Time was when biofuels, including corn-based ethanol, had no stauncher supporter than Richard Branson, the U.K. airline and entertainment magnate.
Now, according to the BBC, he "regrets his investments in biofuels on economic and environmental grounds." In the above video, the billionaire deplores the lameness of corn ethanol.
For the record, I think he's being naive by suggesting that sugar plantations in Africa represent some sort of panacea compared to U.S. cornfields. Still, at least he's seeing the light on corn ethanol.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Happy birthday, EMA Awards ... and you other groups, too
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 6:40 am
19 Feb 2008
How is Branson doing anything but the "cellulosic is better" shtick that has become ubiquitous?
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:05 am
19 Feb 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:10 am
19 Feb 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:27 am
19 Feb 2008
As for Khosla, he sees corn-based ethanol as a bridge to a cellulosic future, but not a "long-term solution." In other words, he likes the stuff.
Here he is on Gristmill:
Corn ethanol, which has been heavily maligned in the mainstream media, reduces carbon emissions (on a per-mile-driven basis) by almost the same amount as today's typical hybrid. Despite the similar environmental profiles, one is a media darling and the other is demonized, despite its more competitive economics.
And:
Corn ethanol (which I don't believe is a long term solution) has been framed by the oil companies' marketing machine, farm policy critics, and impractical environmentalists (though the NRDC and Sierra Club support corn ethanol's transition role as I do, subject to certain constraints).
The idea that Big Oil is running some conspiracy against corn-based ethanol is looking more and more like a fantasy (or a smokescreen). If Big Oil is shaking in its boots over corn (or cellulosic) ethanol, how did the fat "renewable fuel" mandates get past Cheney? Can anyone think of any other anti-oil policy that's won over the Bush Admin?
Moreover, Big Oil -- knowing a government-protected opportunity when it sees one -- is quietly investing in ethanol.
As for Khosla, he considers criticism of corn ethanol to be the vice of oil-industry flacks and (I love this bit) "impractical environmentalists." He seems like a run-of-the-mill corn ethanol apologist to me. Few champions of white lightening these days see it as more than a "bridge" -- to a future that's perpetually five years away.
Victual Reality
Permalink
zaneselvans Posted 8:42 am
19 Feb 2008
Khosla may be wildly optimistic about the near future of cellulosic biofuels, but it's not an ever-receeding mirage. BP just invested half a billion dollars to build an "Energy Biosciences Institute" at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (see this Google Tech Talk by (Nobel prize winner) Steve Chu, the director of LBL). And watch this talk by Frances Arnold at Caltech (real media stream), talking (more realistically than Khosla) about cellulosic biofuels, and the problems that stand in their way. Each talk is an hour long.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:05 am
19 Feb 2008
I'm sure OPEC members don't like the prospect of biofuels taking over. (Although it's not really that likely)
However companies like Exxon Mobil.
i.e. Oil-DISTRIBUTION-companies, are in the business of distributing liquid fuels. And they are facing a short-fall of product to sell. (Peak Oil) And they have a gigantic amount of sunk infrastructure costs.
It's kind of insane to say that liquid fuel distributors are Against increasing the liquid fuel supply, and continuing to create profits off of their infrastructure.
__
If anything, the "Blame" for the shortfall of E85 is the Ethanol distributors themselves. They make more profit selling it as mandated E6 or E10 than optional E85. Only when the market for E10 is completely saturated, and it makes sense on shipping costs do they sell it as E85. As such 1% of all Ethanol sold in 2006 was a E85 blend.
http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations2.png
And almost entirely in close proximity to where the corn was grown.
http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png
____________
As for Corn Ethanol refineries being a "bridge" for cellulosic refineries. The distribution of the biomass has to be located in close proximity to the refinery.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
As such the only plausible scenario for production, without creating entirely new infrastructure, is that the farmland currently used to grow corn will be used to grow whatever energy crop they are looking at. (Or even more crassly, the supposition that corn stover will be the feedstock)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/03/if-cellulosic-eth ...
So either cellulosic ethanol is going to require entirely new infrastructure, OR we're going to need to remove a bunch of food producing land out of production.
Either way, Khosla is wrong about the "bridge" aspect.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:05 pm
19 Feb 2008
She had expressed skepticism about ethanol (before the GHG doubling revelations) and mentioned that she wanted plugin hybrids manufactured in the US.
It's moot now. Only one eco-hope left. Gore has been rumored to be the fixer as the primary approaches futility. If the race is close enough, perhaps he can get Barack to listen to reason on clean coal, nukes, and fuel farming.
Politics, it's all abourt leverage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:23 pm
19 Feb 2008
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab- ...
Another good reason to tax CO2 emissions and use the proceeds to increase R&D for new energy technology.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:24 pm
19 Feb 2008
http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/GreenFree ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/los-alamos-deve.h ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:56 pm
19 Feb 2008
Furthermore fuel farming keeps the gas guzzling going with faux greenishness, it is a diversion, as we are so used to.
To prevent transportation going plugin hybrid. If cars go from burning gas to burning clean kwh, that money that goes into the gas pump credit card slot, will go to electric utility companies.
Halliburton and friends have not had time to take advantage of the bill passed in the dead of night a few years ago. It was written by lobbyists to allow companies like this to consolidate the owership of local utilities.
Big oil doesn't want to lose that cash flow. And they certaionly don't want consumers becoming energy producers, charging their cars from their own solar panels. Gotta sell that last drop of oil for a bazzilion dollars per gallon, then have the electric power monopoly game all wrapped up.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:23 am
20 Feb 2008
Conversion of the lungs of the planet (the Cerrado and Amazon carbon sinks) has accelerated once again after being slowed for a year or so by environmental legislation as more and more land is being cleared for agriculture, particularly cane, soybeans, and beef.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:27 am
20 Feb 2008
That's 16 barrels of ethanol per American to 0.85 barrels of ethanol per Brazilian. We also have 110 million more people. In other words, "the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol ...[this should] convey the gravity of the situation to those who think ethanol will lead us to energy independence."
Some countries in Europe are trying to buy their ethanol only from sources that grow it on long established cropland so that their consumption will not lead to loss of biodiversity and carbon sinks. However, they have no control over other consumers of alcohol who then turn to producers using recently cleared carbons sinks because Europe has taken their domestic supply. It is a hopeless expansion into carbon sinks as demand rises. There is only so much arable land on the planet and there are 3 billion more people on the way that have to be fed.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:53 am
20 Feb 2008
A few months ago both Wired and National Geographic wrote of these facts about switchgrass:
can get up to a 36 to 1 energy return
crop to wheels, produces up to 90% less CO2 than gasoline
barely needs fertilizing
can grow in harsher environments where there are less crops or forest; like in the Dakotas
It would take HUGE negatives to knock those stats out. It seems that any one-time hit of released CO2 from plowing up the tundra would surely be offset not only by the grass that would soon grow there but also by the enormous amounts of gasoline being displaced elsewhere by this ethanol.
So, whats up with this hatin' on Switchgrass?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:18 am
20 Feb 2008
It seems that any one-time hit of released CO2 from plowing up the tundra would surely be offset not only by the grass that would soon grow there but also by the enormous amounts of gasoline being displaced elsewhere by this ethanol.
Studies are showing that it takes several decades at best and centuries at worst to break even on plowing up a carbon sink, depending on the carbon sink and the crop replacing it. We don't have decades to wait. Interesting that you used the word Tundra. Many of us suspect that cellulosic will be just as bad as existing biofuels but for different reasons. Profiteers may start going after the cellulose in the last nature preserves.
The second leading cause of GHG is land use change.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 am
20 Feb 2008
"Why are you hiding?" (best mexican pro wrestling voice imitation, wearing my amazingdrx wrestling mask). "Are you waiting for new counter studies to be completed?"
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:56 am
20 Feb 2008
I also will keep an open mind about these negatives against switchgrass, but the theories against it seem to rely on many circumstantial things. So it has to be done right -- then lets do it right.
A lot of enviro tech has some catches. Carbon capture comes to mind.
In the mean time, as an environmentalist, I am supporter of switchgrass ethanol to help knock down those CO2 wedges. The gasoline part of plug-in hybrids need to run on something.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:24 am
20 Feb 2008
Also keep in mind that hybrid cars can run on gasoline, and we are not going to run out of it this century. It will only become more and more expensive. And, if the science is right, and biofuels are worse than oil, then we may as well keep burning the oil, but as little of it as possible until something better comes along, which is bound to happen one of these days.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:54 am
20 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:38 am
20 Feb 2008
No.
http://greyfalcon.net/hemp.png
Use it as a replacement for paper or cotton fibre, but not as fuel.
But for fuel, it's worse than soy beans. Which is already pretty bad.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
# can get up to a 36 to 1 energy return
Currently it's closer to 4. Coskata claims 7.7, but Argonne Labs uses some weird accounting methods to get to that number.
Certainly NOT 36 though.
# crop to wheels, produces up to 90% less CO2 than gasoline
Once again, this is only if you take Argonne Lab's studies with pure faith that they are being honest and thorough. And they admit themselves that they aren't thorough.
# barely needs fertilizing
Yes, but only if you don't remove the grass.
In natural systems, the next crop of grass is grown from the previous crop of grass.
You take the grass away, and that no longer happens.
# can grow in harsher environments where there are less crops or forest; like in the Dakotas
You can't grow it far away from distribution/processing centers, or else the economics/thermodynamics don't pan out.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
And if you need to clear grasslands to get at that land, it's going to make things worse.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol10
_____
Let me put it this way about being "Open Minded"
Being Open Minded means you are "Open" to any effective and agreeable method of achieving a goal.
i.e. You care more about the goal than the method.
_
When you begin to care more about the method than the goal itself, you are no longer being Open Minded.
_
Sadly, sometimes people get very attached to their methods, and will ignore anyone that says that their method might/will not work.
And thats where we have a problem.
_
Switchgrass may prove itself, but frankly all we have now is raw speculation.
I wouldn't go betting the fate of the world on something you don't know if it will work.
(Or further, don't know if it will make the problem much worse than it already is now.)
Especially when you factor in primary and secondary effects. (Or more specifically, the aggregate effect of a policy decision)
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:14 am
20 Feb 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:24 pm
20 Feb 2008
Thanks for the feedback.
Why do you think Argonne Labs is lying? Do they stand to gain financially by exaggerating and making speculation appear as fact? Nevertheless that is good to know for my reality check.
My mind is open because I am here on the board asking questions instead of just stating my own opinion. I'm not necessarily blindly attached to the "method" of switchgrass ethanol, but as a non-scientist I read things like National Geographic and Wired, and listen to TV interviews with people like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. And these sources have been good to me -- they educated me about the mistake of corn ethanol, ect. But they also made huge overtures to the benefits of switchgrass.
The only contrary information I have ever encountered was the story here last week about a couple of new studies that theorized that the disruption of soil would outweigh the benefits. But then that same article had quotes from the authors holding out some positive opinions of the "better" ethanols. That was downright confusing and I don't have an expensive subscription to the science journals with those two studies.
Is all of your skepticism about switchgrass born from these two recent studies? Is there some other school of knowledge that I and people like Lovins are unaware of?
Oh, and you are right: of course the goal is what is important -- not the method. I'd love for solar, wind, ect. to handle everything.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:38 pm
20 Feb 2008
That's the best, lowest input, highest carbon sequestering, biomass farm. If only around one third of the grasses were harvested, in away that prevents fire, that would actually prevent exctra GHG release.
But if it's burned as fuel in a 6% efficient, 3 ton gas guzzler, the cO2 still gets released. Better to leave the transportation job to plugin hybrids that are charged on wind powered kwh from prairie wind farms.
Then use the mown grass biomass in biodigestion to produce biogas to backup the renewable grid. Combined with farm waste like manure, it yields organic fertilizer and saves water by recycling.
Real farm and energy policty that work together will have you paying the farmer down the road 75 cents per gallon of gas equivalent in clean kwh. the family will spend the money locally.
Better than sending 3 bucks per gallon to exxonmob, the war, and halliburton.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink