Get your No-Doz out
The neverending debate on corn ethanol continues 20
-
Posted 11:48 PM on 5 Dec 2007
by Biodiversivist -
Posted in
-
Read More About
My real name is Russ Finley. I live in Seattle, married with children. Suffice it to say that although I am trained and educated as an engineer, my passion is nature. I very much want my grandchildren to live on a planet where lions, tigers, and bears have not joined the long and growing list of creatures that used to be. In an attempt to minimize the workload on Grist editors responsible for turning my submissions into intelligible articles, I will also be posting on a seperate blog called Biodiversivist, which will contain articles in addition to those submitted to Grist.
Related Stories
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:51 am
06 Dec 2007
I'm no fan of biofuels as generally practiced, but they're already here and are supplying a small slice of our total energy usage, and I think we need to be proactive and deal with it. Questioning biofuels has been good to slow things down, so we can look at what the impacts are looking like. But as Brooke suggests, it's going to be way more productive to steer this ship in a more positive direction, instead of hollering for what we usually hear in Grist as a call for criminalization of the practice of making biofuel. The National Corn Board (or whatever they're called) and friends laugh notions like that right out of the beltway.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:43 am
06 Dec 2007
I'm OK with condescending remarks in a debate. They are a double-edged sword because although they tend to excite those who share one's point of view, they also tend to excite those who don't. One must also be willing to take it if one is going to dish it. For example, could any of the following (out of context) quotes from Brooke be considered condescending?
...not very sophisticated ... It seems to me you like to make 35K foot statements about things ...Oil is an amazing thing to support these days, especially on the Grist ...Oilies are very good at keeping the focus off them and on the alternatives. You are playing their fiddle nicely ...fantasy island (aka blog island) ...While ivory tower positions look good on the Gristmill and probably fire up the unplugged, this will be the only domain of the green movement if those positions don't become more based in political and economic reality ...I am accusing him of giving them a free pass ...You guys are like the WSJ ...your critique of ethanol in particular is extremely superficial ...Communities like this are increasingly marginalized, because they rarely know the score ...Until then, keep playing their fiddle ...My primary criticism of the community here is many of them seem to live in the abstract; in fact, they seem to indulge in these abstract, over simplified statements ...The uninformed will rise up in blogged anger when told about ethanol subsidies, but is the solution to oil dependence to isolate them and take them away ...Stop reading Gray Falcon and start doing basic analysis of the industry ...Wow. Seriously ...the advocacy community often cherishes the role of antagonist, even if it produces no discernable results ...I bet you live on a coastline somewhere ... sensationalistic, oversimplified rhetoric ...This "starving the poor" argument is even more ridiculous ...which "poor" person are you talking about ...the unfortunate consequence of pack syndrome ... am suspicious of their ability to reconsider biofuels ...Either way, I dont find the biofuels information here balanced or informed ... We cant break this juggernaut with puffs of smoke
Here Eric comes to your aid, not with withering oratory and debate, but by simply accusing my post and those of other Grist commenters of flaming:
Rather than feeling Grist chastised as a community, I thought the discussion attached to Tom Philpott's post in which Brooke's comments appreared was very useful and thoughtful. I don't blame him if he declines to join this particular flame war.
Flaming:
"Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others.
Enough said on a fellow Gristmill contributor's debate technique. Let me look at the substance of this particular comment.
I'm no fan of biofuels as generally practiced, but they're already here and are supplying a small slice of our total energy usage, and I think we need to be proactive and deal with it.
"Proactive:
descriptive of any event or stimulus or process that has an effect on events or stimuli or processes that occur subsequently; "proactive ...
(of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens."
A free press is the only thing keeping this country, or any democracy for that matter, free.
But as Brooke suggests, it's going to be way more productive to steer this ship in a more positive direction, instead of hollering...
We are steering it in a more positive direction. This hollering and screaming analogy you and Brooke are so fond of using serves the purpose of painting your opponents as raving madmen but has no bearing in reality.
... for what we usually hear in Grist as a call for criminalization of the practice of making biofuel. The National Corn Board (or whatever they're called) and friends laugh notions like that [the strawman that I have called biofuel production a criminal act] right out of the beltway.
I have also yet to see anyone at Grist call the production of biofuel a criminal act. Maybe I missed it. You are of course alluding to my occasional posting of the "crime against humanity" quote from the United Nations Food expert calling for an end to government mandates for them. On the other hand, observing that criminal acts are not that uncommon in our government, the threat of being accused of perpetuating one against humanity might well make some politicians uncomfortable.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:43 am
06 Dec 2007
Seems to me I said that Biofuel is the enemy of the human race a while back. (Going from David's oft remarks that coal is the enemy of the human race.) I'll stick to it, too.
This isn't just about money and mileage, and nice geeky things (as BioD well knows).
Eric, there are real people who will suffer from the rising food prices from the biofuel follies.
Lots of real people.
Biofuel advocates either ignore this issue or try to deny it. Much like global warming deniers (well, global warming is here, so we might as well live with, the NAM laughs global warming out of the beltway).
Most of the time, I really don't understand my fellow Americans.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:40 am
06 Dec 2007
This year the overall decline in stockpiles of all cereals will be about 53m tonnes--a very rough indication of by how much demand is outstripping supply. The increase in the amount of American maize going just to ethanol is about 30m tonnes. In other words, the demands of America's ethanol programme alone account for over half the world's unmet need for cereals. Without that programme, food prices would not be rising anything like as quickly as they have been.
...
In the longer run, plenty of new farmland could be ploughed up and many technological gains could be had. But much of the new land is in remote parts of Brazil, Russia, Kazakhstan, the Congo and Sudan: it would require big investments in roads and other infrastructure, which could take decades--and would often lead to the clearing of precious forest. Big gains could be had if genetically modified foods were brought into production or if new seed varieties were planted in Africa. But again, that will take time. Moreover, GM foods will not live up to their promise unless they shed the popular suspicion that dogs them, especially in Europe. And some of the new land--dry, marginal areas of Africa, Brazil and Kazakhstan--could be vulnerable to damage from global warming.
...
Among the losers from higher food prices are big importers. Japan, Mexico and Saudi Arabia will have to spend more to buy their food. Perhaps they can afford it. More worryingly, some of the poorest places in Asia (Bangladesh and Nepal) and Africa (Benin and Niger) also face higher food bills. Developing countries as a whole will spend over $50 billion importing cereals this year, 10% more than last.
Rising prices will also hurt the most vulnerable of all. The World Food Programme, the main provider of emergency food aid, says the cost of its operations has increased by more than half in the past five years and will rise by another third in the next two. Food-aid flows have fallen to their lowest level since 1973.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:41 am
06 Dec 2007
<<
... If't be so,
For Banquo's issue have I filed my mind;
For them the gracious Duncan have I murdered;
Put rancors in the vessel of my peace
Only for them, and mine eternal jewel
Given to the common enemy of man
To make them kings -- the seeds of Banquo kings.
Rather than so, come, Fate, into the list,
And champion me to th' utterance! ...
>>
And so he is resolved now to murder Banquo too. "Mine eternal jewel" is his immortal soul; "the common enemy of man" is Satan, aka the Devil.
"Coal is the enemy of the human race" is indeed frequently employed by DR, but we may wonder if it is original with him. Anyway, it looks traceable to Shakespeare, whether directly or obliquely.
Those Gristmill readers who are fond of exploring the archives might want to look up comments by our excellent correspondent Birdboy, who wrote a couple of poems on Coal as a diabolical figure, an evil subterranean giant. Birdboy seems sadly to have had to leave our company for now.
It should be obvious, dear Patrick, that none of that undercuts your own application of "common enemy of man." Certainly the biofuels-related conspiracy of money, the ever-increasing appetite for reliable energy sources, contributions to GHG emissions and GW, the exploitation of poor countries and the neglect of the world's hungry, looks plenty Satanic to me.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 6:43 am
06 Dec 2007
More papers produced for the Bali climate talks can be accessed at the Biofuelwatch website:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/background.php
Biofuelwatch campaigns against the use of bioenergy from unsustainable sources, i.e. biofuels linked to accelerated climate change, deforestation, bio-diversity losses, human rights abuses, including the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations, water and soil degradation, loss of food sovereignty and food security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Five reasons why agrofuels undermine climate justice:
The South fuels the North. Most agrofuel expansion is planned in the global South, but most
of the demand comes from the global North. Tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of
hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa are to be converted to monocultures, largely to
grow fuel for car drivers in the North.
Harming food security and food sovereignty. The UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to
Food has called biofuel production a `crime against humanity' because it displaces food
production, drives up food prices and threatens the food security of large numbers of poor
people.
Land grab and refugees. The Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has
warned that up to 60 million indigenous peoples are at risk of becoming `biofuel refugees'.
Policies imposed by Northern governments. The agrofuel market is being driven by
government targets and obligations in the US, Europe and elsewhere, which have been
imposed without taking account of the views of communities in the global South, including
indigenous peoples, who are being directly affected by those decisions. Now, `standards' and
`certification' are being discussed in a similar undemocratic and unrepresentative way.
Ecological devastation. Large-scale agrofuels mean faster global warming, more
deforestation, freshwater depletion, biodiversity losses and soil degradation. They also mean
more poisoning from agro-chemicals. Communities in the global South and indigenous
peoples are the first to bear the brunt of climate change and environmental destruction.
We need real and just solutions to climate change - deep cuts in fossil fuel burning
and in the consumption of energy, forest products and agricultural commodities in the
global North. Economies based on economic growth are unsustainable. We also need
large-scale transfer of funding from unsustainable energy sources like fossil fuels and
agrofuels to truly sustainable ones such as solar and wind power.
Read "Biofuels - A new threat to climate and climate justice" in its entirety here:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/bali_leaflet.pdf
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:13 am
06 Dec 2007
Biodiversivist/Russ: my argument continues to be that we can't wish the burgeoning biofuels complex away (another straw man?) - there's so much money and legislators behind it - I see putting energy into slowing the buildout of the boondoggle, while criminalizing (that word again) palm oil, and advocating and winning real sustainability standards for feedstocks as an important and worthy project. These bio-factories already in production can use feedstocks that are created in the right way.
Anyhoo, my 2 cents again. Enjoyed the hand-drawn graph, btw. Brought a much-needed homey style to Gristmill.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:58 am
06 Dec 2007
If anything, our national defense subsidy for keeping the oil flowing from the gulf applies equally to keeping ethanol (and gas) guzzlers on the road.
Every acre diverted from soybeans to corn production for ethanol has the potential of destroying another acre of Amazon rain forest.
We ain't just got leakage, we got ourselves a damn hemorrhage and are treating ourselves with blood thinner!
The first time we have a big corn crop failure in the Midwest, the corn ethanol industry is going to get its chain jerked, big time! Until then we'll have to keep asking those irritating questions of them and hope the economy applies some needed limits.
Permalink
elbarto Posted 8:27 am
06 Dec 2007
Biofuels are far worse than coal, as others have posted they steal food from the mouths of the poor to put fuel in the tanks of the rich.
I've posted before that biofuel is 30-100 times LESS efficient (100 more likely) at converting sunlight into useful energy when compared to solar thermal power generation: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/23/10445/828/#17 ...
The best location for solar power generation is hot deserts where food doesn't grow, the best location for biofuels are also the best locations for food crops.
There is no doubt that little brown people will starve so fat rich white people can keep on taking 2 tonnes of metal with them EVERYWHERE THEY GO.
Biofuel is murder.
Permalink
opit Posted 9:13 am
06 Dec 2007
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_ergosphere_arch ...
opit
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:29 pm
06 Dec 2007
Thinking it is useful to provide a perspective from outside the US, here are a coupla links, FWIW.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/07/content_630 ...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/07/content_608 ...
Personally, I am against biofuels.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:41 am
07 Dec 2007
A subsidy of 2,700 yuan ($365) for each hectare of crops grown for biofuels is quite significant -- more than 10 times the per-hectare subsidy provided until recently for growing energy crops in the EU.
On top of that, projects "that are up to industrial standards" would receive subsidies worth from 20 percent to 40 percent of the total investment. Yet despite this largess, one builder of biofuel plants in China claims in the article that "Government subsidies are a small proportion of the total investment of a bio-diesel project ... ." Sounds as if the Chinese biofuel industry has been learning quickly from its counterparts in the occidental world.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:36 am
08 Dec 2007
I'll be using that quote.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 12:30 am
11 Dec 2007
That is quite a post, and there is no way to respond to all that (alot of it is condescending, personal baloney). I will pick two, for the sake of our poor readers ... and, as I said before, we've reached the point of diminished returns here ...
RISK PREMIUMS
Just type "crude oil risk premium" into google and you will find alot. Citations are sometimes helpful, but handpicked citations can be misleading. So check it out yourself.
Just two basic ones about Risk Premiums ...
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/oilgas/archive/060721.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a ...
CITATIONS AND STUDIES
You seem to have this belief that because you paste links into a post it is a vastly more credible post. But not if you link to low quality work, or the link is misleading. Take, for example, your repeated "citation" of that made-at-home anti-biodiesel page, which references the UC-Berkeley LCFS study to support the argument that some models do not account for enough upstream inputs (i.e. fertilizer). We agree on this. But your author of this page seems to forget that UC-Berkeley, while identifying that the LEM model takes more inputs into account, then chooses NOT to use the LEM model because of its uncertainties, lack of transparency and lack of peer review. It goes on to choose a CA modified GREET model, which shows significant GHG benefits for many types of corn ethanol production.
Did you read the report or are you cherry-picking information intentionally?
All of this noise about horrendous ways to produce biofuels, and the potential to make matters worse with biofuels, is good conversation. But at some point the conversation needs to move toward how to effectively avoid that outcome. There are ways. But many here (not all) seem totally uninterested.
Good luck to you. Sorry I did not respond to all that stuff. It's just that when I checked a few citations, and saw such blatant incongruities, I lost faith in the rest of the post.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:19 am
11 Dec 2007
Condescending is a matter of definition, as is baloney. Which do you want to be the pot or the kettle?
RISK PREMIUMS
Just type "crude oil risk premium" into google and you will find alot. Citations are sometimes helpful, but handpicked citations can be misleading. So check it out yourself. Just two basic ones about Risk Premiums ...
The last time you sent me somewhere to find support for corn ethanol (the Union of Concerned Scientists) I had to find the link myself and what I found when I finally got there is that they do not support corn ethanol in any way shape or form. In one of your posts you tell us that "risk premiums" add at least 20% to the cost of oil:
Heck, futures market experts now recognize that the price of oil now includes a "risk premium" of at least 20%. Imagine the risk premium if our military didn't guard all the pipelines, shipping lanes, etc. for these billion dollar multi-national companies?
I asked you for a link to verify that 20%. The links you sent don't mention a 20% number, but even if they did, it would apply to the wholesale price of gasoline in all countries, not just ours. So, let's take a look at these links:
Effect on Consumer Prices
An oil producer can choose to sell its oil today or hold it for delivery under a futures contract. When futures contract prices increase by more than the producer's holding cost, the producer will make more money storing the product.
Because building crude oil inventories may reduce the current supply of gasoline in relation to demand, today's rising oil futures prices can translate into higher gasoline prices in the short-term. Looking forward, though, this means more crude oil supply will be available in the future, thereby reducing gasoline pump prices below the levels we otherwise would see.
[Mexico] halted about 600,000 barrels a day of output as a storm in the Gulf of Mexico closed platforms, ... threats to Middle Eastern output from political tensions have attracted speculative buyers.
Neither link says anything to refute my position that if government subsidies to oil companies were to be successfully eliminated (as we would all very much like to see) that the price of gasoline at the pump would not spike (increase significantly). They just describe how weather and geopolitics influence speculative buying.
You have built yourself a strawman. I have never denied the existence of risk premiums. Risk premiums affect the price of all commodities. Markets are essentially giant gambling casinos. Corn is also a commodity and it is also subject to major price swings, especially due to weather. Corn ethanol production is about to max out due to rising land and food costs. Other countries around the world are already shipping millions of gallons of biofuels to our shores. Cane ethanol will crush corn ethanol when our politicians inevitably remove the tariff against it and at that point you can kiss the Cerrado and Amazon goodbye.
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/ethanolenergy.jpg
One day the gamblers will have to take into account the geopolitics of biofuels as well. Risk premiums will continue to exist and will continue to apply to biofuels as well as oil. However, biofuel supplies are much more dependent on weather than oil is and as global warming effects take hold you can expect much more crop disruption.
CITATIONS AND STUDIES
You seem to have this belief that because you paste links into a post it is a vastly more credible post.
First, I'm not real big on debating people's beliefs. Try debating a creationist some time. You will find that their beliefs are immune to refutation because their beliefs (ideas accepted as reality without evidence) trump rational debate, in their minds. All things being equal, a post with a dozen links to credible sources is vastly more credible than one that simply expresses somebody's unsubstantiated beliefs.
But not if you link to low quality work, or the link is misleading. Take, for example, your repeated "citation" of that made-at-home anti-biodiesel page,
Well, now I'm all offended. I built that low quality and misleading site in my spare time. It's nothing more than an online reference sheet to point to during debates so arguments and sources don't have to be retyped with every discussion. Most people know better than to judge a book by its cover. Would you find my site less misleading and of higher quality if I were to pretty it up with some pictures pulled off the Internet as was done by whoever you hired to do your website? Consider it done. I'll just assimilate your critique, as I have done with dozens of other critiques to make the site that much more photon torpedo resistant Think of me as the Borg collective. Check back sometime for the dazzling graphics I'll be adding to mollify those who do judge books by their covers.
But your author of this page seems to forget that UC-Berkeley, while identifying that the LEM model takes more inputs into account, then chooses NOT to use the LEM model because of its uncertainties, lack of transparency and lack of peer review. It goes on to choose a CA modified GREET model, which shows significant GHG benefits for many types of corn ethanol production. Did you read the report or are you cherry-picking information intentionally?
What report? You failed as usual to give us a link to the Webpage you are talking about. I'm forced once again to take a guess and my guess this time is this one:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/page3.html
Which, by the way, makes no mention of any study from UC-Berkeley (which, not surprisingly, you also failed to give us a link to) and also makes no attempt "to support the argument that some models do not account for enough upstream inputs (i.e. fertilizer)." Thanks (in part) to your lack of links, I'm at a loss as to what you are talking about. Let me reiterate. The study found in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics done by the international team of researchers including a Nobel laureate discovered higher than realized levels of nitrous oxide associated with various biofuel crops. It is simply information that was not known before and therefore not incorporated in earlier studies. Hopefully, that addresses whatever you are talking about above.
All of this noise about horrendous ways to produce biofuels, and the potential to make matters worse with biofuels, is good conversation.
Noise? "Potential" to make matters worse? First, get the concept called leakage in your mind and hold it there while you take a look at this video. This is not potential you see there, it is today's reality.
But at some point the conversation needs to move toward how to. There are ways. But many here (not all) seem totally uninterested.
By that you mean uninterested in finding ways to make the most inefficient source of biofuel on the planet less environmentally destructive. In other words, corn ethanol is environmentally destructive but you continue to reject the idea that to "effectively avoid that outcome" we should simply stop government subsidization of it so that it can wither on the vine.
Good luck to you. Sorry I did not respond to all that stuff. It's just that when I checked a few citations, and saw such blatant incongruities, I lost faith in the rest of the post.
Riiiight ... "checked citations, blatant incongruities, lost faith." That's it. I'm calling BS!
Good luck to you too.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:40 am
11 Dec 2007
See: "Implications of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol" in http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094
When the public gets blindsided by ethanol's growing take there will be a lot of "out of order" signs on the E85 pumps.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:44 am
11 Dec 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094/#11 ...
Talk about risk premiums!
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:30 am
11 Dec 2007
Thanks for reading my comments.
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 11:46 am
11 Dec 2007
The reference I made was indeed to your biodiesel page ... and the text reference was ...
From this study: "Not all LCA models treat emissions the same, even when they are included. For instance, GREET does not include N2O emissions from atmospheric nitrogen fixed by soybeans, while LEM does, contributing to an almost order-of-magnitude greater estimate of GWI for soybean biodiesel."
Your reference links to this study ...
http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/UC-1000 ...
... I believe it is worth mentioning that this study then chooses not to adopt the model you highlight, and chooses one that happens to conclude that corn ethanol has GHG benefits in many common scenarios (see page 13 of the study).
This is one of the most respected energy analysis groups in the country. UC-B acknowledges that we must improve our understanding of upstream impacts and improve GREET, but in my opinion, the citation is misleading ... or at least incomplete.
On the risk premium side, Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates testified before Congress in 2006 that the risk premium was around $15 (crude was between 60-70/brl). In the last year+ the risks and prices have grown. I do not have an electronic link to his testimony but I am sure there is one if you are interested.
I do not understand your criticism of my risk premium reference (as strawman). The original argument was that protecting and subsidizing the costs of getting oil to market have little effect on price because it's all about the price of crude. I countered that even the perception of risk changes the price of crude. So if that's the case, and the removal of govt protections increased volatility in the crude oil marketplace, then it seems that retail price will be implicated.
I hope that helps.
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 12:07 pm
11 Dec 2007
One interesting article is here ...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/May07SpecialIssue/Feat ...
... I am sure there are plenty more on both sides of the debate.
Permalink