DR: On our site there are many people highly skeptical about biofuels. For lots of reasons: corn ethanol barely breaks even on energy balance. It's an environmental nightmare, with nitrogen fertilizers in the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a commodity sector governed by a few massive multinational corporations, which are lavished with subsidies -- seems awfully reminiscent of the petroleum sector.
The inevitable response to any criticism of corn ethanol is to gesticulate toward cellulosic ethanol. My question, then, is: where is all this cellulosic ethanol? Even if you buy that cellulosic ethanol is going to be great, how is that an argument in favor of lavishing Archer Daniels Midland with subsidies and setting up this huge corn ethanol infrastructure?
I just went on a soliloquy there ...
TT: Well Mr. Shakespeare, let me put it this way: I don't disagree with anything you said.
((terry_include))Right now, obviously, corn ethanol is not a very good bargain -- depending on where it's made. It might make some sense if you're producing it in Kansas or Iowa and using it there to power farm machines. If you're putting the corn on a train, you're consuming lots and lots of fuel and dumping tons of CO2 and particulate matter into the air moving that train out to California. And then using more energy to convert it into ethanol. Now you're negating a lot of the potential benefits.
So you're absolutely right. There are companies in California experimenting with switchgrass -- at best you can get 5 tons an acre yield. They acknowledge you won't make ethanol from switchgrass economically feasible until you get to 15-20 tons an acre yield. Despite all our years of genetic engineering, we haven't been able to figure out how to get those kinds of yields, but they think they will.
That sets aside whether or not any farmer wants a genetically modified crop growing next to his crop, which he wants to sell to Europe or some other country.
DR: Or Northern California.
TT: Yeah, exactly. There are tons of those kinds of problems. Cellulosic is still a challenge because, despite many advancements, we are certainly not there in terms of yield. If you've got to send out trucks over 50 miles to get enough cellulosic material to come into your central refining station, you just used up all the energy you otherwise would have saved, dumped all the CO2 into the atmosphere, and so on. We're just not there yet.
We may get there. I would argue that it's a benefit to go ahead, even with corn ethanol and even with some subsidies. You're building a marketplace for something that displaces petroleum, and then if smarter people can make it out of cheaper materials -- and there's a lot of investment going on in that area -- they've got someone to sell it to. They've got cars that run on the stuff, they've got refiners who are willing to blend it into fuel or even sell it as E85, and so on. You're building a marketplace, albeit with an imperfect starting product.
I'm agnostic about it. I would love to see development go further, but what I take issue with are people who think we could somehow displace any significant amount of our petroleum with biofuels. The best research I can find shows that you're going to displace 10, 15, 20 percent maybe, if there are a lot of efficiencies in the automotive sector. What do you do with the other 80 percent?
DR: I just read that Bush is going to come out with a bold new energy initiative. But you read between the lines and what is it? A massive increase in subsidies to international corn growers. Somehow, at the federal level, energy policy has become synonymous with corn ethanol.
TT: Bush can't implement those policies. He can say in a State of the Union address, here's what I'd like to do, but he has to work with this now Democratic and more thoughtful Congress if he wants to get it implemented. I think they're going to have some ideas of their own about what a more thoughtful energy policy ought to look like. It ain't going to be the federal energy act of 2005 -- with a stroke of a pen he added $6 billion more in subsidies to oil companies and gas companies, exempted them from even more aspects of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I suspect energy policy will work a little different under this Congress.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
A video interview with Bill Moyers
Comments
View as Flat
DBLJ Posted 3:17 am
12 Jan 2007
This is great news, and should be supported at virtually every level.
Second, Excellent point Terry on the explaining the issue with biomass; that it is widely dispersed. One of the things that make fossil fuels so attractive is that it is found in dense pockets, vains, formations, whatever- which saves on the overall cost. the current method of harvesting biomass includes a pass over the field to cut/swath the biomass. Then a pass to bale the biomass. Then bringing in a tractor to run all over the field stacking bales onto a semi and then traveling to a collection point to deliver. Keep in mind the biomass would have to be sent on another trip to get it to the processing plant. And all the time the farmer is burning up diesel fuel with all these passes over the field to sell his crop to be made into a liqued fuel (ethanol) that he can't even use in his equipment. That fact has always bothered me.
Finally, I view the area of biomass to energy from the agricultural perspective, and we NEED absolutely NEED to continue down the path of cellulosic ethanol. Even if corn based ethanol weren't in existence we would still have virtually all of the midwest in a corn/soybean rotation and that is simply not sustainable. I have been working for several years now in the realm of 3rd crops (something besides corn & soybeans, preferebly a perennial crop, and not one single crop but a wide array) and with virtually no markets available for perennial crops the landscape change has been slow...very slow. I see cellulosic ethanol (done right)being a driving force in changing the landscape to include more perennials. Water quality would be improved DRASTICALLY, carbon would be sequestered in large amounts by perennial plants that work all year long, instead of just during the growing season. Wind and water erosion would essentially stop in all but the most sensitive areas. In a nutshell many positive things could come about as we transition to cellulosic ethanol.
Permalink
DBLJ Posted 3:26 am
12 Jan 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:33 am
12 Jan 2007
But the argument that demand for cellulosic will improve our agricultural practices is something I hadn't thought about much.
Perhaps supporting cellulosic ethanol is more of an agriculture strategy than an energy strategy. I shall ponder.
It's worth noting, though, that neither argument supports pouring further resources into corn ethanol. The whole "support corn ethanol so we're 'ready' when cellulosic arrives" argument is bogus.
www.grist.org
Permalink
DBLJ Posted 3:41 am
12 Jan 2007
Permalink
Bob from ALAMN Posted 4:02 am
12 Jan 2007
How so? Will the market for cellulosic ethanol instantly create itself? The wholesalers? The blenders? The truck and rail transportation?
How about the vehicles? When cellulosic ethanol is ready, will the vehicles and pumps be there? After 100 years of gasoline, will American drivers accept an alternative fuel? How much will it cost?
Please explain. Seriously, if you or anyone else has this all figured out, have tested it somewhere and it works, please let me know.
Bob from ALAMN
http://www.CleanAirChoice.org
Permalink
Bob from ALAMN Posted 4:15 am
12 Jan 2007
Bob from ALAMN
http://www.CleanAirChoice.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:33 am
12 Jan 2007
Of course, all this haring around after this or that with ethanol is just more shiny hypnotism to keep the enviros busy doing exquisite calculations and assumptions about energy balances, so they won't notice that we have to leave the entire car culture behind before it kills us, and that the entire venture cannot be maintained at all if we want to have a habitable planet.
Meanwhile, Grist missed yet another chance to ask Tamminen -- whose book really is terrific -- about his view that oil is a bigger environmental problem than coal. Because positions like that seriously damage his credibility.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:22 am
12 Jan 2007
On the coal issue, see here. I think everyone's making a bit much of a tossed off comment.
Also, we didn't "miss an opportunity" -- this is not an ongoing series of interviews. It's a single interview that I did a few months ago, published in chunks.
PS, I've asked Terry if he wants to drop by or send me an email defending his support for hydrogen cars. He said maybe this weekend (he's on a busy book tour).
www.grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:32 am
12 Jan 2007
Only a relatively small fraction of the world population now owns a car. Can anyone claim that the environment can support two or three times the current number of cars?
How on earth can agriculture support the millions of vehicles envisioned for China and India?
The issue is especially important for affluent environmentalists - because what we do sets an example for the rest of the world. Do we focus our money and attention on ensuring that we can continue with our car habit?
Or do we start getting serious about the many alternatives - bicycles, livable cities, public transit, trains?
To my mind, the ethanol crusade is not environmentalism.
Permalink
froggy Posted 5:40 am
12 Jan 2007
UI U-C researcher did the calc.'s. if every farm that presently grows corn and/or soy in the state of Ill. would switch to Miscanthus, 1/2 of the surface water flow would be eliminated. making a fuel out of alcohol is a very hard on local water issues.
froggy
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:03 am
12 Jan 2007
Still, saying that oil is a bigger problem than coal is not some trivial mistake that you can make in error like confusing whether the last digit of a license plate is a seven or a nine.
The comment he made in reply seems to suggest that he thinks the problem is mining or whether a nasty coal company should run a plant on a native reservation ... I did NOT hear him address the key issue: that we've got more than enough coal-derived carbon ready to be liberated in making hydrogen to destroy any hope for climate stability.
Tell you what, I'll stop worrying about the hydrogen fantasy when the hydrogen enthusiasts support a law making it illegal to sell or use hydrogen derived from fossil fuels (either by reforming nat gas or by electroalysis powered by coal plants) in a motor vehicle.
If they'll take that step then I'll stop worrying about statements such as Tamminen's. But, in the meantime, King Coal is ecstatic and is already salivating at the thought of a demand for hydrogen (which, given our tight nat gas situation, should really just be called something that makes its provenance clear, like "hydrocoal" or "H2coal").
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:09 am
12 Jan 2007
So as long as we're considering proposals currently in the prototype stage, take a look at Engineer-Poet's proposal Sustainability, energy independence and agricultural policy. It's a long post, dense with information and links. I had to read it several times to understand it.
But to summarize, cellulosic ethanol is simply too inefficient to be a major replacement for fossil fuels. On the other hand, converting biomass to charcoal can be orders of magnitude more efficient. It sounds weird (charcoal??) but the keys are fuel cells that convert fuel gas and carbon directly into electricity at very high efficiencies. Throw in algal photosynthesis processes, and ethanol from its byproducts, and you've got what I call the charcoal economy.
Purported advantages:
Sustainable
Carbon neutral
Can replace all fossil fuel with 1/4 of U.S. farmland
Energy in safe, storable, transportable form
Works with many types of biomass, including easy-to-grow grasses
Supports agriculture and crop diversity
Can build soil quality through terra preta formation (the only sequestration scheme that promises to turn a profit)
All the components of the charcoal economy have been proven in the lab or in trials. The hard part is commercialization and scaling up.
It would be good to see a proof-of-concept trial of the complete synergistic system as Engineer-Poet proposes. It's an idea that may be a good complement to other cost effective renewables like wind and solar thermal electric.
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 10:15 am
12 Jan 2007
The more data points we have, the easier it will be to rebut (and ridicule, and finally reduce to laughingstock) the denialists.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:36 pm
12 Jan 2007
No market "instantly" creates itself, Bob. If cellulosic arrives (it is economically competitive) then it will thrive. How long it will take to build the market depends on how much demand there is for the product. Toyota is just now catching up with the demand for the Prius. The 500,000 Priuses sold save five to seven times as much oil annually than all of the corn ethanol consumed in the United States in 2001. And if it never arrives, what are you going to do with all of the corn ethanol infrastructure? Answer: continue to subsidize it into a third or fourth decade.
How about the vehicles? When cellulosic ethanol is ready, will the vehicles and pumps be there?
And if it is never ready, what do you plan to do with all of these vehicles and pumps? If you are looking for a place to dump ethanol, just blend more into gasoline (up to 10% without needing flex fuel equipment). If gasoline with 10% ethanol is cheaper, people will buy it instead of regular gas and you won't need to install any new pumps or create any flex fuel cars.
We at ALAMN don't say that ethanol can replace all petro (that's nuts)
So are strawman arguments.
but we sure would like to see all of the FFVs on the road that CAN use E85 to be filled with a clean air choice instead of gas
We would all like to see cars burning something more environmentally benign than gasoline. That thing sure isn't corn ethanol. It pollutes just as bad (or worse) on a lifecycle basis, uses as much energy as it returns, and barely makes a dent in greenhouse gas reduction to boot. Remember that cellulosic is not commercially viable, it is still in the research stage. And even if it were being produced commercially, we would eventually buy ethanol from South America because sugarcane is far more efficient than cellulosic and they would clear rainforest carbon sinks to grow it for us.
After 100 years of gasoline, will American drivers accept an alternative fuel? How much will it cost?
Why wouldn't they if it were cheaper? And if it isn't cheaper, of course they won't. What are you, nuts?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gary Dikkers Posted 12:20 pm
13 Jan 2007
Bob,
Your position that corn-derived ethanol is necessary as a bridge other forms of ethanol is a Bridge to Nowhere.
There may indeed be a future for cellulosic-derived ethanol or butanol, but that future has nothing to do with corn-derived ethanol.
Using up irreplaceable resources such as natural gas, diesel fuel, water, and doing irreversible harm to the environment caused by industrial corn farming to raise corn for transportation fuel is indefensible (and almost criminal) -- unless of course you are one of those corn farmers looking at $3.90 a bushel corn, or an ethanol plant baron.
You think burning ethanol is good for the air. That may be true out the tailpipe, but when you consider the synergistic effect industrial corn growing has on the entire environment, growing that corn for ethanol is a negative. If I remember right, Minnesota used to be called, "The Land of Sky Blue Waters." Not anymore with the runoff from cornfields into the watershed -- all the way into the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone that is almost completely a function of farm chemicals.
Somewhat off topic, but an interesting question I'd like your views on:
What do you think about the fact that a direct effect of subsidies to the corn ethanol industry results in an adverse effect on unsubsidized farmers who raise cattle, hogs, and poultry? Does that seem right? Should our government be helping some farmers at the expense of others?
Cordially,
Gary Dikkers
Permalink
Gary Dikkers Posted 12:33 pm
13 Jan 2007
Bob,
Using any resources to build E85 infrastructure and FFVs is a waste.
If we used all the corn in the U.S. and converted it to ethanol, at best that would only equal 12% or so of the total annual motor fuel use. That means we will never have enough ethanol to make all the motor fuel in this country an E85 blend. In fact, that means it's not even likely we could make all motor fuel used an E10 blend.
The smart move would be to drop your pursuit of E85 and instead push for all motor fuels to be blended with a lower percentage of ethanol -- E10, E12, or even E15.
All cars now on the road could burn E12 or E15 as well as they burn E10. They could do that without modification and fuel stations could sell an E12 or E15 blend without the need to spend big bucks installing the specific infrastructure E85 requires.
The truth is that if all fuel stations had E85 infrastructure and pumps, most of those pumps couldn't be used for E85 anyway because there wouldn't be enough ethanol.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:56 pm
13 Jan 2007
Seems to me the smart move would be to push aggressively for hybrids that can burn biofuels (when they need to burn anything). That can hold us over until battery and auto technology create a mass marketable fully electric car. Then we can leave liquid transportation fuel behind -- that should be our ultimate goal.
Ethanol can be used appropriately on a local basis, perhaps to power farm machinery. But talking about it as a viable way to substantially reduce oil use in the U.S. is a pipe dream.
www.grist.org
Permalink
engineerpoet Posted 2:43 pm
13 Jan 2007
Eventually we'll probably get to an all-electron energy economy, but with enough of the load transferred to the grid it won't matter - we'll be able to use biofuels for the remainder even if their yield isn't so great. Of course, if the vehicle fleet is "omnivorous" then an advance on any front relieves pressure on all fronts; better biofuel production systems mean less electric load, and vice versa.
Work the cold equations; some answers will make you feel warm.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:54 pm
13 Jan 2007
I'm a bit of a newcomer to the whole ethanol thing - I've kept half an eye on the debate and am familiar with the general gist of things, but don't have the numbers at my fingertips.
However, I'm going to be contributing to a pretty high-profile response to South Africa's new biofuels strategy (which is horrendously bad and poorly thought-out - go to
http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/renewable/Biofuels_Stra...)
and I'm in need of some hardcore (= really credible academic) references - evaluations of corn-based ethanol's costs, energy balance etc. etc.
Any specific websites or references that anyone can recommend?
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:25 pm
13 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 1:05 am
14 Jan 2007
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:23 am
14 Jan 2007
The Ethanol Illusion, Harvard Magazine Nov/Dec 2006, by Professor Michael B. McElroy. A more technical discussion is available at Ethanol from biomass: can it substitute for gasoline?
Permalink
Gary Dikkers Posted 12:42 pm
14 Jan 2007
Maybe, maybe not. Everybody who is talking about plug-ins and hybrids is talking about using lithium-ion battery packs.
Plug-ins sound great as a way of making use of energy, but what if lithium is as much a limiting factor in that direction as fossil fuels are for ICEs?
Right now lithium production capacity and demand are just about balanced, and there is not much evidence the lithium mining and extraction industry has the capacity to substantially increase production. In fact, it seems the rapidly growing demand for small lithium-ion batteries in consumer electronics is already putting stress on the lithium industry.
If General Motors and other major car makers (Renault has also committed to a plug-in hybrid using lithium-ion) suddenly expect to be selling hundreds of thousands of cars with heavy-duty, battery packs that may each use several hundred pounds of lithium, what will that demand do to the price of lithium? Will there even be enough lithium to supply all the companies that want to build and sell plug-ins and hybrids using lithium-ion batteries?
At present most of the world's lithium comes from Chile and Argentina, and apparently Brazil also has some reserves. (If I were GM and serious about the Volt, I would already have dispatched teams of people to Chile and Argentina to secretly buy up lithium mines.)
Could there be a day when Chile, Argentina, and Brazil form an Organization of Lithium Exporting Countries (OLEC) that is just as much a thorn in our sides as OPEC?
Permalink
Gary Dikkers Posted 12:58 pm
14 Jan 2007
Ethanol can be used appropriately on a local basis, perhaps to power farm machinery. But talking about it as a viable way to substantially reduce oil use in the U.S. is a pipe dream.
I agree David. I was addressing my comments to Bob at ALAMN who is what some might call an E85 evangelist.
He and others want a nationwide E85 infrastructure because of their concern about clean air. (A valid concern -- without question) But since there will never be enough ethanol to make all motor fuels an E85 blend, their pursuit of that goal is wrong-headed.
I also think E85 evangelists such as Bob are so focused on tailpipe emissions, they have ignored the total effect the production of corn-derived ethanol has on the environment.
Some E85 evangelists even want the U.S. an state governments to use our tax money to pay for the infrastructure fuel wholesalers and retailers would need for E85. In my view that would be a poor investment since there would never be enough ethanol to make widespread use of that infrastructure, and my advice to Bob would be to push for E12 or E15 instead, since no infrastructure is needed, nor any modification to the millions of cars now on the road.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:12 pm
14 Jan 2007
Most of the flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) -- i.e., vehicles capable of running on gasoline blends containing up to 85% ethanol -- produced so far have been SUVs and muscle pick-up trucks. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 3/4 of the 744,000 FFVs "made available" (i.e., sold) in 2005 (the latest year for which such figures are available) were gas-guzzling light trucks, SUVs, or "medium-duty vehicles".
The trend continues: the excitement among REALLY BIG SUV fans is that GM plans to start making its Hummers flex fuel by the 2008 model year.
Permalink
Bob from ALAMN Posted 1:21 am
15 Jan 2007
Nothing wrong with informed debate on the pros and cons of cleaner fuels. We welcome your thoughts, as I hope you welcome information on our hand-on experience of actually testing and using E85, in the lab, on the road and in the marketplace.
A thought: have anyone else here (other than me) actualy used E85?
Despite the objections of Mr. Dikkers, E85 use and infrastucture in the upper Midwest has grown quickly in recent years, including in his home state of Wisconsin. This trend will likely continue in 2007. I'm sure we will speak about this again.
Till then, keep it green, folks.
Bob from ALAMN
http://www.CleanAirChoice.org
Permalink
Gary Dikkers Posted 5:42 am
15 Jan 2007
That's a nice sentiment Bob, but the problem with corn-based ethanol is it is neither renewable nor green.
Despite the public's general perception (and massive propaganda from corn ethanol lobbyists and agribusiness) there is nothing green about growing industrial corn as a feedstock for ethanol fuels.
Ethanol from corn farming would not be possible without synthetic nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas feedstock.
It would not be possible without herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides made from petroleum feedstock.
It would not be possible without farmers and truckers burning diesel fuel to cultivate and harvest the corn and haul it to an ethanol plant.
And it would not be possible without ethanol plants consuming more fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) to reform the corn feedstock into ethanol.
Bob, I know your main concern is clean air, and that's a valid concern. But you have never addressed the question of the synergistic adverse effect industrial corn farming has on our environment.
You need to look at the entire picture of the adverse effect of corn and ethanol production and their consumption of irreplaceable resources, not just at what comes out the tailpipe of an ICE-driven vehicle.
Corn-derived ethanol made from irreplaceable resources is not a renewable fuel -- even though proving highly profitable to Corn Belt farmers and politicians.
Cordially,
Gary Dikkers
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:06 am
16 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink