I have tried to stay out of the ethanol debate because I always assumed it would die a natural death. However, it does not seem to be going away, so I thought I would look into the latest hoopla.
A tug of war is quietly taking place inside environmental groups as individuals sort out where they stand on a given biofuel issue. For example, Mongabay has an upbeat article on biofuels, surrounded by articles showing its destructive potential. I suspect the same thing is happening inside the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and everywhere else. The idea that environmentalists are now in bed with God-fearing patriots on the issue of oil independence might seem unsettling at first, but to be honest with you, neither side has a monopoly on rational thought. When our heads start to hurt from thinking too much, we tend to just go with what feels good.
Our politicians may be setting a lot of people up for financial ruin by mandating fuel use. As Tom's article pointed out, economic trends are not something governments can just dictate. Our government may soon be reminded of that fact, but at least I know I could be wrong.
When I searched for info on corn-based ethanol, I found timely article after timely article explaining clearly and precisely why it is such a bad idea (outnumbered ten-to-one by articles telling us it is a great idea). Forget the argument that it might take more energy to produce than you get back; even if you accept the 1.6 positive energy-balance ratio now being bandied about, the idea that corn-based ethanol can help lead us to anything resembling energy independence is farcical.
This article on corn-based ethanol in Reason was pretty good. The author calculates that it would take the country's entire corn crop just to provide us with one fifth of our gasoline. However, he forgot to subtract from that number the amount of oil used to make the ethanol or account for its lower gas mileage. Depending on who you ask, that could mean that we are actually getting more oil dependent with every gallon of ethanol we make, or that we can supply only about a tenth of our cars even if we use our entire crop for ethanol.
The author also talked about the possibility of using our conservation reserve land to grow switch grass:
... planting idle cropland and pasture with fuel crops [switchgrass] could have some deleterious effects on the natural environment and wildlife and possibly spark a fight between the naturalist and energy wings of the environmentalist movement.
However, he forgot to mention that those conservation lands have been acting as giant carbon sinks, nullifying 15% to 30% of U.S. CO2 production.
The Mongabay article summarizes what the USDA thinks we will have a quarter of a century from now:
"...a portfolio consisting of 30 percent agricultural waste, 35 percent forest, 5 percent grains to biofuel, and 30 percent "specialized crops" [read switch grass] could meet [a third of our liquid fuel needs]."
That five percent of the renewable mix means they expect only about half of a percent of our "total" liquid fuel needs will be met with soybeans and corn.
The idea that we should be supporting soy and corn because they are bridges to more efficient fuels makes no sense. Making biodiesel out of soybeans and ethanol out of corn may actually stand in the way of future improvements in biofuel technology.
You cannot use the refineries designed to make soy-based biodiesel or corn-based ethanol to make the same fuels from, say, switch grass or algae. You would have to tear them down and start all over. Can you imagine politicians from states that have invested billions in infrastructure to make biodiesel from soybeans and ethanol from corn actually voting in a manner that would dismantle that infrastructure?
The bigger the soybean-based biodiesel and corn-based ethanol industries get, the harder it will be for free market competition to bring them down, especially if pork politics refuse to let them fall.
Comments
View as Threaded
odograph Posted 12:53 am
14 May 2006
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
14 May 2006
She made it all sound just wonderful, even though we know it is not. Filled with agribusiness lobbyist talking points, her presentation was impressive.
If only wind, water, and solar generated electric power used in plugin vehicles had this kind of support, maybe it would have a chance.
It's not looking good though. We are off on a biofuelish, capital and environment wasting sidetrack.
Only immediate and conclusive high publicity demonstration projects of home based solar and wind powering electric vehicles can counter this.
We are talking national and global emergency here, in the face of nuclear bunker busting imminent in Iran, in the short term, and an east coast, as well as gulf coast hurricane season, in the long term.
Not to mention record drought related fires and storm related floods all over the US.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:49 am
14 May 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:21 am
14 May 2006
"Iowa and Nebraska farmers could get checks totaling more than a quarter of a billion dollars to ease the burden of increased fuel costs. The relief would come from a controversial $1.6 billion proposal attached by the U.S. Senate to a spending bill to cover war costs and hurricane relief."
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=2169097
i think that sounds dangerous. questionable economics on ethanol, and a general "relief" bill to cover the energy expenditures on the front end.
obviously if we hide the farm fuel costs, we'll be less committed to fixing them.
* - http://www.theoildrum.com/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:57 pm
14 May 2006
Please pinch me and tell me I am having a nightmare?
Or can someone who understands this better explain why this is okay?
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:22 pm
14 May 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:17 am
15 May 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:09 am
15 May 2006
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:12 am
15 May 2006
While there IS an excess of small pulp trees most everywhere in the West, this is still a rather finite source for the power-hungry Americans. Although trees grow back, and quite rapidly, at that, it isn't sustainable in the amounts that will make a huge difference.
Yes, there IS a lot of potential to use the overstocked trees. Their value, along with merchantable timber, can offset the high costs of restoring our National Forests in the West. While this style of management won't be palatable to some folks, through carefully controlled planning and project oversight, good things CAN come out of this, if you just give us a chance. This scenario is surely much, much better than letting the forests burn, releasing all that carbon and toxic greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere and thinking that high-intensity fire is "natural and beneficial" for our forests.
A healthy demand for forest fuels will certainly help us manage the forests back into better shape but, we can't present this as a cure-all for our energy needs. Restoring ecosystems IS still the Forest Service's most important job, IMHO. I abhor the implication that others still feel we'd clearcut the forests without their opposition and their both legal and illegal "monkeywrenching". Since 2000, we haven't seen "wholesale destruction" and 1000 acre clearcuts, as promised by the "preservationist industry".
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:23 am
15 May 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:29 am
15 May 2006
I like the idea of managing the context and the ecosystem, not the output. I don't like that there is no output (in some people's minds, not you, Backcut).
After all, in the words of a fairly famous (in the ecologists' circles) tropical ecologist Dan Janzen, and I am paraphrasing: a tropical (he was talking about that, but it really applies to all) forest that doesn't pay for itself is a non-existing tropical forest.
We cannot subsidize management of an ecosystem without having the ecosystem pay for itself, since outside subsidies (both monetary and physical) will not sustain the effort. The human and monetary sacrifices will not be tolerated for long both by the government and the people.
I cannot take credit for these ideas, although this has been brewing in my head for a while. We (environmentalists and broader human race) need to reconsider the idea of preservation in a world full of 7 billion people.
In other words, forest products clearly are a necessity for survival of forests. Wood is one, and it is most definitely a renewable source.
From the literature, Western forests are undercut by something like a factor of 2-4 when compared to a sustainable yield level. It is not necessarily a negative thing, since in my opinion the current sustainable yield model is flawed, but it forces other areas of the world/US to be overcut. SE US forests are overcut, as are tropical forests (especially illegally), which are going to the developed countries for a cheaper price than the wood is actually worth (never mind the externalities even). One can check out most recent issue of the biweekly SAF publication (Forestry Source) on the layperson coverage of the illegal wood issue.
Essentially, by forcing ecosystem management/preservation cuts a la (I'm sorry I cannot remember the SF eco-lawyer from Truce Almighty) 'that guy' on the National Forests, we are further subsidizing (monetarily and physically) an unsustainable paradigm. We should shift our focus to ecosystem management/conservation cuts a la TNC or Land Conservancy, where the output (which we should not manage for but should accept as an outcome of sucessful management) provides a profit and sustains a management effort. Leaving the forests alone will not work because these forests do not exist in a vacuum, but rather on our very overpopulated Earth.
This leaves us with the fuel loads in the West, and mostly degraded forests with terrible quality of wood (for sawlog purposes) in the East due to continued pillaging of our forests by diameter-limit/cream cuttings. The ecosystem management could easily provide for a continued output of biomass (which is that 35% statistic: I will not claim that I have an idea of what the actual number is) as we try to improve the quality of our forests in the East. Anyone only has to ask a forester (not a logger) about low-value wood markets and they will sigh, since those are few and far in between.
There is a point of mentioning other forest products: hunting, mushrooms, edible vegetation (such as wild leeks, even garlic mustard, or what have), but the value of these is far outweighed by the value of good wood in the marketplace. Clearly, a good paradigm of forest management will have a positive effect on the ecosystem function, rather than outputs, but hopefully these and other outputs will be good as a result.
I ran out of steam here, lok forward to hearing from the rest of ya'll.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:12 am
15 May 2006
Fire suppression, high-grading, clearcutting and "preservationism" have all had major impacts on our National Forests. The time has come for us to more closely mimic natural processes and restore our forests back to a more "natural" state, at least as much as the current reality of a man-dominated world can allow. Like Atreyger says, we do have to think globally and act locally, by reducing demand for wood harvested and imported by us, especially in third world countries, where little to no environmental controls exist. That means cutting more of our own wood using the latest and greatest science in the world. NIMBYists equate this with arrogance but, it IS the truth. Atreyger is right to say that we shouldn't be managing the output but, welcoming the board feet and forest fuels as a merchantable by-product of ecosystem management.
Seeing the slant of the Forest Service wander to and fro with the whims of each Administration is tough on us "Freddies". For example, I was happy with the oldest of Roadless Rules, in place before Bill Clinton's plan. His plan really didn't change much but gave the Roadless Areas a tiny bit more protection without an outright ban on logging and mining. Now, Bush comes along and brings the potential for states to re-open Roadless Areas to development, increasing the possibility of destructive activites and guaranteeing wasteful lawsuits. "Healthy Forests" were a very rare example of how a good plan can bring together both political parties for the greater good. Luckily, the Democrats were able to convince the Republicans that the original version of "Healthy Forests" was flawed and gave too much power to people like Mark Rey, while cutting the public out of the loop.
Let's hope that science will dictate what we do with particular pieces of land, from now on. Let's also hope that the public will learn the science and let us "Freddies" earn trust, over time. Finally, let's hope that the science will triumph over partisan politics, rhetoric, campaign contributions and idealistic dogma-drama.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:06 am
15 May 2006
It seems however that we are asking more and more of our forests. Isn't there a limit to how hard we can use them and still call them forests?
Seriously, just burning wood in power plants is more efficient than making liquid fuels out of them (assuming liquid fuel shortages can be handled in other ways). And, didn't we consume most of our forests as fuel before turning to coal?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:34 am
15 May 2006
For example, I recently read an article about a 'greenhouse house', where the builder attached a growhouse at the southern side of the house with water pipes running underneath the floorboards, and achieved using absolutely no gas over the course of 20 years, while only 'occasionally' running the wood stove to heat the water. I'm not sure how often that occasionally was, but the guy lived somewhere in New Jersey, and they can have fairly cold winters.
Another example is a friend of mine's farmhouse, where he has a similar set-up except without the greenhouse. He had to run the wood stove more frequently, but it was still much more efficient than a fireplace. There is a lot of ideas out there regarding these constructions, both new and old, but the wisdom has existed for centuries. My Russian grandpa keeps on talking about these old houses built out of two-log walls, with a brick and clay wood stove in the center of the house with increased surface area to give off more heat. He also keeps on saying that birchwood should be used, since it has little creosote.
On the other hand around NYS, we have one biomass (read wood and bark, twigs, etc) co-firing power plant, and in Burlington, VT, there is a nearly 100% wood powered power station.
Wood and other biomass (if you look around, willow biomass is on that page too) is definitely not the only solution to our energy woes, and diversification is where it's at, yo... Corn ethanol, not so much.
Permalink
Rob Posted 8:48 pm
05 Jun 2006
Toyota Prius on gasoline 3.4
Jetta TDI on biodiesel 0.89
Jetta TDI on petro- diesel 3.7
Jetta 2.0L gas engine 6.0
Toyota Fuel Cell vehicle (hydrogen) 2.4
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_vehicle_compare.html
Permalink