Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success 10 Posted 1 day, 9 hours ago
What to make of the new climate poll 16 Posted 1 day, 19 hours ago
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’? 7 Posted 2 days, 2 hours ago
NRDC vs. me
The Natural Resources Defense Council evidently remains pretty sanguine about biofuels as a "solution to energy dependence and global warming."
Over on the group's Switchboard blog, senior policy analyst Nathanael Greene recently took exception to some unkind words of mine on cellulosic ethanol. I responded in the comments section. I hope a robust debate follows.
Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.
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.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Threaded
JMG Posted 6:58 am
31 Mar 2008
The bottom line is that NRDC and other ethanomaniacs are kidding themselves if they think we can stay married to the infernal combustion engine (and have hundreds of thousands more shack up with one every year) and NOT reach coal-to-liquids before long.
In other words, anyone pushing agrofuels is pushing coal-to-liquids, sooner or later -- because if we squander all the available energy here at Peak trying to make fuels out of low-energy-intensity crops, just imagine what we'll do once we're down the other side of peak oil a few years and we still haven't managed to limit the spread of the auto, tractor trailer, and jet airplane. We'll turn to coal, period.
If you can't kick cigarettes (liquid fuels) now when you're smoking a little more than a "pack a day" (21 million barrels of oil used in the US daily), what makes you think you can kick it later when you're daily use has climbed and you've created a whole industry around the notion that we can keep carburbia going??
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:52 pm
31 Mar 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics
It's kind of schizophrenic how NRDC says Coal-to-Liquids is bad, but at the same time takes up a cheerleader role for Cellulosics.
When those are basically the same thing.
_
It's time for NRDC to stop kidding themselves that a supplyside approach is the answer to our climate/oil problems.
_
Hell, it's time for NRDC to realize that photosynthesis is Pathetic! when it comes to turning solar energy into motive energy.
Thus, the solar energy-to-ethanol conversion efficiency is 0.13%."
For comparison, the solar-to-electricity conversion efficiency of a Stirling dish is around 30%. Thus it takes 230 times as much land to produce energy in the form of sugar cane ethanol as it does to produce it in the form of electricity.
Of course, ethanol energy cannot be used as efficiently as electrical energy to power transportation. That factor of 230 could easily become two or four times greater if that is factored in.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20902939&postID=4397606035214891954
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:50 pm
31 Mar 2008
"I would however disagree that it's well documented that all biofuels are worse for the climate than oil"
Note that the commenter never used the word "all." Greene added that word to build a strawman he could knock down. It has been well documented that all biofuels being produced in commercial quantities are worse for oil except those made from waste grease, and to be honest with you, if someone were to study waste grease, they would probably find that the usurpation of that recyclable source by biofuels is forcing other users of that waste grease to turn to virgin vegetable oils.
The New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofue ...
Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975, ...
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/110636
Science magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/317/5840/902.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1151861v1.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1152747v1.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5857/1721b.pdf
The Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/389/2008/acp-8-389-2008. ...
The Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976
Journal of Conservation Biology: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1004-biodiesel.html
Cellulosic ethanol does not exist in commercial format. Using a biofuel that does not exist (that has never been proven economically or environmentally viable) to support mandates and subsidization of biofuels is disingenuous. Here are a couple of common sense graphics for those without subscriptions to Science:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/bob.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/admin/crayon2.JPG
And then there is this :
"... we cannot afford to just say no [to biofuel mandates and subsidization]."
That's an unsubstantiated opinion. The above links argue that we cannot afford to let this continue. The NRDC's embrace of what has proven to be an unprecedented environmental and food debacle, combined with ongoing efforts to sugarcoat this gaff in judgement in the face of so much science is ... well, pick you own word.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:23 pm
31 Mar 2008
That was sort of in opposition to George W. Bush's state-of-the-union-address thing about hydrogen-fueled cars. And Al Gore was certainly not inscribing anything in granite.
It is rather sweet to see our own Tom Philpott and Ron Steenblik cavorting in another website.
And as for JMG, I always love his school-just-let-out sense of sheer fun and delight: "If you can't kick cigarettes," and "keeping carburbia going," and so forth.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:55 am
01 Apr 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:11 pm
01 Apr 2008
I appreciate the work that NRDC does,
But I really wish NRDC's focus for GlobalWarming/PeakOil was on Results, rather than Specific Methods.
BioFuels, Hydrogen, are Carbon Capture are largely indefensible.
And seem to utterly replace a focus on things like Fuel Economy, Electrification, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro, Grid Transmission, and Electricity Storage.
Even the blunt focus on "Energy Independence" seems to force Global Warming to be percieved as a small secondary concern.
(Much less Deforrestation, or Ocean Acidification)
_
Anyways, onto my critique:
Dr. Pimentel has made a name for himself by repeating old data that is out of line with the peer-reviewed literature. (Check out Alex Farrell's EBAMM and the supporting materials from the related Science article to get a sense of where Pimentel's data an outlier.) The only news here is that Pimentel seems to have finally acknowledged that corn ethanol has a positive return of fossil fuel investment.
Who cares about "Positive Energy Return"?
Coal-to-Liquids has a Positive Energy Return.
Tar-Sands has a Positive Energy Return.
Whats important is Greenhouse emissions.
And the real news is that Alex Farrell NOW agrees that Corn Ethanol is worse than liquid coal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/23/more ...
And he points out that land-use is not nearly covered enough in these sorts of policy discussions. (Or his previous models)
http://greyfalcon.net/landuse.pdf
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-corn-ethanol- ...
_
Additionally, Coskata's CEO, now admits that there is absolutely no difference between the technology used for coal-to-liquids, and cellulosic ethanol.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.pdf
And considering there's not going to be enough raw biomass to support any meaningful cellulosic process.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/perlack
What you'd be building is gigantic 30 year loan projects which have no choice but to file for bankrupcy, or produce liquid coal.
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
_
Now certainly, we could pray that Algae will come to the rescue, and for that, I say good luck.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
http://greyfalcon.net/algae
But even if they figured that out, it'd still be kneecapped by a scarcity of phosporous.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae5
Considering there's more heat in all the $1 bills invested in algae, than the algae itself;
I'd say thats a rather weak assumption to base the fate of the world on.
_
When it all comes down to it, photosynthesis is a big loser when it comes to converting solar energy into a liquid fuel.
When you include the ineffeciencies of combustion engines, we're looking at nearly a 1000-to-1 difference in the conversion of solar energy into torque.
(Compared to SolarThermal + Electric Cars)
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
_
And while we're at it Smog:
Ozone makes Smog
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/ ...
N2O makes Smog
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/researchers-f-1.h ...
Smog Melts the Artic
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/tr ...
And ethanol has since been removed as federal blending requirements due to a lawsuit filed by California over concerns about Smog.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/news-corn0611.html
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/May/Day-08/a4252 ...
_
And back onto your comment about Farrell's study, and "peer review":
Of the four articles that showed a positive net energy for ethanol in Farrells 2006 Science article, three were not peer reviewed (i.e. the Ones by the USDA/DOE). The only positive peer-reviewed article (Dias De Oliveira, 2005) states "The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option" and the "environmental impacts outweigh its benefits". Dias De Oliveria concluded there'd be a tremendous loss of biodiversity, and if all vehicles ran on E85 and their numbers grew by 4% per year, by 2048, the entire country, except for cities, would be covered with corn.
http://culturechange.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_conten ...
Could you perhaps do us a favor, and assume that studies by the USDA/DOE/Khosla don't exist.
And then base your policy rhetoric on that?
Or at very least admit that conventional biofuels do significantly more harm than good.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:38 pm
01 Apr 2008
What kills me is how these guys continue to poo poo the latest science when there was no real science to support them from the start. The DOE and USDA started this biodiesel debacle with their famous report showing soy biodiesel to be 78% carbon neutral. This whole mess has been largely propagated by government bureaucrats in scientist's clothing. Oops, forgot to include land displacement effects. Snap!
And you are right. The energy balance of corn ethanol has little to do with anything. The government supported it for the decades when it was assumed to be energy negative (before the energy credit for corn mash was concieved of a few years back).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:39 pm
01 Apr 2008
That's wonderful, and I imagine true!
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:42 pm
01 Apr 2008
Anyways, that blog doesn't entirely dump on Algae.
It does say that it can be economical.
http://algae-thermodynamics.blogspot.com/2008/03/algae-op ...
Just not viable due to the phosphorous scarcity.
http://algae-thermodynamics.blogspot.com/2008/02/peak-pho ...
And oh yeah, looks like the inventor of GreenFuels quit the company, and left the country.
http://algae-thermodynamics.blogspot.com/2008/03/berzin-b ...
_
It's a rather nice blog. Just thought I was citing it too much in one blog post ;D
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:03 pm
01 Apr 2008
Updated. Thanks.
_
But yeah, frankly I'm surprised NRDC hasn't backed off to atleast "Well conventional may be horrible, but maybe biomass/algae is okay!!!"
I still think thats wrong, but atleast the evidence against it isn't so entirely unanimous yet.
_
Heh, the other issue in that line of reasoning.
Lets say Corn ethanol gets removed from the RFS requirement.
Even if all of those Cellulosic Ethanol plants come online, what are the chances of meeting the RFS if that happens?
_
And as for holding back, I didn't think Nathaneel needed to see this issue just yet. What I posted already was a bit much to swallow.
http://www.worldpress.org/print_article.cfm?article_id=29 ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6266712.stm
http://valleywag.com/373570/vinod-khoslas-brazilian-ethan ...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jeHsuoT1eKJDwq3l2kU9Gq ...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0309-08.htm
There's a reason Brazilian Ethanol is cheap. And it's not pretty.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:20 pm
01 Apr 2008
EU Commission's Joint Research Centre 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/leaked-jrc-work.h ...
UK Royal Society - John Pickett 2008
http://www.celsias.com/2008/01/15/biofuels-can-do-more-da ...
Dutch Report to European Parliament Recommends Reconsidering 10% Biofuels Target for Transport Sector
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/dutch-report-to.h ...
And a few others
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/for-europe-a-se.h ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/uk-transport-se.h ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/uk-environmenta.h ...
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:13 pm
01 Apr 2008
Proof: in the very next post to the one at issue here, he is discussing a new venture by an oil company to try and work around the failings of water-absorbing alcohol fuels. He writes this astounding statement:
"Second, we need to resist any calls to hold off on developing ethanol infrastructure while oil companies and startups work on these new molecules. The threat of having to invest in this infrastructure is one of main reasons that most oil companies will consider real investments in the biofuels sector.
This is after admitting in his bio that
I have just enough science, engineering, and economics to be dangerous and use this training to translate the cutting edge energy technology developments into policy recommendations.
I really can't add to that. I think he has described himself perfectly, and the only question is why people don't recognize that NRDC (like the Institute for Local Self-Reliance before it) has sold out to the agrofuels lobby.
That "Switchboard" shows that we really need to understand what NRDC has become. How about
NRDC
= Not really defending conservation
= Naturally Republican, donning cover
= Natives restless, devour capital
= Never rest, defend carburbia!
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
richard schumacher Posted 11:29 pm
01 Apr 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/los-alamos-deve.h ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:52 am
02 Apr 2008
will moot the biofuels debate. See Los Alamos Labs project "GREEN FREEDOM".
Lol, thats H2Car program all over again with a new label.
http://greyfalcon.net/h2car
This time of course, instead of trillions of dollars of solar panels, it's trillions of dollars of nuclear power plants.
See, different!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:57 am
02 Apr 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:31 am
02 Apr 2008
March 29, 2008 - Chief UK scientist revolts over biofuel legislation
Could biofuels do more damage to the climate than the fossil fuels they replace? That's the fear casting doubt on the wisdom of a law that from next month will require a certain proportion of vehicle fuel to come from biological sources.
On Monday, Bob Watson, chief scientist at the UK's Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, called into question the idea of switching to biofuels. This follows the publication of studies showing that more carbon is emitted in producing some biofuels than is saved by burning them in place of fossil fuels. Former UK chief scientist David King also denounced biofuels that displace food crops and tropical rainforests.
The UK government is awaiting a report in June from its Renewable Fuels Agency before considering a change in policy. In the meantime, the UK must comply with European legislation. That means from 15 April, fuel suppliers must ensure that biofuels account for at least 2.5 per cent fuel in the pumps, rising to 10 per cent by 2020.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:11 am
02 Apr 2008
Nice one DrX:
"...living soil and plants that removed CO2 and sequestered it, before chemical ag left it an inert chemical growing media."
No translation needed.
I can only imagine that Greene is working up some kind of rebuttal. Question is, which blog will air it?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:03 pm
03 Apr 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/germany-cancels.h ...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:25 pm
03 Apr 2008
how can the eternal unbegotten God have a mother?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:51 pm
03 Apr 2008
I've discovered triple GHG savings from biodigestion and organic ag. Replacing fossil and mined fertilizer, big GHG cuts. Reviving the carbon sink activity of soil, big GHG sucked out of the atmosphere and stored. Preventing manure and chemical fertilizer run off, big savings of methane, super GHG, released from wetlands.
Don't burn the biomass, save the biomass! (dan akroyd/julia childe voice) Put it in the biodigestor.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ngreene Posted 3:54 am
04 Apr 2008
Cheers,
N-
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 pm
04 Apr 2008
The thing is that if a plugin covers the average daily trip length between charging opportunities(about 21 miles I believe), and most do go 40 to 60 miles on plugin power alone, then the liquid fuel savings are more like 80 or even 90%.
As battery technology gets better that range can be 100 miles or more, then the savings goes up over 90%. With those kinds of reductions oil will last for a few decades. And GHG reductions will cure the climate disaster.
This would be set to kick in over a couple of decades, of course no total solution will happen overnight. Cellulosic ethanol would take years to roll out too, according to recent studies.
In 15 or 20 years as batteries approach the energy density of liquid fuel (even 1/5 the density would be equal to liquid fuel burned at 14% in a gas guzzling internal combustion engine, since electric motors are 5 times that efficent), and charge tmes drop to 5 to 10 minutes, no liquid fuel will be needed.
Any molecule that serves as liquid fuel will do, that's true enough, but it has to actually be carbon neutral to be part of the solution to gHG disaster. Ethanol from cellulose, sugar cane, or corn is not carbon neutral. Sorry.
Join us and come on in for the big win Nathanial. And bring NRDC with you. Plugin hybrids plugged into a renewable smart grid is the way to go.
I'm putting this over on your blog too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
grenergy Posted 4:31 pm
30 Jul 2008
More importantly, biofuels are an emerging technology that are still being refined. While it is true that corn grain ethanol is not sustainable, cellulosic ethanol certainly can be. Indeed, some of the hecklers point out that biofuels aren't C neutral. That is correct--but for the wrong reasons. Cellulosic biofuels made from perennial grasses can store carbon in the soil, resulting in a net sink for carbon. Yes that's right, it's not carbon neutral, if done right it is MUCH better and actually becomes a sink for carbon. If a mix of native perennial grasses are used (a la Tilman et al) than essentially our fuel supply results in the restoration of the tall grass prairies. If not done on land that is currently supporting food crops, there are none of Searchinger's indirect emissions. Moreover, I reproduced Searchinger's results, and was astounded at how simplistic the calculation was, laden with assumptions that are likely to not be true. However, Searchinger's article was valuable because it pointed out, correctly, that not all biofuels are good biofuels. But there are good biofuels.
It is possible to integrate energy cropping systems with food crops so that the same unit of land will produce food and fuel. And no, that is not just using corn stover or wheat residues. It is an entirely new cropping regime. This side steps the land sufficiency issue, as well as the food vs. fuel issue. It is also possible to use wastes, other than corn stover or wheat, and convert them into biofuels. Hundreds of millions tons worth of waste streams (even after one has subtracted out the crop residues).
The challenge is sorting the good and the bad, and rejecting those methods that will not result in sustainable fuels. Lumping the good with the bad and throwing it all out is shortsighted and foolish. If 8 out of 10 ways of making EtOH are unsustainable, but 2 out of 10 will work, and those 2 out of 10 can still be on a scale sufficient to replace gasoline, then those 2 approaches are the paths we need to embark upon. Replacing gasoline with clean burning fuels that increase our system's efficiency without increasing food prices or running out of land, while growing green American jobs, eliminating oil imports, helps balance our budget, and reduces the trade deficit seems like a sustainable option to me. Strip mining more coal, blowing up entire mountains, are making liquid fuels out the coal that have greenhouse gas emissions that are significantly greater than gasoline (if one accounts for land conversion C and forest losses) seems like a very POOR idea to me.
All I read here are tired old arguments that extrapolate an unsustainable current situation, and surprise, reach an unsustainable future. Many, if not all of these rants have been disproven by current research, are hashings and rehashings that contribute nothing new and instead of saying something innovative, creative, and substantively positive, rely on attacks and mudslinging. Who sounds republican now? For the record, by the way, I am a registered and proud green.
Cellulosic EtOH = coal? Ridiculous.
We'll turn to coal period? Equally ridiculous.
If we always drive with the low beams on, we'll never see what is possible if we had turned on the high beams.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:42 pm
30 Jul 2008
Prairie soil was 20 to 30 feet thick, soil stored carbon. Wetland peat bogs were even thicker, storing more carbon. Coral reefs stored carbon as calcium carbonate made by the coral.
Fires were started by lightning, burning biomass and releasing carbon as CO2. Methane was released from bogs.
Some processes stored carbon, some gave off carbon. It stable climatic periods carbon was balanced, as much was released as was absorbed.
Then combustion and chemical ag brought on by the human industrial age statred increasing carbon in the atmosphere and depleting stored carbon, stored in soil and wetlands and the living ecosystem.
In order to turn this around we need to restore the sequestration effect of the soil. As well as putting a halt to combustion, fertilizer run off, and chemical ag that is putting carbon into the atmosphere.
To restore the soil we need to add all the biomass we can back into the soil in a way that does not produce GHG. Liquid fuel from biomass robs that carbon by burnig it and sending it into the atmosphere.
Biomass combustion as a solid or liquid fuel is not carbon neutral, it increases carbon in the atmosphere, robbing it from the soil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
grenergy Posted 3:09 am
31 Jul 2008
I agree we need to manage soil C, and firmly believe some energy cropping systems can do this, others can't. But biomass to liquid does not inherently preclude soil C storage, indeed, soil C storage becomes an important C sink for these fuels. Searchinger didn't include this, and he assumed that all energy crops will displace food production bc they will be grown on existing ag land. It is possible to co-produce food and fuel, or grow crops on non-ag land; either way we avoid Searchinger's indirect land use change emissions that are created when our decrease in food production is made up elsewhere in the world.
The result is potentially carbon negative (soil C storage) to very low carbon fuels (waste streams) on a scale sufficient to replace gasoline. I agree we need to carefully manage our already depleted soils, mixtures of no-till native perennial grasses could prove to be one such method, these cropping systems result in soil C 240x greater than savings from emissions, and potentially, carbon negative fuels.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:17 am
31 Jul 2008
Why do it if there is no GHG benefit over oil? Why destroy natural carbon sink activity when we could use plugin hybrids running on renewable electricity instead.
With the 80 or 90% reduction in oil use that plugin hybrids would cause, thetre is no domestic shortage. And even that could be met with biogas/natural gas. That is better than the endless pork barrel boondoggle and land eevestation of fuel farming.
Natural prairie grass and dead wood and brush that is harvested to head off fires, should be used for biogas and organic fertilizer production, not burned as solid or liquid fuel.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
grenergy Posted 11:02 am
31 Jul 2008
If Searchinger's indirect land use change emissions are avoided (and they can be), there are vast greenhouse gas benefits in cellulosic EtOH relative to gasoline; to the point that if done correctly these fuel systems are a net SINK for carbon, i.e., better than no emissions. The natural carbon sink is not destroyed, in fact it is maintained or sometimes even improved.
In terms of electrical cars, it is projected that electricity demand will increase by 1.5 - 2x over the next two decades(without including plugins). The grid is already prone to blackouts and has very serious infrastructure problems. Having studied renewables at a Danish University I am a big fan of wind, as well as solar and other renewables, but these are all intermittent power sources, and if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, then we can't drive, type on our computers, etc. Thus, the grid will need some sort of baseload power. That can come from EtOH refineries burning recovered lignin, coal, natural gas or nuclear. But given the burgeoning demand for electricity, I don't think it is reasonable to think it can provide for transportation energy as well as power. Renewables will have a hard enough time to just keep up with electricity demand, much less transportation energy demand. Even if we go there, assuming $.04/kwh results in $11/GJ; conversely, oil at $50/bbl is $8.8/GJ (gasoline is $13.8/GJ), and cellulosic EtOH at $50/dry ton is $2.5/GJ and even less for waste streams (assuming consolidated bioprocessing), using SSCF it is likely to be more like $5/GJ. Thus in addition to engineering and grid issues there are economic feasibility concerns as well. Not to mention the impact of coal or natural gas production which also have serious impacts on the land and wildlife habitat. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe plugins and EtOH will work together and the challenges I related to plugins overcome. My point is that no alternative fuel or source of energy is problem free, and that there are some sources of sustainable EtOH capable of replacing gasoline. Plugins, H2, coal to liquid, and other alternatives are as equally problematic as EtOH is, there is no silver bullet, and some technologies will fail while others succeed. To reject ALL ethanol just because SOME ethanol has failed is just shortsighted. Respectfully, to make categorical statements about ALL ethanol when it is only true for SOME ethanol is also flat out wrong.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:01 pm
31 Jul 2008
(aka Concentrating Solar Thermal with Molten Salt Heat Storage)
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra2
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
It's actually kinda funny though that you insist biomass is such a great way to harness the sunlight. 0.13% solar efficiency doesn't sound too good to me.
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/solarg ...
Sure it can store the energy, but the problem with that is how do you store and transport the raw biomass. The raw logistics required are pretty mind numbing.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
Not to mention, the available biomass resource is pretty tiny.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits2.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
grenergy Posted 1:47 am
01 Aug 2008
As far as CSP, yes there is a lot of promise, a couple of years back I made a model that showed CSP, wind, geothermal, and PV could supply all of our electricity at a levelized cost of about 8 cents if I remember right. Problem is the number of turbines and amount of CSP we would have to make is staggering. Renewable electricity can replace fossil fuels, but there simply isn't enough surface area or other land availability for power and fuels. There is just no way it will be able to keep up with power demand and fuels. And, although it does mostly shine, there are still seasonality and intermittency issues with CSP. Not to mention cost, right now it is about 9-11 cents/kwh to make it, and that is without profit. Assuming a very modest profit of one penny and 10-12 cents/kwh, would make the cost of driving equivalent to about $25/GJ. That is significantly more than the current price of gasoline. Even if renewables can keep up with electricity demand and replace coal or natty gas, they still won't be able to generate enough power for us to drive, and even if they did, there is no way anybody could afford to drive on that power.
Lastly, in terms of sustainable biomass resources, there is enough out there to replace gasoline. I have dug into this issue many times and respectfully disagree with people who think there isn't.
To just abandon cellulosic EtOH and point to plugins as the silver bullet is as bad as the corn grain EtOH heads that still cling to their fuel and say that there is nothing wrong with it.
Permalink
grenergy Posted 2:05 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:15 am
01 Aug 2008
Maybe harvesting increases root growth? Plants storing energy in roots to revive their aboveground parts is a natural design.
But burning what you harvest as liquid or solid fuel adds carbon to the atmosphere.
Combining the biomass with waste is a better, soil building clean energy idea. Waste biomass that prevents fires (dead wood and strip mowing of prairoe grass for instance) would be combined with manure, sewage, green manure (fresh crop waste), to feed biodigestion, a distributed easily stored power source.
And it offsets 20 times the CO2 it emits when generating grid backup power or when used as a vehicle fuel.
Biomass to liquid or solid fuel, can never match these titanic GHG offsets, but rather increase GHG over present GHG intensive sources like coal and oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:30 am
01 Aug 2008
Making factories net energy grid electric producers, rather than consumers.
Wind power can be designed to store its excess power in existing hydro power dam resevoirs and also new, aquifer restoring resevoirs that also divert and recycle flood water.
And of course compressed biogas is easy to store for consistent baseload power too. This distributed generation/storage capacity can be filled with natural gas from pipelines in any extended renewable energy drought.
Baseload? No problem with these renewable technologies.
Then there is storage with 24 hour emergency capacity batteries in each home and storage of ground souce heating/cooling in building mass, in homes or larger buildings. The bigger the better.
And storage with plugin hybrid batteries, that offset the timing of power availability and power use. Then smart grid technology times all these options to make it run smoothly.
Incrementally introduced year by year over twenty years, this sort of overall design could get to nearly 100% renewable power.
Any other solution would take decades or more as well, cost more, and not really do the complete job of halting energy cost based inflation/recession and curing GHG climate change.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
grenergy Posted 3:08 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
grenergy Posted 3:30 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:31 am
01 Aug 2008
Solar furnace and wind power compete on cost with coal right now. A gallon of gas in the equivalent kwhs, costs around one dollar.
Concentrating solar rooftop PV/heat cogeneration is much cheaper per kwh generated and saved than old flat panel PV.
I think yes, in fact the job growth and economic revival will producve many times the investment in renewable energy and conservation. It could be a booming success, without a bubble and crash.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
grenergy Posted 1:18 am
02 Aug 2008
Currently we consume about 1.34 TW of oil, and 1.54 TW of coal and natty gas. Add to that the .27 TW of nuclear and renewables will have to replace 1.81 TW of electricity. Does your 40% conservation figure include the 1.5-2 fold increase in electricity demand the EIA projects? Personally, I think renewable electricity will have its hands full just displacing fossil fuel and nuclear, and rising demand, over time. I just don't see how it can also replace 1.34 TW of oil also (which is also projected to increase too). Moreover, the added demand will also increase the price. So the current prices we've been playing with will likely increase.
Look, I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, just that it is very hard. Even if CSP cuts it's costs in half, and the cost is still one dollar/gal, (the best case and I think a little optimistic since numbers I read project mature costs at about 7cents), cellulosic EtOH will cost .63 cents/gal. I just think biomass has a role to play in a sustainable energy future, a diversity of supplies will be needed, and based on your numbers, it is still about 40% cheaper, done correctly with near zero or negative emissions.
But I would love to see a large-scale feasibility study that projects all this, side by side. The EtOH world has this, does plug-ins (in a formal way)?
Permalink
grenergy Posted 5:31 am
03 Aug 2008
The smart grid and growth of renewables will take many years. It will likely be 2050 by the time fossil fuels/nuclear are entirely replaced, and I would include natural gas in this as well--even IGCC which is more of a transitional tech. If a feasibility study comes along that shows a working smart grid that can power us, and take on the burden of moving us as well, then I think biofuels made from waste streams could be the liquid fuel these cars could run on if/when necessary. A formal analysis is necessary to determine the timeliness, cost, reliability, resource sufficiency, and envrnmtl impact of such a system. The results of this should then be compared side by side to a system where solar, wind, geo, wave, etc. replace nuclear, natty gas, and coal based electricity; and biofuels, smart growth, and fuel efficient cars replace oil/transportation fuels.
I think the biggest risk we, as a community want to avoid is fracturing and in-fighting a la death of environmentalism. Why not come together, look at the issue in an open-minded way, and compare both systems. I'm not saying one plan is better than another, I'm saying we don't really know. I also think without such an analysis/effort, it will be difficult to resolve this impasse, both in this discussion and for the broader environmental community.
Permalink