough forest untouched for other uses... wildlife, biodiversity, etc.). These are simple calculations which others have studied in depth. And this doesn't take into account the potential for sizable increases in the amount of biomass currently growing in these areas as a result of better forest management. But again, the caution here is that it must be done sustainably. If it's done using all-too-conventional forest management practices or, worse yet, NO management, the effects could be disastrous.
Your statement that "biomass fuels are, generally speaking, mechanisms for turning soil nutrients into atmospheric contaminants" is simply not supported by facts... unless you are talking about using firewood in a home wood stove (which is still a source of excessive pollution). Studies of existing commercial-sized biomass-to-energy facilities (and there are quite a few) clearly show no serious pollution problems. That issue was solved years ago. Perhaps you are talking about the release of CO2 from burning the biomass? That issue is also not seen as a major concern, as the regrowth of new biomass in those recently-harvested forests (and hence, sequestration of CO2) balances out this problem. I know you're not talking about potential releases from CE facilities, because no one could answer that yet.
Of course, I'm not expecting to "convert" your thinking or anyone else here. I'm simply trying to offer some detailed and fact-based information to address claims I've seen on this blog which seem to be more "agenda based" in nature or simply uninformed or incomplete.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:32 am
02 Jan 2008
And converting conservation land to biofuel production strips out cO2 stored for milenia. Wetlands and prairie converted to farmland.
That negates the so-called balance obtained with biomass fuel many times over. 1000 years of carbon sink destroyed? That makes claims of balance for biofuels fall.
How to make them sustainable? By using biogas from manure, then returning cellulosic material, ie. straw, wood chips, charcoal (from pyrolization energy production) infused with organic fertilzer from the biogas digestion process.. back to the soil. This living eco system stores carbon and produces enough excess solar conversion efficiency to produce sustainable power. kwhs for the grid (backup for solar and wind)plus cogebnerated heat from the biogas.
But the best way to make farms produce sustainable oil and fossil fuel replacing energy?
Big solar panels on farm buildings and huge wind machines out on the fields. that would make farms thrive economically and provide capital for the changeover to organic farming. Organic farming with renewably powered equipment would save huge amounts of oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:42 am
02 Jan 2008
Make sure subsidies are switched from energy companies and agribizz scams like corn ethanol and are made available to help fund these farm based renewable energy systems.
Encourage universtity extension programs to stress research and development of these policies on the state level. Fund these efforts through the state universities with federal funds, obtained from present agribizz subsidies.
Make organic agriculture and renewable energy go hand in hand as a way to protect our economic security, now threatened by oil war and ever rising energy prices. 5 dollar tractor fuel is coming. Will US farmers be ready? If they run their equipment on renewable energy they will be.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 4:24 am
02 Jan 2008
When you talk about putting solar panels on farm building and wind machines on the fields, I have to assume you live in a city. In my neck of the woods (northern Vermont), almost every wind project proposed in the state has been turned down. Why? No one wants to look at the things off in the distance... let alone up close on a farmer's field! And solar panels? Well, some day the economics of this will make sense, but not today. That is a simple fact.
More importantly, all the wind machines and solar panels placed into production today would have virtually no significant impact on the transportation sector... not for at least 15 years (some say more like 20-50 years). You simply can't ignore the existing infrastructure and transportation system we now have and wish it away. It just doesn't work like that.
It's time for folks like you to get real. I don't like what exists today any more than you do. But I can't ignore it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:44 am
02 Jan 2008
Well then, let's start here.
You make the argument that if supplies were curtailed from the Middle East, we'd simply be able to buy our oil elsewhere, as supply availability shifted. This is a seriously flawed and simplistic argument. Yes, oil at some price might be available elsewhere... though there are certainly no guarantees of that. But the bigger problem is that the shock of the shutdown of Middle Eastern oil would drive the price of oil so high that our economy would be seriously threatened.
I discussed two scenarios. The first one is that Middle Eastern interests could not radically affect our economy by simply selling to someone else because oil is fungible.
The second issue was that they would have to curtail production of oil to impact us. Note how you have confused the two issues, building a strawman on something I didn't say. I did not say that if the Middle East were to curtail production that it would not affect our economy. I said that by doing so they would hurt their own economy. But let me look at your strawman now that you have presented it. If the Middle East were to curtail production, they would disrupt the entire world economy, including their own, not just ours. The world is now flat, economically speaking. And as I said in the above post, if our country were to become as efficient as my family, the Middle East would have to find a way to increase the cost of oil 80% to make us spend more than we were spending less than two years ago.
THIS is the concern... pricing... not just availability. .
As I mentioned in my above post, price is the ONLY concern and there is no guarantee that cellulosic will be cheaper than oil. Availability (and its inverse--scarcity) and price are linked in a market without government distortion.
Next, you seem to be implying that converting the entire infrastructure of service stations over to something other than liquid fuel shouldn't be too difficult or expensive. You're saying that the argument that corn-based ethanol is helping to "prime the pump" for cellulosic ethanol is flawed. I'd like you to document why you think it would be fairly easy to convert the existing infrastructure from liquid fuel to some other type of transportation system. I can't seem to find that evidence anywhere.
This is your second strawman. I never implied that we should do that. Humanity has roughly half of its oil left. On average, the price will go up from now on. It will remain available for those who want to pay for it and since biofuels are more expensive and more environmentally destructive, I don't know why people would opt for biofuels instead. I suggest that people will simply find ways to use much less liquid fuel if government will get out of the way and stop trying to displace the gas burned in SUVs with biofuel. Gas stations of the future may only have two pumps instead of ten. If I owned a plug-in Prius I would visit a gas station only a few times a year in part because of other lifestyle choices I've made as well.
You then go on to infer that a substantial part of the argument for the existence of our current corn ethanol refineries is so they can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol when the time comes. Are you serious? I know of no expert who has put this forth. It would make no logistical, economic or technical sense and would not be viable.
This is your third strawman. I did not use the word substantial, and I did not say they were being built so they can produce cellulosic in the future. I pointed out to those who support corn ethanol under the auspice that it is creating the necessary infrastructure for a transition to cellulosic that you can't include corn ethanol refineries as part of that infrastructure, which leaves you with inexpensive and easily replaced rubber tubing in cars, trucks and gas stations. At least we agree on this: "It would make no logistical, economic or technical sense and would not be viable."
Next, you say that a free market would not, by its nature, need millions (or billions) of dollars of investment from the government into the development of new technology. What? Have you ever heard of the Internet? Or perhaps space travel? How about genetic research? I'm guessing there might be another... I don't know... few hundred instances in which government funding was the catalyst for new and useful technologies that, following a very risky development period, were taken over by the free market.
Holy cow, this is your fourth strawman. I never said that. This is what I said:
Research is cheap in comparison to the many billions spent propping up the corn ethanol industry for three decades. Once in a while research will uncover something consumers like and it takes off, like the Internet or the nano-phosphate lithium ion batteries that blow me and my bike around Seattle and power Dewalt tools.
Finally, you argue that there's a real possibility what will actually happen is that we'll turn our attention to importing ethanol from sugarcane-based producers in Latin America... leading, in turn, to destruction of the rainforests. Therefore, cellulosic ethanol, according to you, could all be just a scam.
How do you come up with this stuff?
No, no. The fact that consumers pay taxes to subsidize the ethanol blended into their gas and then also pay more for food as well, all as a result of government market distortion, is what makes biofuels (not cellulosic) look like a scam. The debates on cellulosic wait in the wings for the day it becomes economically viable, should that day ever arrive.
You have confused two separate issues again. The other issue is that an ethanol economy, without further government distortion, would seek the cheapest source of ethanol, which will probably be cane ethanol (producing almost five tons of sugar per acre with vast amounts of cheap rainforest and savana to grow it on while burning the bagasse for cogeneration of energy). It is easy to see how fueling America's vast fleet of cars with cane ethanol grown in South America would lead to massive destruction of biodiversity and carbon sinks just as our biodiesel importers are fueling the destruction of rainforests as I write.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:45 am
02 Jan 2008
Not in your back yards huh? Well I think we can find enough back yards on the prairie. Solar panels on roofs NIMBY too, eyesores, how so. This is where "folks like you" (dimbulb limboob?) lose everyone.
Wake up old timer, the winds of change are coming.
Excuses for status quo agribizz/government corruption and monopoly games are inoperable, post 9/!!. Oil fields are killing fields, kidnapping and torture too, thanks to bushco contractos.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:50 am
02 Jan 2008
So skip the wind farming where nut jobs object, plenty of solar and biogas energy to be had to make up for it while lawsuits eventually silence NIMBY pretenders. Most are simply anti-renewables, suddenly enviro conscious! Oooh the poor birds, cry the coal proponents. yikes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:41 am
02 Jan 2008
An OK answer is "I don't know much about R&D management, but I know research is good." If that's true, it's OK to say that, so I can stop asking about it"
You got it, I don't know much about R&D management, but I know research is good!
At first read, this statement [Feeding grain to chickens is no different than grinding it into flour and baking it into bread. Both methods consume energy to process raw grain into a more palatable food] is a total credibility-destroyer, but maybe I misunderstand...
Or better yet, maybe I was not very clear. I was not saying that it is not less efficient to feed grain to chickens (or even less efficient to feed it to cows) than it is to "consume it directly." I was pointing out that given the choice, most humans would rather not directly consume grain. We usually process it into something more palatable, like bread or cake or chickens or eggs. Not many people would accept laws that would make it illegal to process grain into animal products (meat, eggs and dairy). Having clarified my intent, maybe my credibility remains intact.
Finally, I don't know the numbers offhand, but it is a long complaint of developing countries that first-world agriculture subsidies (for food) end up generating surplusses and causing dumping of food, which usually damages local farmers there.
This is true, John. But once the world market has become dependent on a supply of grain from the US, suddenly removing it creates shortages. The cost of food is at a historic high right now. It is also true that given a few years, the market will adjust and other countries will begin to fill the void going into our gas tanks but that will not necessarily lower the cost of that food. Leakage is also a main problem from a carbon sink and biodiversity loss perspective. By diverting crops to cars you have to plow up more of the planet (see below):
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/admin/crayon2.JPG
Hence, when someone argues: CORN MUST BE DEDICATED TO FOOD they are (whether they realize it or not) saying ...
What consumes corn faster, John, a cow or a car? A car. Which is more energy efficient, a cow or a car? A cow. Which has the higher moral imperative, the human food chain or our fuel supply? IMHO, food, be it grain, fruit, vegetables, meat, eggs, or dairy. This is not to say I support corn as our major source of food. As you noted, it is only our major source of food because of government distortion of the markets and if you will go back and read all of my previous posts, including the OP, that is my biggest concern.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:30 am
02 Jan 2008
I have more important things to do with my time. Like continuing to focus my efforts in tangible, grounded ways to make sure the Earth and humanity remain viable for people like yourself.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:35 am
03 Jan 2008
I hope you will stick around Gristmill long enough to realize that while many of us here do have agendas (which are frequently the basis for lively discourse), at the same time almost without exception Grist contributors are open to learning from our fellows. And yes, this is indeed the place for those who, like yourself, are seeking "tangible, grounded ways" to ensure a sustainable future for our species on this planet. Despite our many differences of approach, I believe this is what we all share, or I too would be reluctant to spend my time here.
I will admit that Gristers are going to be a tough audience for biofuel enthusiasts. Critique of biofuels in this forum though is based not on prejudice or agenda but on their perceived shortcomings, which you and others are at liberty to correct with hard information to the contrary. Unsupported opinions however do not count as hard information, and no one can expect that incomplete arguments will be accepted without critical attention. In that vein, some comments on a couple of your recent points:
I have no reason to doubt your claim that CE is likely to be among the most labor intensive of energy production processes, but that still begs the question of whether energy production in any form is the highest and best use of the land and other resources of any particular rural community. Typically successful rural sustainability employment creation initiatives have focused, with very good reason, on value-added rather than commodity industries. Example: the Seagrove area of North Carolina has been home to a very robust community of craft potters since the 1930's - and still thriving. Small amounts of excellent local clay + much skilled and rewarding local labor = sound basis for a stable local economy. If you feel that rural CE development would not be more likely to follow the all-too-common resource extraction model which could have been employed at Seagrove - quarry all the clay, ship it to distant factories, close the quarry when it runs too deep to be economic, to hell with the community which had worked it - please tell us how. Commodity industry by the way would be defined as interchangeable product sold on the open market by price and availability, not by quality. Liquid fuels would seem to fit this description to a T - no one buys gasoline for its terroir.
Trees harvested for liquid fuel are indeed likely to be replaced with new plantings: unfortunately the fuel will be burned much more quickly (within a few months of harvest?) than the replacement plantings will come to maturity (10 - 40 years?). My earlier post commented on the necessity for balancing the rates of the two halves of the cycle, not just the ultimate volume of carbon emission/absorption.
I sense that your focus on CE is derived from a laudable desire to improve forestry practices in your particular neck of the woods, and though CE or something like it might become a part of that solution I think it's extremely unlikely that it will be as universally appropriate as you seem to hope. But prove me wrong: resolve these and other questions and I have no doubt you will find ample support on Gristmill for your tangible and grounded proposals.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:50 am
03 Jan 2008
Save oil. Save farmers money, they will pass on a portion of the savings in lower food costs.
That's government farm/energy policy that fights inflation. Without a stable, strong dollar workers and retirees get payed in worthless paper. That dollar buys half the food it bought just a few short years ago. And a third of the gasoline.
Remember what Russian penshioners are payed in. When your currency becomes the ruble, life expectancy drops precipitously. Social security debt problem...solved!
Fight energy, food, and fuel inflation, with renewable energy farm policy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 4:04 pm
05 Jan 2008
R&D management: OK, we won't go off into that, but can you say what sorts of things you would and wouldn't fund? I assume biofuels research would be zeroed, but what would you fund?
Can I assume you've spent substantial time living / working on farm(s), including some in mid-west (since that's where the biofuel action mostly is)? If so, can you say a little about farm size, crops grown, location, what sort of machinery was used, how far from a railhead?
Also, by any chance, have you spent much time in Amish country and how was your assessment of that?
At some point, it would be nice to move to a discussion of what a reasonably-sustainable future might look like, say in the canonical 2100, but at least some time after petroleum is ~gone.
The cow-vs-car example .... In the long run, there are a bunch of other tradeoffs that strike me as much more relevant, including quite possibly cow-vs-horse, for which we at least have historical precedent.
-John Mashey
Permalink