<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Biofuels: not cost-effective or lucrative for climate change or business]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Russ http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:10:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/1 opportunity cost of subsidies (question)

The economics is startling -- if developed countries spent the same amount of money on preventing deforestation and the destruction of peatlands as they do on biofuel subsidies (US $15 billion), this would halve the total costs of tackling climate change.

Does this include the redeemable opportunity cost (i.e. as carbon sinks) of forest and peatlands which will be destroyed to grow biofuel feedstock, but which would not be in the absence of subsidies?

]]> opportunity cost of subsidies (question)

The economics is startling -- if developed countries spent the same amount of money on preventing deforestation and the destruction of peatlands as they do on biofuel subsidies (US $15 billion), this would halve the total costs of tackling climate change.

Does this include the redeemable opportunity cost (i.e. as carbon sinks) of forest and peatlands which will be destroyed to grow biofuel feedstock, but which would not be in the absence of subsidies?

]]> Comment #2 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:25:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/2 Ten flawed strikes don't make a case

Well, if you write a report on the basis of previously flawed papers, then you're obviously in big trouble.

That's why you can make 100 more fake strikes, you will never make a true point. That's why the anti-biofuels crowd can no longer participate in the debate, because it has made itself irrelevant.

Now, about this report-light:

It says avoiding deforestation is the cheapest of all GHG abatement options, and biofuels the costliest.

Now look at any science-based report, and we find the exact opposite !  

For example, an often quoted report: Enkvist (2007), "Cost curve for GHG Abatement" , McKinsey Quarterly 1.  

Graph: Global Cost Curve of GHG Abatement Costs.

As you can see:
-abatement cost of avoiding deforestation in Asia: €35/ton - the least cost-effective option
-abatement cost of sugarcane ethanol with cogeneration: -€25/ton (yes, that's minus), a negative cost

Other biofuels range between €0 and €7.5.

You can take any other report, by the European Commission Joint Research Center, for example, or any other. You will find the same data.

Now if the bizarre anti-biofuel crowd suddenly decides to ignore science, and starts pulling things out of the air, then it is making itself irrelevant.

It should not lament then that there are 'ten strikes' and that the enemy still isn't taken out.

Because if you don't aim right, you're never gonna hit the target.

More on substance, though, the real point is that none of the "avoided deforestation" ideas makes sense. Sadly so.

The real costs are perhaps 10 times higher, when you take all the real social and economic consequences into account.

And forest peoples themselves are already protesting against the idea of selling their forest on a carbon market.

Strangely, many forest peoples agree to enter palm oil production, for example, because it brings not only direct incomes, it brings modernity (roads, health care, education, trade, jobs, etc...).

The "avoided deforestation" reports - which already show that it is a very costly scheme and the costliest of all GHG abatement options - don't take this opportunity costs into account. So they must be amended.



]]> Ten flawed strikes don't make a case

Well, if you write a report on the basis of previously flawed papers, then you're obviously in big trouble.

That's why you can make 100 more fake strikes, you will never make a true point. That's why the anti-biofuels crowd can no longer participate in the debate, because it has made itself irrelevant.

Now, about this report-light:

It says avoiding deforestation is the cheapest of all GHG abatement options, and biofuels the costliest.

Now look at any science-based report, and we find the exact opposite !  

For example, an often quoted report: Enkvist (2007), "Cost curve for GHG Abatement" , McKinsey Quarterly 1.  

Graph: Global Cost Curve of GHG Abatement Costs.

As you can see:
-abatement cost of avoiding deforestation in Asia: €35/ton - the least cost-effective option
-abatement cost of sugarcane ethanol with cogeneration: -€25/ton (yes, that's minus), a negative cost

Other biofuels range between €0 and €7.5.

You can take any other report, by the European Commission Joint Research Center, for example, or any other. You will find the same data.

Now if the bizarre anti-biofuel crowd suddenly decides to ignore science, and starts pulling things out of the air, then it is making itself irrelevant.

It should not lament then that there are 'ten strikes' and that the enemy still isn't taken out.

Because if you don't aim right, you're never gonna hit the target.

More on substance, though, the real point is that none of the "avoided deforestation" ideas makes sense. Sadly so.

The real costs are perhaps 10 times higher, when you take all the real social and economic consequences into account.

And forest peoples themselves are already protesting against the idea of selling their forest on a carbon market.

Strangely, many forest peoples agree to enter palm oil production, for example, because it brings not only direct incomes, it brings modernity (roads, health care, education, trade, jobs, etc...).

The "avoided deforestation" reports - which already show that it is a very costly scheme and the costliest of all GHG abatement options - don't take this opportunity costs into account. So they must be amended.



]]> Comment #3 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:38:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/3 For the U.S.

Here's another graph of GHG Abatement Costs, specifically for the U.S.:

Graph.

-Solar CSP: $55/per ton
-Onshore wind: $40
-Biomass cofiring: $32
-Cellulosic biofuels: -$15 (minus)

(It doesn't take into account carbon-negative biomass strategies like biochar, though).

I think the "Think Tank" in question should stick to things it knows - writing about crime & justice, housing and pension systems, etc...

I always have a problem when so-called "think tanks" write about things they obviously have no clue about. Rather annoying.




]]> For the U.S.

Here's another graph of GHG Abatement Costs, specifically for the U.S.:

Graph.

-Solar CSP: $55/per ton
-Onshore wind: $40
-Biomass cofiring: $32
-Cellulosic biofuels: -$15 (minus)

(It doesn't take into account carbon-negative biomass strategies like biochar, though).

I think the "Think Tank" in question should stick to things it knows - writing about crime & justice, housing and pension systems, etc...

I always have a problem when so-called "think tanks" write about things they obviously have no clue about. Rather annoying.




]]> Comment #4 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:41:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/4 Except Jonas

Except Jonas, that the McKinsey report is based off of Michael Wang's study.

And I think we can all agree that Michael Wang's study is essentially scientific fraud.

He's got one of the few studies out there that still keeps saying Corn Ethanol is GREAT for reducing climate emissions.

When clearly thats a lie.

-David Ahlport

]]> Except Jonas

Except Jonas, that the McKinsey report is based off of Michael Wang's study.

And I think we can all agree that Michael Wang's study is essentially scientific fraud.

He's got one of the few studies out there that still keeps saying Corn Ethanol is GREAT for reducing climate emissions.

When clearly thats a lie.

-David Ahlport

]]> Comment #5 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/5 Jonas - please define 'abatement'

because at the moment you're making very little sense.

Whiskerfish

]]> Jonas - please define 'abatement'

because at the moment you're making very little sense.

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #6 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:00:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/6 Mitigation and, uh, mitigation

The real problem with a lot of these studies is that they confuse measures to actively reduce the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with measures to avoid the future release of more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

e.g. stopping a rainforest from being knocked down certainly helps prevent things getting worse in terms of the climate breakdown situation, but does not necc actively help things get better (assuming that a mature forest is either carbon-neutral or not nearly as effective a 'carbon sponge' as a fast-growing, young forest).

However, replanting a forest on long-denuded land actively lowers CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

It seems to me that calling the conservation of existing forest a 'mitigation' measure isn't quite the same as calling another activity, that actively reduces the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, a 'mitigation' measure. Comparing them leads to all sorts of half-policies and other types of responsibility-evasion.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

]]> Mitigation and, uh, mitigation

The real problem with a lot of these studies is that they confuse measures to actively reduce the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with measures to avoid the future release of more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

e.g. stopping a rainforest from being knocked down certainly helps prevent things getting worse in terms of the climate breakdown situation, but does not necc actively help things get better (assuming that a mature forest is either carbon-neutral or not nearly as effective a 'carbon sponge' as a fast-growing, young forest).

However, replanting a forest on long-denuded land actively lowers CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

It seems to me that calling the conservation of existing forest a 'mitigation' measure isn't quite the same as calling another activity, that actively reduces the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, a 'mitigation' measure. Comparing them leads to all sorts of half-policies and other types of responsibility-evasion.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #7 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:47:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/7 Another flaw of McKinsey. It's Methodology.

And while we're at it.

The "cellulosic biofuels" in the McKinsey report assumes that the cost of biofuels infrastructure is $0.

_

It bases this on the assumption that oil will "eventually" be way too expensive by 2030.  And therefore biofuels will automatically be the standard of transportation fuels.

And since the further assumption is that the world transportation must be liquid based in 2030, it assumes that creating biofuels will be inevitable.

Therefore, $0 cost for infrastructure for creation, transportation, and use.

_

This of course is highly misleading when you use it to compare infrastructure costs for competing technologies. Especially within a meaningful timeframe of 2-10 years.

One might even say it's intentionally MEANT to be misleading to advocate for biofuels.

-David Ahlport

]]> Another flaw of McKinsey. It's Methodology.

And while we're at it.

The "cellulosic biofuels" in the McKinsey report assumes that the cost of biofuels infrastructure is $0.

_

It bases this on the assumption that oil will "eventually" be way too expensive by 2030.  And therefore biofuels will automatically be the standard of transportation fuels.

And since the further assumption is that the world transportation must be liquid based in 2030, it assumes that creating biofuels will be inevitable.

Therefore, $0 cost for infrastructure for creation, transportation, and use.

_

This of course is highly misleading when you use it to compare infrastructure costs for competing technologies. Especially within a meaningful timeframe of 2-10 years.

One might even say it's intentionally MEANT to be misleading to advocate for biofuels.

-David Ahlport

]]> Comment #8 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:03:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/8 Oh and

And while we're at it.
_

If that 2030 figure methodology is going to be anywhere near to reality.

Then what we should be doing is NOT subsidizing liquid biofuel production/purchasing at all.  And simply wait for the ratcheting cost of oil to force their "assumed inevitable" implementation.

_

As for arguing "What is the marginal cost to reduce emissions in the year 2030", we also have to remember that this is McKinsey.

The same guys that in the 1980's said that Cellphones would never take off by 2000, and that AT&T should dump their huge investment in the technology, and focus on land lines.

AT&T lost billions on that study.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2007 ...

-David Ahlport


]]> Oh and

And while we're at it.
_

If that 2030 figure methodology is going to be anywhere near to reality.

Then what we should be doing is NOT subsidizing liquid biofuel production/purchasing at all.  And simply wait for the ratcheting cost of oil to force their "assumed inevitable" implementation.

_

As for arguing "What is the marginal cost to reduce emissions in the year 2030", we also have to remember that this is McKinsey.

The same guys that in the 1980's said that Cellphones would never take off by 2000, and that AT&T should dump their huge investment in the technology, and focus on land lines.

AT&T lost billions on that study.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2007 ...

-David Ahlport


]]> Comment #9 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:32:31 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/9 Or to sum it all up

We should be given an "abatement", for not using oil, at a time when oil is so expensive it's economically impossible to use oil.

_

i.e. WTF

-David Ahlport

]]> Or to sum it all up

We should be given an "abatement", for not using oil, at a time when oil is so expensive it's economically impossible to use oil.

_

i.e. WTF

-David Ahlport

]]> Comment #10 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:29:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/10 Abatement

Sorry, my English is not that good.

I looked up "abatement" in a dictionary. It says:

 Diminution in amount, degree, or intensity; moderation.
The amount lowered; a reduction.
Law The act of eliminating or annulling.

So "abatement cost" would mean: the cost of reducing the amount of CO2.

To sum it all up:

-according to all scientific studies on the abatement costs of different energy technologies and environmental actions:

-biofuels are the most cost-effective
-wind power and solar follow
-avoiding deforestation is the least cost-effective



]]> Abatement

Sorry, my English is not that good.

I looked up "abatement" in a dictionary. It says:

 Diminution in amount, degree, or intensity; moderation.
The amount lowered; a reduction.
Law The act of eliminating or annulling.

So "abatement cost" would mean: the cost of reducing the amount of CO2.

To sum it all up:

-according to all scientific studies on the abatement costs of different energy technologies and environmental actions:

-biofuels are the most cost-effective
-wind power and solar follow
-avoiding deforestation is the least cost-effective



]]> Comment #11 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:43:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/11 Subsidies and free trade

If that 2030 figure methodology is going to be anywhere near to reality.

Then what we should be doing is NOT subsidizing liquid biofuel production/purchasing at all.  And simply wait for the ratcheting cost of oil to force their "assumed inevitable" implementation.

Agreed: I'm against all subsidies for renewables, and for open markets.

]]> Subsidies and free trade

If that 2030 figure methodology is going to be anywhere near to reality.

Then what we should be doing is NOT subsidizing liquid biofuel production/purchasing at all.  And simply wait for the ratcheting cost of oil to force their "assumed inevitable" implementation.

Agreed: I'm against all subsidies for renewables, and for open markets.

]]> Comment #12 by mongabay http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:48:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/12 McKinsey's methodology on AD is not stated

Jonas, although under a fake name, posted the same comment on mongabay.  This was my response.

The McKinsey cost estimate for avoided deforestation ($60) is far higher than any I've seen. What are the other reports where you've seen AD costs anywhere near $60 per ton of carbon?

The Quarterly from December 2007 is quite vague on AD - their methodology is not stated. What did they use as the basis for the opportunity costs? Did they look at peat soils? Did they use tropical forests or temperate forests? The Woods Hole Research Institute, Stern Report, World Bank, and E.U have estimated GHG abatement via AD at a fraction of the cost of things like CCS and corn ethanol.

]]> McKinsey's methodology on AD is not stated

Jonas, although under a fake name, posted the same comment on mongabay.  This was my response.

The McKinsey cost estimate for avoided deforestation ($60) is far higher than any I've seen. What are the other reports where you've seen AD costs anywhere near $60 per ton of carbon?

The Quarterly from December 2007 is quite vague on AD - their methodology is not stated. What did they use as the basis for the opportunity costs? Did they look at peat soils? Did they use tropical forests or temperate forests? The Woods Hole Research Institute, Stern Report, World Bank, and E.U have estimated GHG abatement via AD at a fraction of the cost of things like CCS and corn ethanol.

]]> Comment #13 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:56:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/13 OK, Jonas, 'abatement'...

...relative to what? The present-day? Some fantastical future scenario?

I.e. reduction, relative to what?

Ask the question in the context of my earlier comments, and David Ahlport's, and you'll see where the bullshit lies.

Whiskerfish

]]> OK, Jonas, 'abatement'...

...relative to what? The present-day? Some fantastical future scenario?

I.e. reduction, relative to what?

Ask the question in the context of my earlier comments, and David Ahlport's, and you'll see where the bullshit lies.

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #14 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:32:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/14 One problem, Jonas, or whoever you are today

-Solar CSP: $55/per ton
-Onshore wind: $40
-Biomass cofiring: $32
-Cellulosic biofuels: -$15 (minus)

that I have with that study is that it compares technologies that exist and are being used, like biomass combustion, solar, and wind, to experiments like cellulosic and coal carbon capture that may never reach economic viability and have no verified performance, just estimated performance based on estimates of estimated estimatizations. Which makes me wonder why they left fusion and dilithium crystals out ...

That study will also change over time as science continues to roll in. The original study done by the USDA that has been used to support soy biodiesel for the last decade, claiming it was 78% carbon neutral, has also been eclipsed by new science. That's how science works.

It was conventional wisdom among biofuel "experts" that rising oil prices would make today's biofuels more competitive. Experts with vested interests are not the best source for information.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world




]]> One problem, Jonas, or whoever you are today

-Solar CSP: $55/per ton
-Onshore wind: $40
-Biomass cofiring: $32
-Cellulosic biofuels: -$15 (minus)

that I have with that study is that it compares technologies that exist and are being used, like biomass combustion, solar, and wind, to experiments like cellulosic and coal carbon capture that may never reach economic viability and have no verified performance, just estimated performance based on estimates of estimated estimatizations. Which makes me wonder why they left fusion and dilithium crystals out ...

That study will also change over time as science continues to roll in. The original study done by the USDA that has been used to support soy biodiesel for the last decade, claiming it was 78% carbon neutral, has also been eclipsed by new science. That's how science works.

It was conventional wisdom among biofuel "experts" that rising oil prices would make today's biofuels more competitive. Experts with vested interests are not the best source for information.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world




]]> Comment #15 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:39:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/15 ":..whoever you are today"

A group of interns at the Vinod Khosla energy institute?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> ":..whoever you are today"

A group of interns at the Vinod Khosla energy institute?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #16 by mongabay http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:15:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/16 McKinsey & Co + AD

I get the sense that in roughly 3 weeks McKinsey will change its stance on avoided deforestation.  Call it a hunch.

Jonas seems to be hung up on a particular type of biofuel, but not all ethanol is derived from sugar cane in Brazil.

]]> McKinsey & Co + AD

I get the sense that in roughly 3 weeks McKinsey will change its stance on avoided deforestation.  Call it a hunch.

Jonas seems to be hung up on a particular type of biofuel, but not all ethanol is derived from sugar cane in Brazil.

]]> Comment #17 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/ Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:38:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ten-strikes-and-still-not-out/17 One thing is for sure

Liquid fuels, regardless of where they originate, are going to become very expensive. Biofuels are not going to be cheaper than fossil fuels. They will rise in price lock step with fossil fuels, on average remaining more expensive, as we are seeing today. The shortsightedness of the idea that we are going to simply replace the fuel in our gas tanks with biofuels will become blatantly obvious when it costs $200 to fill up your average car regardless of the fuel chosen (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel or ethanol).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> One thing is for sure

Liquid fuels, regardless of where they originate, are going to become very expensive. Biofuels are not going to be cheaper than fossil fuels. They will rise in price lock step with fossil fuels, on average remaining more expensive, as we are seeing today. The shortsightedness of the idea that we are going to simply replace the fuel in our gas tanks with biofuels will become blatantly obvious when it costs $200 to fill up your average car regardless of the fuel chosen (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel or ethanol).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]>