This is the second in a series on how we can build an energy future based on our best science and no longer critically dependent upon exhaustible and polluting fossil fuels.
The Five Transport Energy Solutions and One Imperative
There are five fundamental options to move into a post-oil, post-natural gas energy world and one imperative:
- Imperative A: End-use energy efficiency and conservation. We will have to invest less in new energy supply if we get more from the energy we use (efficiency) as well as act and plan in a way that recognizes the limited nature of natural resources (conservation). The electron economy scenarios have the greatest potential for end-use energy efficiency. The short-term measures above will also increase efficiency.
- The Renewable Electron Economy: electric vehicles, stationary devices, and new electric transport infrastructure powered by electric generators using renewable energy and the associated energy storage challenge.
- The Nuclear Electron Economy: electric vehicles, stationary devices, and new electric transport infrastructure powered by electric generators using nuclear energy (with or without fuel reprocessing), with associated security risks, waste and dependence upon fissionable fuel supply.
- The Coal CCS Electron Economy: electric vehicles, devices and new electric transport infrastructure powered by electric generators using coal with carbon capture and sequestration, a technological "maybe" dependent upon coal supply.
- The Coal to Liquid (CTL) Transport Economy: converting coal to liquids (sometimes via the Fischer-Tropsch process), burned in internal combustion engines leading to climate disaster and resource exhaustion.
- The Biofuel Transport Economy: Aggressive expansion of unregulated biofuel production for land transport will almost certainly lead to ecological and social disaster. Biofuels, sustainably produced, especially from wastes, will have a niche in aviation and marine propulsion.
Sub-option for Solutions 1, 2 and 3: The Hydrogen Economy is parasitic on the Electron Economies, reducing net usable energy by two-thirds for the purpose of having a compact liquid/gaseous fuel extracted by energy-consuming electrolysis. A Hydrogen Economy therefore requires a 2 to 3 fold increase in the amount of and therefore the capital investment in the required clean electric infrastructure to support renewably produced hydrogen. (There are currently even more expensive renewable ways to extract hydrogen from water using very high concentrations of sunlight that do not use electricity as an intermediary).
Any of these five transport energy supply solutions will be made much more feasible if aggressive end-use efficiency measures are pursued in parallel; therefore the imperative of energy efficiency.
Narrowing the Field
To simplify matters, we can eliminate options "4" and "5" as the costs of climate, ecological, and social disaster outweigh the benefits of a supply of liquid fuel that is not petroleum-based. Analyses that only consider liquid fuels divert the debate, intentionally or unknowingly, from more promising solutions; it is astounding how some commentators can discuss these options as if a continued supply of liquid fuel for transport was somehow worth enormous ecological and human sacrifice.
Building on early optimism about biofuels from environmentalists, the biofuel lobby, unfortunately, has a great deal of influence in the United States. This is a truly tragic state of affairs in American politics, as many farmers and farm-state politicians have tied their political and economic hopes to this option. Biofuel mandates have pushed up the price of crops and created an incentive to plant and overplant corn as well as other potential biofuel crops. As fuel prices push up food prices, these prices are further elevated by the transfer of prime farmland from food production to fuel production. Without cutting biofuel incentives and mandates, there will be no countervailing influence to conserve the soil or return land to food production. Talk of cellulosic ethanol or other future innovations in biofuel production function currently as an entering wedge for the current unsustainable variety.
The only savior for biofuels is a rigorous eco-certification program that excludes the conversion of food crops to fuels, mandates soil and water conservation, and privileges the use of waste streams for fuel. Under such an international eco-certification program, biofuels will have a role as clean marine, aerospace and specialized land transport fuels.
Luckily, the coal-to-liquids option has few advocates and so far little political support. If however, petroleum prices continue to rise and so-called "skeptics" of global warming continue to be well represented in the US Government, there may be various support schemes for coal-to-liquid that are inserted into legislation. Unlike the biofuels solution, coal to liquids would "work" to move a large group of vehicles for a few decades not unlike our current vehicle fleet, but with enormous climate sacrifice as it represents an increase in carbon emissions over even the current sorry state of affairs.
In the next installment of this series, I will explore which of the three electron economy scenarios will predominate. As each scenario varies only in the manner in which electricity is supplied, i.e. generated, and not used, the below recommendations about how to create a secure post-oil transport system using electricity could apply to all three.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Threaded
sfj4076 Posted 6:50 am
08 Aug 2008
You wrote that coal-to-liquids synfuels would "lead to climate disaster and resource exhaustion."
First it is crucial to realize that coal-to-liquids is only one portion of a larger whole within the synthetic fuels space (which for today's discussion we will define as gasification and Fischer Tropsch or Methanol To Gasoline conversion, producing ultra-clean gasoline, diesel , and jet fuel). Included within synthetic fuels are also Biomass-To-Liquids, which can use feedstocks such as switchgrass (read: cellulosic infrastructure-compatible diesel, jet, and gasoline fuels from proven off-the-shelf technologies), garbage, and other high-efficiency biomass sources.
The NRDC is not telling you the whole truth about the environmental performance of synthetic fuels.
Yes, if you develop thee plants wrong, and do not capture or sequester the carbon produced at the plant level, it is absolutely possible to produce a plant that will deliver a much larger lifecycle carbon footprint than the conventional fuels that they replace (corn ethanol, anyone?)
BUT! if you include CCS technology, which EVERY SINGLE SUBSTANTIAL SYNTHETIC FUELS PLANT IN THE US TODAY IS DOING, then that alone will reduce the lifecycle GHG footprint to one comparable with conventional fuels. But the story does not end there. These plants can consume a wide array of biomass feedstocks alongside coal (a concept to CBTL). These biomass sources can even include landfill garbage. And when you add biomass alongside coal, you can further reduce the lifecycle GHG footprint of these fuels, even down to the point of outright greenhouse gas neutrality, or even GHG negative.
So in essence, what I am telling you, is that the NRDC is lying to you by omission. CTL is not some horrible climate boogieman, provided the plants are developed even remotely responsibly (which they all are). In fact, if the CBTL approach is used, which is the case in at least three of the four major "CTL" synfuels projects, then the synfuels industry can and will deliver a fuel that not only dramatically outperforms existing fuels in all conventional pollutants, but also dramatically outperforms existing conventional, and ALL EXISTING NONCONVENTIONAL alternative fuels in the area of greenhouse gas emissions.
OK, so we have just established that CTL is not going to result in "climate disaster" if the projects that are developed are held to a high standard of carbon emissions control, which they all are, or they will probably not get their permits.
You second point is "resource exhaustion". I am the first one to point out that converting our economy from oil to coal would be like taking us out of the frying pan (peak oil), and putting us right pack in the prying pan(peak coal). Doing so would be just effectively replacing one inherently depleteable fossil fuels resource with another. BUT, because these same processes can accept biomass as feedstock, you can leverage coal to make it economically and technically feasible to use these facilities as "consumers of first resort" for highly efficient second-generation biofuels and waste-to-fuel feedstocks. You can even engineer the facilities to eventually transition entirely off of coal and into advanced second-generation biorefineries. So these CTL plants can be made forwards-compatible to an eventual sustainable fuels economy.
So it is also not fair to say that CTL synfuels will result in "resource exhaustion".
Perhaps it would be good for you to ask the NRDC why they are "omitting to mention" that CTL synfuels can be done responsibly, and are in fact doing everything they can to try and block the implementation of this economically and environmentally crucial fuels production method. Their current approach has them effectively attempting to block implementation of one of our best technical pathways to carbon neutral environmentally responsible sustainable fuels production. That would seem to me to be counter to their charter and advertised purpose. I bet it has something to do with them not liking coal (which admittedly is not without its very good reasons, I am not here to advocate blowing up Appalachia to make diesel). Still, not-liking something is not a good reason to obstruct such crucial work as the implementation of advanced second-generation fuels production.
Oh, and on your point of "there really aren't too many of these and they don't have political momentum anyway", you are wrong there too.
The four leading synthetic fuels projects in the US have an announced combined capacity of 133,000 barrels per day, or 2,038,890,000 gallons per year. That is over four and a half times last year's US output of biodiesel.
Just because the synfuels industry is not asking for a $1/gallon handout from the government, does not mean that it has little political support. These projects have been widely endorsed by unions, politicians, and civic leaders, and there are a number of bills currently under consideration to help further the development of this clean energy source.
Please do not take this comment personally. The misinformation on which you based your opinions is widely held, and as such should be reversed aggressively. My intent here is not to criticize you, but to set the record straight on this critical emerging industry.
Best Regards,
Stephen F. Johnson (no relation to the EPA)
President,
Illinois Clean Fuels
Permalink
Jonas Posted 6:56 am
08 Aug 2008
Zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) are not good enough. We need NEGEVs (negative emissions vehicles).
The carbon-negative electron economy is a hybrid between (1) renewables and (3) carbon capture and storage.
I admit, the concept is extremely radical and very new. But it has the highest potential for solving the climate crisis (at least according to the first climate report that included carbon-negative energy - the Bellona Foundation's recent report).
The carbon-negative electron economy is so counter-intuitive that most people fall from their chairs when they think of it.
Because this economy works best when consumers drive more. Because the more miles you drive in your NEGEV, the more CO2 you take out of the atmosphere.
In a carbon-negative electron economy, driving a car is an act of saving the planet.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 3:14 pm
08 Aug 2008
You also are by using the category "synfuels" blurring the distinction between renewable and sustainable synfuels and unsustainable ones. If you want to represent "responsible" synfuel manufacturers, oppose the use of coal in synfuels and work towards a moratorium on CTL synfuel plants.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:26 pm
08 Aug 2008
The biogas from waste, organic fertilizer, GHG offset, that's real. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:19 pm
08 Aug 2008
Nano storage technology for methane makes it dense enough at ambient pressure and temperature to replace liquid fuels. By deriving methane from biodigestion, two sources of GHG offset are produced.
The methane prevented from entering the atmosphere, from manure run off for instance has 21 times the GHG effect of CO2. So every quantity of methane from waste used for energy production offsets 20 times the GHG effect in methane emission prevention.
Another huge source of GHG offset is using the organic fertilizer from biodigestion to prevent the nitrous oxide (310 times worse GHG than cO2)release from ammonmia fertilizer, which is equal to 2/3 of the CO2 absorption of the crop that is chemically fertilized.
Methane works just fine in solid oxide fuel cell/turbines which are in use now for cogeneration of electricity and heat in several breweries, running on biogas from brewery waste digestion. They are 70+% efficient. And smaller models suitable for powering electric cars and other vehicles are in the works.
Aircarft could even be powered someday with hybrid turbofan engines with this design. At the higher efficiency these would need 1/5 the fuel. making methane with nano tech storage a great fuel alternative. Natural gas could be used too, for vehicles or grid backup, if biogas was supply was short of demand.
Natural gas being the lesser of all evils as far as fossil fuel is concerned.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:26 pm
08 Aug 2008
More importantly, folks like Michael are living in a dreamworld if they think simply making mistatements about the potential of sustainable biofuels will make this solution go away. It won't.
Billions are being invested into this sector. Production facilities are being built. Cars are already available to run off it. Development is ongoing at a nearly frantic pace. It's coming, and it'll be big.
Get over it.
Richard
Permalink
cjwirth Posted 12:24 am
09 Aug 2008
According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, global oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.
This is equivalent to a 33% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207.
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
Jonas Posted 1:00 am
09 Aug 2008
You tell him, please. Else, I would appreciate it if you stay out of discussions of technologies you know nothing about.
Thank you.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:30 am
09 Aug 2008
Support your positions with evidence and reason, maybe that would be more effective for fuel farming advocates. But I doubt it.
This all goes back to the true nature of the carbon cycle. Try to think of it on similar terms to the water cycle.
The water goes into the atmosphere, the water comes out of the atmosphere. The carbon goes into the astmosphere, the carbon comes out of the atmosphere. The climate changes according to the balance.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 4:50 am
09 Aug 2008
food production
the water cycle
soil regeneration and organic content
Claiming that technological innovations such as the use of algae or cellulose will solve these problems by their very nature is naive, to the say the least. Innovations will probably help but they might, for instance involve larger amounts of water or deplete the organic content of soils more rapidly. Without oversight, these negative outcomes are more likely.
I'm not against biofuels, I'm against unregulated or uncertified biofuels.
It's simple economics...the laws of supply and demand as they interact with the necessarily bounded resources of the planet. Naive biofuel advocates like Mr. Miller have a myopic focus on producing a liquid fuel from biomass and believe that this produces a desired result of a sustainable carbon neutral fuel. They have just edited out the laws of economics (not just the economics of the optimistic investment prospectus) out of the picture. For people who are depending on the soil and biological organisms to produce fuel their are curiously ignorant about the history of human civilizations and the natural environment. Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:20 am
09 Aug 2008
Which is more of a fig-leaf pretense than a serious answer.
_
Can you say over $6500/kW AND cutting down the efficiency of the plant by 20% AND using a liquid CO2 pipeline infrastructure orders of magnitude larger than our existing oil pipeline infrastructure.
And while we're at it since it cuts the plant efficiency by 20%, even if you assume that you can capture 80% of the emissions, that only ends up capturing 64% of the emissions once your done with it. Which isn't even any better than natural gas emissions.
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2
http://greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-h ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/7/65718/52163
http://grist.org/news/2008/01/29/energy_dept/index.html#c ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ccs
-David Ahlport
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:48 am
09 Aug 2008
Had you read any of my previous posts at Gristmill, you'd know that not only do I support a very tight and heavily enforced system of eco-certification, but I am one of the founders of the Forest Stewardship Council... already the largest eco-certifier for biomass. So we have no disagreement on this point. I cannot support any biofuel which has not been so certified. In other words, I don't support most biofuels today.
But that isn't the point I was addressing in your statements. Given that we agree sustainably-produced biofuels should be a part of the equation, this statement of yours is either biased or uninformed:
"Biofuels, sustainably produced, especially from wastes, will have a niche in aviation and marine propulsion."
My point is that this flies in the face of what is happening today in terms of investments in, and planning for, cellulosic ethanol, but also direct burning of biomass (already a larger producer of energy than wind or solar) and numerous other options for producing energy from biomass. To say it will be a niche is simply incorrect... not unless you consider wind and solar niches as well.
As far as DRX's comments go, he is no longer to be taken seriously on this subject. He is unable to substantiate much of anything he has to say on this matter, and simply stops responding when presented with direct evidence contrary to his statements.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:08 am
09 Aug 2008
Now, it's possible that there will be breakthroughs, and you might be thrilled to know that Vinod Khosla himself put up a few posts here.
So, obviously plenty of money is going into cellulosic, as plenty of people, including Khosla, would like to be the next Rockefeller. So let's see what happens. I put cellulosic in the same category as electric vehicles, very promising but not yet ready for prime time.
So, the point is, we need to put forth different scenarios -- I always build mine on current technology. If you want to build yours on technology that isn't here yet -- well, I guess it would be nice if you could keep us posted on developments as they come in, but scenarios should have their cellulosic assumptions stated up front, it seems to me.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:24 am
09 Aug 2008
I don't think it is really important whether biomass gets used as cellulosic ethanol (which is not commercialized yet) or as some other form of energy using existing, proven technology. It is more important to look at the real potential of biomass based on what can be produced sustainably. This potential includes not just what is available from existing forests, but also what we know can be produced from sustainable plantations. Biomass plantations have been thoroughly researched in the field for more than 30 years. It's not a question of IF we can grow tens (if not hundreds) of millions of acres of dedicated biomass plantations, but when we'll start doing this... and that time is very close. Fact is, when you look at the energy that can come from more intensive use of existing forests plus plantations, it's anything but a niche. And it doesn't matter what we do with that in the end (again, using existing technology or new ones on the horizon). The point is, this usage is happening now and will only grow. And, as I said, it's already bigger than wind and solar.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 8:47 am
09 Aug 2008
Whatever your role in FSC, you seem to have left your critical faculties at the door when it comes to biofuels. I don't hear any of the investors or main biofuel companies getting together to take action on limiting water use, and conserving the soil. As yet there is no voluntary biofuel equivalent of FSC or government sponsored eco-certification program.
You seem to be enchanted by the prospect of all that investment in cellulosic biofuels but are not putting the same faith in certification that you have with wood products. Policy and voluntary industry standards can help shape technology in ways that you seem not to be putting much effort into (so far).
My listing of the uses of biofuels is not complete but I am not out there trying to "sell" biofuels to the American public...there are plenty of people out there doing that...maybe you too. People who do the "selling" of biofuels do so in a way that is largely ignorant of the limits and effects of biofuels and the extreme danger they present to our biosphere and food system if not very well regulated.
I believe the internal combustion engine whether driven by fossil fuels or by biofuels should have a much more limited scope in the future. Electric drive is the way to go. I can explain if you don't understand why.
I also don't have a problem with biomass power plants (more energy available than with biofuels) but their biomass fuels will also need to be regulated as well as we come to rely on them more, as we can overplant and become overreliant on using the soil and water system as a conduit for our exosomatic energy demands. As I said, you should really read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:29 am
09 Aug 2008
Let's start this discussion with an understanding that there is a huge difference between what many folks (I believe you seem included in this group) call biofuels versus sustainable use of biomass.
For all practical purposes, let's include corn ethanol and virtually every other type of plant-based fuel that is out there now... with the exception of woody biomass... in one group that we'll call biofuels. There are a few exceptions to this, but these represent small volumes. The other group we'll call biomass (which includes trees and grasses, like switchgrass).
I limit my discussions on "biomass/biofuels" potential to biomass. I have no interest in biofuels, as defined above, and can't speak to the potential sustainability of this group. All we know so far is that most of what I've defined here as biofuels is not being grown sustainably and/or has questionable GHG/energy balances. The FSC may have some involvement in this group (I'm not currently active in the FSC), but it's main focus is on biomass.
So again, my comments are limited to biomass.
On this front, there is no issue with water use. It's just not on the radar screen because it's a non-issue (at least in the US). Soil conservation is an issue, but it is integral to eco-certification and sustainable biomass production.
That said, I have read numerous statements by companies (and investors) involved in cellulosic ethanol, as well as other biomass energy technologies, that they support sustainable production of biomass feedstocks. Time will tell how strongly this position is adhered to, and whether they ultimately rely on stronger standards like those of the FSC or weaker ones (which I would personally oppose).
But the point is, there is enormous energy potential that can come from sustainably grown and harvested forests and biomass plantations. I think it is fair for folks to speak out aggressively that biomass be used in this way, and spoken against if it is not.
Your point about the internal combustion engine is really not relevant. Yes, transportation will largely convert to some other mode in time. I think most agree on that. But that time.. the time when MOST of this conversion has taken place... is at least 20 years away. In the meantime, we need to offset the use of oil. This is what those in the cellulosic ethanol sector are focused on, and anyone who argues to the contrary is simply in dreamland.
Stating that the use of biomass could become a problem is, of course, a true statement. I can present scenarios for wind and solar that are quite problematic as well. It's all of our jobs to make sure this doesn't happen.
But again, let's differentiate between biofuels and biomass, and let's acknowledge that there is huge potential for sustainable biomass energy. Some scientists, in fact, argue that greatly expanding the use of biomass is, in fact, vital to reversing (not just stabilizing) GHG levels... something solar and wind can't do.
I, for one, get far more joy out of spending time in a sustainably managed forest than I do in a wind farm or solar thermal array. But maybe that's just me.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:05 am
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:49 am
09 Aug 2008
Actually, it's 100-120 gallons of liquid fuel per ton. But there is also a substantial volume of other product from each ton that is not liquid fuel. I'm not certain of those numbers (I could look them up), but I do know it's more than enough to completely power the production process. The transportation numbers are actually quite small, as long as transport is kept to 60 miles or so. And this transport number has the potential to go lower as new technologies become available to process the raw wood fiber before transport (so you're transporting more energy-grade material than water).
But this is not at all a complete picture of what will happen with biomass.
In the short term, existing forests have the capacity to conservatively produce an initial harvest of 15-30 tons per acre (higher in some areas), because this "energy grade" wood has generally accumulated across many tens of millions of acres. So the short term numbers (over a 5-10 year period) are much higher.
Then energy plantations (trees and grasses) come on board, and these numbers can get very large. Existing test plantations are already producing 10 tons per acre per year, and this number could well double within 10 years. If we wanted to (or needed to), it is certainly possible to establish 200 million acres of sustainably managed biomass plantations. Do these numbers and I think you'll see where biomass energy can go.
So again, start with existing forests by tapping into the large volume of standing energy-grade wood, establish eco-certifiable plantations over the next 15 years so that this material is available long term, then continue to manage forests on a sustainable basis indefinitely. This is what I expect to see.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:55 am
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:53 am
09 Aug 2008
Since you mentioned the issue of transport fuel costs for biomass, I thought I'd put a few numbers down to paper.
The trucks moving wood chips today are getting 5-10 mpg and are typically moving 20 tons of chips. So if we use 5 mpg and figure this on an 80 mile round trip, the transport is taking 16 gallons of fuel. The 20 ton load could yield 2000 gallons of liquid fuel.
As I said, transport is not a significant factor, as long as the distances are kept under 60 miles from source to production facility.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 12:06 pm
09 Aug 2008
Burning forests and other cellulosic products in biomass power plants en masse will still put pressure on ecosystems that is unprecedented. I am not against it, but it needs to part of what are called "combination" power plants, where the storage capacity of biomass is used wisely to balance more unpredictable renewable resources.
Again, you are showing a touching faith in pronouncements of companies about their concern about sustainability. You seem to want to straddle biomass and biofuels in your latest post...make up your mind! These companies need to form a sustainable biofuel alliance and lay out what they mean by sustainable so it is publicly available for scrutiny and accountability.
Also, you are falling prey to what might be called the biophilic fallacy: that somehow if a solution involves green growing things that it is of necessity more ecological than using a mineral or mechanical product. You like the idea of wandering in groves of trees...but you will need far larger plantations of industrial biomass to equal the energy output of a single solar thermal power plant with thermal storage. McDonough makes an interesting distinction between "technical nutrients" and "biological nutrients" which may be applicable here.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:40 pm
09 Aug 2008
On the other hand, the Menominee realize that they could be much richer if they just clearcut the whole thing or sold it to a forestry company, but they prefer to be good stewards. This kind of ethic seems to be something that many indigenous peoples around the world practice, which is why rainforest action network argues for indigenous rights to a forest over even buying the forest. But I wonder if that ethic could be extended over, say, hundreds of millions of acres.
So Richard, if sustainable forest yield is about 1/3rd of our current oil use, that would just cover all of the nontransportation needs, that is, everything outside of cars, trucks,and planes. Also, even assuming 40 miles, or even 100, you're assuming that the fuel would be pumped into pipelines? That's not necessarily bad, pipelines do take a percent or so of oil use currently, just wondering.
Also, Michael, if you look at the use of wood by the Burlington Electric Department, a municipal utility, and look at their use of wood to generate electricity, I think you only get around 10% of total US electric generation if you use all of the sustainable wood in the country. On the other hand, that might be a good way to generate some baseload or peak capacity.
Richard, 200 million acres of plantation forests sounds like a bit much -- that's about a third of the current forest cover, not sure about how much of rangeland that would cover. Again, it's interesting, but also something to examine carefully.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:08 pm
09 Aug 2008
A bit more on potential...
You asked about the 200 million acres. Considering we have some 750 million acres of range/pasture land and another 750 million acres of forest, it is not a stretch at all to envision pulling 200 million acres from this 1.5 billion acres and creating sustainable energy plantations of poplars, willows and grasses... if we wanted to or needed to... and if it could be done sustainably.
What's it amount to?
Standard conversion figures for biomass electric plants are 10,000 tons of chips per MW of electricity. If each acre of plantation is producing 10 tons of biomass per acre per year, we need 1000 acres to produce 1 MW of baseload electricity. That amounts to 1 million acres of plantation to generate 1000 MW... about the size of a small nuclear plant, I believe, or a large coal facility. That 200 million acres gives us the equivalent of 200 new nuclear plants. I think that's a meaningful number. Then use all the sustainably managed natural forests to offset oil usage in plastics and chemicals. This scenario even gives DRX and others the option to drive electric vehicles off of mother nature's very own natural solar conversion system.
I'm not sure what the output is of a solar thermal plant, but my guess is trying to produce 200,000 MW of power from these is a bit of an environmental nightmare.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to establish thousands of decentralized, sustainably-managed biomass energy plantations run by local co-ops throughout the country, keeping power generation local and rural, encouraging biodiversity as much as possible, and creating the opportunity for a carbon negative solution. But that's just me.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:57 am
10 Aug 2008
Monitering the type of forestry used, wether chips from slash and waste are used or left as a fire hazard in the woods. I'll check out the sludge, how toxic it is and where they dump it, and the air bourne emissions.
My favorite system, biogas digestion of waste is already up and working. Even with solid oxide fuel cell cogeneration, my favorite fuel powered grid backup device.
Comparison of these two systems would be good. Including the income produced for loggers and landowners from tree to fuel and fertilizer costs averted and utility payments to farmers for the kwhs produced from biogas grid power.
I think biogas will win from every aspect. I want to find a farm using biogas as tractor fuel.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:08 am
10 Aug 2008
I have tried using a description of the carbon cycle to defeat it Michael. The simplistic notion that just because fuel came from plants that absorbed CO2 it is carbon neutral or even carbon negative is firmly set in the collective consciousness fed by mass media.
What do you think of my biodigestion offset claims? I have found little research support, but some anecdotal evidence from ecology courses.
As with the recent research showing ethanol from corn doubles GHG and ethanol from cvellulose increaes GHG by 50% over oil based fuels, I think some basic research is needed on biogas from waste and organic fertilizer to verify the GHG offset.
And also to specify the amount of energy and GHG offset available from the total manure, sewage, garbage, green crop waste, dead wood (at risk from fire), and other waste stream resources asuitablwe for biodigestion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 1:46 am
10 Aug 2008
Sustainable forestry is not difficult to understand. You start with X tons of biomass per acre, harvest Y and turn it into energy, and in ten years you have X tons (or more) growing again. The carbon goes up and the carbon comes back, in fairly short order.
As far as the concerns he raises in his previous post, I'll be watching those issues right along with him. I share his concerns.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
10 Aug 2008
Biogas digestion is environmentally positive,proven in actual installations, how positive is still to be proven.
Research studies are fine, but a new technolopgy ought to be tested anyway. Before being rolled out on the massive scale you envision, 100s of millions of acres of trees converted to fuel.
How much sludge will be produced for instance? A few biomass to fuel plants that can be actually be measured would beat theory.
I think that would stop everyone's frustration around these GHG balance controverseies.
Would the pumping of CO2 underground be incorporated in these tree to fuel plants? What would replace the lost soil nutrients from combustion? fossil fuel based chemicals? How would that effect the carbon cycle?
I would trust the National Renewable energy Lab (NREL) to do this research for purposes of public information and legislation. But as always, "Trust but verify".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:18 am
10 Aug 2008
I'm not sure why you don't get this, but what I suggested (as far as electric production is concerned) is well known and thoroughly tested. You can find installations like this all over the world. The Burlington Electric plant is 30 years old. No one questions how well they work. The environmental impacts are quite minimal.
We know how to grow trees. Virtually every stem of wood used as structural lumber to build every home in the US comes from plantation grown trees. There's no mystery in this. What I and others are suggesting, though, is growing trees only for energy purposes, and doing it in the most sustainable way possible (reducing impact on existing biodiversity; limited the use of fertilizer; maintaining soil quality; etc.). But this work has been ongoing for 30 years as well.
The only question now is whether we want to do it... or keep burning coal and oil... build more nuclear plants... and simply wait for GHG issues to become overwhelming. I'm a big fan of solar and wind, but we can't just toss aside the potential... using KNOWN technology... to offset the energy we'd get from 200 new nuclear or 300-400 new coal facilities by using biomass-based energy instead.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 3:55 am
10 Aug 2008
Guessing and surmising is not going to get us to a sustainable energy economy. Your comments about solar thermal are way off base; you need to educate yourself about the alternatives rather than spouting off out of ignorance. Imagining without research is not going to get us where we need to go.
On a thousand acres of desert, an area with a lower density of living things than a forest, you could have over 200 MW of solar thermal collectors, so your efficiency is about 200x that of biomass production. Furthermore, I don't know if you have figured into your numbers the energy it takes to transport that massive biomass to the biomass plant, grinding it, drying it, maybe gasifying it. With the solar thermal plant, most of the energy expenditure is up front and current figures show that we get around 45x the energy in as we would put into building and maintaining it.
So I care enough about forests not to put them in the cross-hairs of our energy needs.
I'm afraid people have bought into the "local and small is necessarily better" ideology and are trying to tailor the world to suit that view. I like local food production and local energy production but I don't want us to exhaust and distort our local ecosystems because of our demand for mechanical and electric energy.
Biomass energy plants are valuable and important parts of what I call the renewable electron economy but, as I have said in the other comment, in the context of an ensemble of renewable generators. We don't want to lean too heavily on them.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:58 am
10 Aug 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:19 am
10 Aug 2008
Questions remain that need actual scientific data collection and analysis of that data.
No new permits should be issued without that. It's a prudent precaution for a technology that is facing controversial claims from both sides.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 5:28 am
10 Aug 2008
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:44 am
10 Aug 2008
It's not clear to me that you are actually reading through my posts or simply reading the first and last line of each. Your comments don't make a lot of sense relative to what I posted.
1. Your point about the efficiency of solar thermal vs. biomass is completely irrelevant. I never suggested biomass was anywhere near as efficient as solar thermal for a given acre of ground. It obviously is not. But that's not the point. Actually, you made the exact point I was getting at.
If it takes 1000 acres of desert to produce 200 MW of energy, then it would take 1 MILLION acres of desert to produce the 200,000 MW I was talking about in my post about biomass energy plantations.
If you believe it would be easier to create (and maintain) 1 million acres of solar thermal than 200 million acres of trees and grasses, than you are not at all realistic. Is this what you really believe?
2. You then go on to talk about the "extensive" energy needed for transport and processing, and whether or not I had figured that in. I provided several clear and complete posts covering this in detail! Did you not read through them?
There's not much sense in discussing this issue if you simply fail to read my responses and/or completely distort what I am saying. When I talk about 200,000 MW, please don't respond with a post talking about 200 MW. It makes the conversation impossible.
Richard
Permalink
sfj4076 Posted 4:20 am
12 Aug 2008
You said:
"Carbon capture technology is about as close to reality as breeder fission, fusion, fuel cells, and the hydrogen economy. And even if carbon capture ever gets perfected, you end up with a fuel just as carbon intensive as what we use today but at even greater costs. "
There are a number of full commercial scale CCS projects actively working today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#E ...
---------------------------------------
As of 2007, four industrial-scale storage projects are in operation. Sleipner [8] is the oldest project (1996) and is located in the North Sea where Norway's StatoilHydro strips carbon dioxide from natural gas with amine solvents and disposes of this carbon dioxide in a deep saline aquifer. The carbon dioxide is a waste product of the field's natural gas production and the gas contains more (9% CO2) than is allowed into the natural gas distribution network. Storing it underground avoids this problem and saves Statoil hundreds of millions of euro in avoided carbon taxes. Since 1996, Sleipner has stored about one million tonnes CO2 a year. A second project in the Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes per year. [16]
The Weyburn project is currently the world's largest carbon capture and storage project.[16] Started in 2000, Weyburn is located on an oil reservoir discovered in 1954 in Weyburn, southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. The CO2 for this project is captured at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, North Dakota which has produced methane from coal for more than 30 years. At Weyburn, the CO2 will also be used for enhanced oil recovery with an injection rate of about 1.5 million tonnes per year. The first phase finished in 2004, and demonstrated that CO2 can be stored underground at the site safely and indefinitely. The second phase, expected to last until 2009, is investigating how the technology can be expanded on a larger scale.[17]
The fourth site is In Salah, which like Sleipner and Snøhvit is a natural gas reservoir located in In Salah, Algeria. The CO2 will be separated from the natural gas and re-injected into the subsurface at a rate of about 1.2 million tonnes per year.
-----------------------------------------
As for the cost and efficiency hit (as greyfalcon alluded to before), yes, doing CCS is not cheap, but many in this forum will make the argument that we should not use coal at all if we cannot do something about the carbon issues. It is worth taking the energy hit to do it cleanly, because otherwise the resource would be stranded.
So the question is not "is it more expensive than conventional coal power generation?" (again mixing up electricity and transportation fuels, common mistake).
The question is "Despite the costs of CCS and biomass blending, are synthetic fuels economically, technically, and logistically feasible, despite the not-insubstantial costs (both operating and capital) of making them in a carbon-controlled-to-neutral-or-better manner?" To which the answer is a resounding YES. (which is why there are at least three such projects underway in the US today).
As demonstrated above, it is well within the realm of technically proven technology.
To address Mr. Hoexter's saftey point,
Yes, like everything in the energy industry, there are safety considerations. The geological formations used for sequestration MUST be stable, and the sequestration must be done is such a way that there is no potential for a massive sudden release. The geology around co2 storage is fairly well understood. We have been pumping natural CO2 formations near Utah and pipelining it down to Texas for EOR since the '70s.
Back to biodiverstist's cost concerns,
I am curious how you come to the conclusion that these cost factors will make it uneconomic, or higher cost than existing systems, because I am actively developing one such project, and our extensively researched figures are fully competitive with conventional oil down to $60/BBL, including full CCS and biomass blending.
I am also curious why you have concluded that the fuels will be just as carbon intensive? Clearly, carbon is emitted when the fuels are burned, and at about the same rate as conventional diesel, but the more important question is "Where did that carbon that was just emitted when the fuels were burned come from?"
That is why biomass blending is so critical. You can source the portion of the carbon feed that ends up in the fuels, and that is not captured and sequestered during the conversion process, from biomass (effectively pulling the CO2 from the air), instead of from coal (which is clearly pulling it from the ground). This means that on a lifecycle basis, you are storing as much carbon as you pull out of the ground in coal via CCS, and you are sourcing the carbon that ends up in the fuels (and is ultimately re-emitted), from the air via biomass. This gets you to lifecycle carbon neutral (and yes, you have to to real LIFECYCLE carbon accounting, meaning you have to look at the WHOLE lifecycle, including planting, harvesting processing transportation, ETC.)
Another great advantage of gasification technologies is that most of these systems have already been fully proven and demonstrated at full scale, and under strict regulatory requirement, meaning that you are not going to have any surprises about what is in the byproducts, what is emitted at the plant level, ETC.
So in conclusion, this technology IS proven at scale, IS economically viable, and IS environmentally sound, so we ought to get busy developing it on a wider scale.
Best Regards,
Stephen F. Johnson (no relation to the EPA)
President
Illinois Clean Fuels
Permalink