Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Growing Biofuels: The Sustainability Opportunity

By Patrick Mazza
October 3, 2007   |   26 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Ethanol from corn is transitory. My concern is we don't kill the good to try to achieve the perfect."

-- Brent Searle, Oregon Department of Agriculture
26 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 26
October 3, 2007
<p>This article is correct. A lot of products in the stores use only a small amount of corn/wheet. So the price increase is not steep, maybe a tenth of a percent in some cases.&nbsp;</p><p>However, Grain prices are going up. Over the summer in California, ears of corn were commonly be sold over $.75 per ear in the stores. Pre shucked ears were a $1.25 .&nbsp; That seems pricy.</p><p>Tbones are going for 30% more than a couple of years ago.&nbsp; I recently read a story about Washington State wheat crop going from $3.70 to over $7.00 per bushel. The farmers were complaining because they sold most of their crops for under $5.00. </p><p>The important thing to remember is that the price increases are going to get worse. Last year, there was a shortage of refining capacity so demand from the refineries was reduced. As reported on this web site, more bio fuel refining capacity is being built all the time. Each of those refineries require an additional supply of corn/wheat/whatever. The potential for prices to soar should not be underestimated.</p>
Comment
2 of 26
October 3, 2007
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>real quick; why are price increases in beef, pork and chicken blamed on growing production of ethanol? My understanding is that spent mash or dried millers grains from the distillation process&nbsp;are a cheap or free source of good quality livestock feed.&nbsp; Meat prices should decrease with ethanol production,not increase.&nbsp; What is going on here?</p>
Comment
3 of 26
October 4, 2007
Duel fuel CAFE credits, car fuel millage reductions, Fuel evaporation rate standards, $0.51 fed welfare to oilies, increasing fertilizer and chemical needs for corn ethanol may increase oil use and profit.

With a $0.50 cost to clean fuel ethanol to food grade the $17 booze tax by ATF may move some fuel to a new market

Clean Air Performance Professionals
Comment
4 of 26
October 4, 2007
Wheat is rarely used for ethanol; 2-3x as expensive as corn and lower ethanol yield. Can't lump all grains together. Sweet corn prices have nothing to do with ethanol. Corn for ethanol is field corn, used mostly for livestock feed. Also, in my view, the tortilla prices are more a function of the Mexican government's lack of investment in their own agricultural production capacity.

Re: corn dumping - one side says cheap US corn hinders less developed countries from growing their own. Others say increased corn prices are starving the world's poor. Flip it around- cheap corn benefited the world's poor, and higher corn prices mean growing their own crops at higher prices. We're talking about field corn used to feed cattle, chickens, and pigs. The meat connection is the issue, and meat is what people want as their incomes grow.

The shrill voices of the critics seem to parallel the inroads that ethanol is making in the marketplace.
http://beta.nwbiofuels.org/storage/2B-Searle.pdf
Comment
5 of 26
October 5, 2007
Terry Frankl obviously hasn't bought any choice tenerloin steak at Raley's lately, or any milk either. Steak, which used to be under $10/pound is now over $16/pound. That's not a minor increase! Niether was the doubling in cost of tortillas in Mexico, which resulted in rioting. Ethanol from non-food sources - yes, but taking any amount of commodity out of the food chain is immoral and reprehensible, and should not be allowed.
Comment
6 of 26
October 5, 2007
Remember, the entire time they were dying of starvation, there was plenty of food. It only takes three months to starve to death. The government at the time eventually withdrew it's system to get food flowing again. It was the beginning of the end for the leaders. Again, the poor perish. If you wonder why the current Chinese Gov't doesn't do something sweeping to fix the problem with food in China, it's because they learned this lesson the hard way.

Let's learn the lessons of the past without reliving them.
1. Sustainable agricultural development must be incremental.
2. Overproduction must be balanced by economic incentives to leave land fallow.
3. Long standing food distribution systems must not be overrun by "good ideas," or new "priorities" for "sustainable" fuel.

When it comes to food production...arrogance kills.
Comment
7 of 26
October 5, 2007
. Today we overproduce, but there is no incentive to curb the supply. Farmland out of production is just a tax liablity with no relief. The consequences of U.S. overproduction are destroying Mexican farms today. Nowdays we call that "dumping." In Mexico they call it starvation.

Lesson 2: China, late 1960's. In the late 1960's in China food was tight in some places, but generally available. A centuries old network of distribution had served China and it surrounding countries very well. The government of China wished to exert more control on agriculture, especially the distribution of food, in order to bring it into the 5 year plan the government had decreed. They arrogantly changed the distribution system without considering the consequences of creating confusion within that system. No one is sure how many people starved to death in the late 60's in China, but conservative estimates are greater than 200 million.
Comment
8 of 26
October 5, 2007
. Farmers could not afford to sell their livestock, so they just sat on the farm and stayed off the market. Was this competition good for the consumer? Absolutely NOT.

In 1935 people in my home town, Norman, Oklahoma were starving to death. Many died in a shanty town made of scrap lumber and cardboard boxes called,"Collinsville." Those who had money and worked at the University did well. The poor perished.

Because of the dilema of overproduction, a farm subsidy was granted by the USDA to farmers to allow farmers to leave fields fallow, preventing overproduction and the deadly spiral in prices. Each farmer could chose how much to plant based on the market demand without going broke. It worked. However, this bill was cancelled about 15 years ago by people who felt like this was a "handout" to farmers. Since most of the surviving farms are large, crop planning is a little better than it was 70 years ago. However, it is still susceptible to overproduction.
Comment
9 of 26
October 5, 2007
I think it's alarming at the cavalier attitude fuel producers have about "sustainability" of "agricultural" products. When those products are in our food chain, "unsustainable" means starvation.

Are cellutitic compounds in our food chain?
Yes.
Cattle, sheep, goats, and many other animals eat them. It's called hay. Hay is an agricultural product many land owners depend on for both feed and income for farms. What seems to get lost in this discussion are the lessons of the past.

Lesson 1: The Great Depression. Was the great depression brought about because Wall Street burped? NO. In the 1920's the U.S. was primarily an agricultural economy. By 1930 small farms were producing food at a rate so high the value of livestock and feed was so low it fell below the production cost. The result was, it cost more to raise a pound of beef than you could sell it for, (and feed was extremely cheap). The value of corn fell so low, most farmers had to leave it in the fields to rot.
Comment
10 of 26
October 6, 2007
<b>==My concern is ==</b>
My concern is that you have someone making wild allegations with zero cited sources.

Perhaps considering he's from Oregon, I wonder if he's read this study by Oregon University,
saying that his claims about how worthwhile biofuels in Oregon are are completely unfounded.

<a href="http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726154343.htm">sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726154343.htm</a>
<a href="http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/sr/sr1078.pdf">extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/sr/sr1078.pdf</a>
Comment
11 of 26
October 6, 2007
But then again we all know what a joke Palm Oil is in Indonesia in indirect emissions.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil">http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil</a>

And the expansion in Sugar cane is looking like it will come from the Amazon and Indonesian rainforrests. (Directly or Indirectly)
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/soy2">http://greyfalcon.net/soy2</a>
<a href="http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/brazil_and_indo.html">http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/brazil_and_indo.html</a>

And so far, current Cellulosic Elephant Grass processes are even worse than corn. So they have a LONG way to go just to get to even with petroleum.
It may not even be possible.
<a href="http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf">http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf</a>

_

So remind me: "What Sustainability?"

It's not a matter of Good versus Perfect.
It's a matter of Horrible versus Someday Marginal Maybe.
Comment
12 of 26
October 6, 2007
Hey there Mazza,

Just thought I'd point out again that YES virtually all current biofuels put up more net GHG than petroleum in purely DIRECT emissions.
As per the recent study by Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize winner who created the ozone hole theory.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png">http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png">http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy</a>

That includes:
Canola/Rapeseed
Wheat
Barley
Corn/Maize
Cellulosic Sugar Beat Leaves
Cellulosic Roots
Cellulosic Corn Stover
Cellulosic "Hay"/Forages
And from another study featuring nitrogen fixation:
Soybeans (<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png">So bad they didn't even need to cover it?</a>)

With the exception of Sugarcane, Palm Oil and theoretically Elephant Grass getting marginal gains.
Comment
13 of 26
October 6, 2007
The best way to keep remaining family farmers in business is to make it possible for them to make a living. Small margins drive the increasing size of farms. So market prices that actually relate to the cost of production are key to preserving the small to medium farm base that we have. As does diversification so they are not dependent on a few commodities, which is really the killer when those commodity prices go down. Support policies that enable small to medium farmers to diversify in order to supply food, feed, fiber and fuel markets, and they will have a much better chance. For instance, a pilot program to support the establishment of perennial grass crops is included in the Farm Bill. That's a forward-looking solution for family farmers.
Comment
14 of 26
October 6, 2007
Moralizing fuels out of the agricultural system simply won't wash. Agriculture supplies us not only with food, but fiber - Is it morally wrong to grow cotton and flax? Agriculture traditionally supplied fuels before the rise of petroleum - In 1920 25 percent of US cropland was used to feed farm draft animals. In Oregon a lot of land is used for growing grass seed and Christmas trees? Immoral? I don't think so. The land has traditionally supplied the range of human needs, and still can.
Comment
15 of 26
October 6, 2007
Food systems are always in some level of flux. And the rise of a new market has disruptive consequences, as has the rapid rise of ethanol and biodiesel markets. A forthcoming paper from the British Royal Society indicates that when oil went above $30 and stayed there, then oil prices became the prime driver for ethanol growth. So, really, the effort must now go into enacting policies that drive toward sustainability, especially support of perennial grass and waste stream feedstocks - municipal waste looks like an especially good opportunity.
Comment
16 of 26
October 6, 2007
The rise in meat prices is complex, certainly partly due to feed increases, but also due to overall energy price increases, and the growing demand for meat by the world's growing affluent populations. Tortilla prices as well are up, but as my article indicates, this is in the context of a surplus dumping system that took a lot of domestic, small farmer production out of the market. Also a level of monopoly manipulation of the Mexican market. We need to enact policies that support developing nations farmers rebuild their production.
Comment
17 of 26
October 6, 2007
Wheat price increases are closely tied to drought conditions in Australia's wheat growing areas. Meanwhile, corn prices are back down to around $3-$3.50 bushel. So actually we probably have seen the worst already for price impacts of the ethanol market. As well, the market is balancing out - Some biorefineries are on hold since the market doesn't look as good as it did a couple of years ago, corn prices a piece of that. Law of supply and demand at work.
Comment
18 of 26
October 6, 2007
Corporate farming has grown dramatically in the last four decades. Does the average consumer/voter have the proper image, of who produces their food? Many family farmers have been forced to get big, or get out.

The family farmer is one of the few prime sources of energy, that has absolutely no control of the price they recieve for their product. All the middle-men, between the farm and the consumer, can adjust their prices. Not the farmer.

Past attempts by farmers to set voluntary production limits where not succesful (NFO). Corporate attempts to set prices may have more success, but only if corporations form a new energy cartel, like OPEC did.

Will the average consumer/voter see agri-business joined with energy giants as benevolent? I doubt, it. But that won't be seen, until after the elections, and after legislation has already been passed. Go figure...
Comment
19 of 26
October 8, 2007
Tim Raphael(Pacific Ethanol) and Suzanne Hunt(Worldwatch Institute) criticize US export policy for excerbating the farming situation in developing countries like Ethiopia. And all this time I thought it had to do with prolonged droughts, and war.
Throughout history, weather has been, and remains the wild card.
In time, growth in the biofuels sector will result in increased acreage under cultivation. In good years, the "surplus" will be stored both as food, and as fuel -the biofuels equivalent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In lean years, more of the crop will be devoted to food, and less to fuel.
Comment
20 of 26
October 8, 2007
Patrick I completely agree with you, the real immorality in agriculture has been the european and american production subsidies that have prevented third world agriculture ever getting of the ground. Taxing westerners to starve africans is just perverse. Don't think because grain is subsidised it's cheap.
Comment
21 of 26
October 10, 2007
A forthcoming paper from the British Royal Society will likely conclude that above $30/barrel oil, the prime biofuels driver is oil prices. It is not a question of biofuels or not - but what kind of biofuels we get. That is why I urge you and other biofuels critics to join with those of us who are working to implement public policies that drive sustainability in biofuels and agriculture in general. "Just say no" won't work.
Comment
22 of 26
October 10, 2007
Responding to Ahlport - These results are all about nitrous oxide emissions, and we're seeing different results in different studies. For instance, Adler, Grosso and Parton have looked at the full lifecycle including N2O and find biofuels still significantly ghg reducing. ("Lifecycle Assessment of net greenhouse gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems," Ecological Applications 17(3) 2007. There will be lots of work done on this in the next few years. Critical point - If N20 emissions are a problem for fuels, they are a problem for food, feed and fiber as well. So this is a problem we need to address and solve across the board through better farming techniques. Learning how for biofuels feedstocks translates into all farm products - another piece of the opportunity for biofuels to drive overall agricultural sustainability.
Comment
23 of 26
October 10, 2007
Perry,
Facts are easier to deal with than rumors. Go to this site to see the actual subsidy framework. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/farmbill/titles/titleIcommodities.htm#c
Generally speaking, the subsidies are designed to raise prices. They do not encourage selling at low prices to "wipe out" foreign markets. It's not the subsidies that reduce prices. The scale and production capacity of the large farms allows the production costs and prices to plummett. It's not the failure of US farms, or the success of subsidies that other countries should fear. It's the unrestrained growth of US production that should be discouraged. There are end-points in captitalism. We don't like to talk about them, but they do exist. Farmers drove the US economy to its end-point in the 1930's. They are very resourceful people. Success in marcro agriculture requires moderation and control. These are not words that go down well with free market capitalists.
Comment
24 of 26
October 12, 2007
The bottom line is.

The <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar"><b>theoretical limit</b> of photosynthesis is 11% solar efficiency</a>.

The realistic limit is closer to 6% solar efficiency

And so far with Fischer Tropsch processing you lose a bare minimum of 60% of that energy.

And then another average 12% of that energy in distribution.

The concept of running our transportation sector on a net 2% efficient solar energy conversion process is just unbelievable.

Especially lattitudes which have OECD countries which get half the sunlight of climatically/ecologically sensitive tropical regions.

_

It's not so much a question of "How should we do it?"
It's a question of "Why this, and not other alternatives?"

_

If we are trying to get more fuel efficient vehicles;

Then why should we try to artificially decrease the price of liquid fuels?

If the cost of liquid fuels is low, it does not justify reducing consumption of them. You cannot have both.
Comment
25 of 26
October 12, 2007
I find it hard to believe that biofuels production would continue at it's current pace, if all state and federal subsidies were yanked away from them.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png">http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png</a>

The University of Iowa comments that considering the ethanol-additive mandates countrywide have near fully been saturated, that corn ethanol in particular is heading for a market crash. That the product can't compete, even with lavish subsidies, unless it's mandated for consumption.
<a href="http://media.cleantech.com/node/1292">http://media.cleantech.com/node/1292</a>

So if they removed that silly 35 billion gallons of "any sort of alternative liquid regardless of it's environmental impact" bill which Bush passed, AND the subsidies. The concept of biofuels happening "Whether you like it or not" would be a rather weak statement.
Comment
26 of 26
October 12, 2007
I'm gonna have to be skeptical of that one.

<b>"Displaced fossil fuel was the largest GHG sink"</b>
That really sounds like the USDA is up to their old tricks.

For instance, Michael Wang's bogus "Fossil Energy Replacement" metric.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fer+%22fossil+energy+replacement%22
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/08/ethanolalternative-fuel-faq.html#q5

_

http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1890%2F05-2018
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=36958
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Geothermal Energy Association Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Geothermal Resources Council Apricus, Inc. Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Solar Power International 2012 Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters