Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Corn Ethanol Production Emits 51% Less Greenhouse Gas Than Gasoline

January 28, 2009   |   76 Comments

Do you like this research & reports?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

Nebraska, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] Corn ethanol directly emits an average of 51 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline per gallon produced. This is result of "Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Ef?ciency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Ethanol", a recent study conducted by researchers at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. According to the research, recent improvements in efficiency throughout the ethanol production process account for the difference.

76 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 76
January 30, 2009
One thing that should be noted is that study looks at yields in corn-belt states. Yet the effect of expanding demand for corn for ethanol has been to push corn production into more marginal areas -- irrigated lands west of the 100th meridian, former cotton-growing areas in the south, and states in the northeast.

A study by MIT published last year, for example, showed that there was a considerable difference between energy inputs to corn growing in Iowa and energy inputs to corn growing in Georgia.

http://lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE%202008-02%20RP.pdf

Therefore, if the effect of diverting the best (i.e., most energy-efficient) corn production into biofuels is to expand less-energy-efficient corn production elsewhere in the country, how relevant is it to narrow the boundary of the system only to the specific corn fields supplying corn for ethanol production?
Comment
2 of 76
January 30, 2009
51% less emmissions and 30% less power... it doesn't seem worth the effort. Corn is food - using it to produce fuel causes food prices to rise. There are too many other options available for making fuel that are not food - it's time to forget corn and move to more viable, worthwhile options.
Comment
3 of 76
January 30, 2009
We are NOT looking at the whole picture here... "The study did not take into account indirect land use change, because there is not yet a scientific consensus about how to estimate the magnitude of these effects as a component of the greenhouse gas intensity of biofuels, the researchers said."

This is a HUGE omission and makes the headline very misleading.

A study from Nebraska about corn ethanol seems like it might have a slight research bias.

The link at the bottom to the research doesn't even work.
Comment
4 of 76
January 30, 2009
Corn is not a food but a commodity. It is easily grown, even in irrigated areas, by growers who consider the economics of production relative to other crop options.
Corn comes out of the combine ready for processing or shipping. Due to the low moisture content and transportation system in the US, it is practical to ship the commodity long distances. Therefore, corn can be processed near production or near markets. Either way, corn is an excellent feedstock for many uses including ethanol production.
What is going to happen when people realize that a new commodity like algae is also a food source. Are we going to start complaining that we can't use it for energy?
The economics will decide the viability of corn or any other commodity for energy production. After all, it has been a tough economic climate for ethanol and all renewable fuels with oil less than $50 per barrel. Let's keep pumping that carbon out of the ground.
Comment
5 of 76
January 30, 2009
Cellulosic ethanol is the best option. Price of corn has gone up significantly recently as more and more corns are going to corn ethanol plant. Demand from food and feed industry is also going up. The high price of corn driving the corn ethanol production cost high. The corn based ethanol industry will not survive without Government subsidy. We should focus more on cellulosic ethanol production and stop further expansion of corn ethanol production.
Comment
6 of 76
January 30, 2009
Indeed, ignoring the land-use effects is a major cop-out and the headline is grossly misleading. The duet of landmark papers by Fargione et al and Searchinger et al in Science, 29 Feb, 2008 should have decimated any faith in biofuels, even "advanced biofuels". Unfortunately, their support lingers, partly because neither paper fully articulated the fallacies of cellulosic ethanol and microalgae. It is still not appreciated by many that only 29% of the carbon in the feedstocks going into cellulosic ethanol refineries ends up in the ethanol. Most of the rest is released from the processing plant as CO2. Even cellulosic ethanol will exacerbate net carbon emissions by reducing the amount of carbon sequestered in forest floors, fields, and soils.

The economics for algae are very bad. We doubt that fuels will ever be available from photosynthetic algae for under $20/gal. More competitive fuels may be available for a brief period of time from non-photosynthetic algae feeding off other waste streams, but the these low-cost feedstocks will be very limited. More sound info is available here: http://dotyenergy.com/Markets/Biofuels.htm .

Fortunately, there is a better solution. Scientists have recently shown that off-peak wind energy can be used to recycle CO2 into ethanol, gasoline, and jet fuel at up to 60% efficiency. These wind-generated carbon-neutral fuels, dubbed WindFuels, will sometimes compete when oil is only $45/bbl. Recycling CO2 into liquid fuels using off-peak wind energy addresses both the oil and the climate challenges, and it completely stabilizes the power grid. Detailed scientific, engineering, and economics analyses are available at http://windfuels.com/ . Annual WindFuels production per land area in good wind regions will exceed biofuels production density by a factor of 4 to 30. The cost of producing ethanol or gasoline from CO2 and wind energy will depend mostly on the cost of the off-peak wind energy, which is already sometimes free.
Comment
7 of 76
January 30, 2009
I'm going to have to agree with the previous commenters here: the land-use effect is HUGE. If an acre of corn is used for fuel instead of food, the demand is still there for that acre of corn for food, hence someone else will grow it. Often, forests are razed to make room for crop-growing, releasing carbon into the environment that much more than cancel out the effects of less greenhouse gas emissions.

So c'mon, let's be real here with the articles you put up.

Also, to Ben Cloud: to say corn is not a food is to be divorced from reality and living in some kind of theoretical abstraction. Corn is a HUGE part of what we eat every day... and yes, that makes it food!!! Food is important... we need it to survive ;) Now if this food also becomes a fuel source, we have different market forces acting on the same resource. If these additional market forces raise the price of that resource, and that resource happens to be a food, and hence food is more expensive for us, which is bad, because we need it to survive, then maybe we shouldn't use food as a fuel source! And pardon me, but show me the stats that show that algae is as important a food source as corn. I have a hunch we'll be waiting a long time for those.

C'mon man, get real. People's lives are literally at stake here.
Comment
8 of 76
January 30, 2009
Hopefully the govt will get out of the subsidies of all energies, including oil, and let economics decide who rules. Ethanol subsidies for the most part go to the blenders( terminals and oil companies) and not to the "brewers". Even if the energy ratio is 1-1, it is better than imported oil because of obvious reasons. I don't believe cellosic ethanol is a long term answer because of the commercial fertilizers it will take to replace the depleted soil nutrients. Wind and preferrably solar are better answers but until then, quit bashing ethanol as it is a step in the right direction. National security and energy independence go hand in hand and need to be everyones goal.
Comment
9 of 76
January 30, 2009
Corn may be food, but the corn-based ethanol market is just one of the commodity users of corn. The US consumes almost no corn directly as food, it is either heavily processed for human consumption (net-energy loss) or fed to cattle.

The tired refrain that corn is food may be valid in subsharan Africa, but it does not hold in the US economy. The study stands on its merits that corn-based ethanol makes sense in the Upper Midwest.
Comment
10 of 76
January 30, 2009
Mike Miller writes, "ethanol subsidies for the most part go to the blenders (terminals and oil companies) and not to the 'brewers'."

One has to make a distinction between initial incidence and final incidence of a subsidy (or, in this case, a tax credit), which often diverge depending on supply and demand conditions. The tax credit is taken by the blender, for sure, but only by procurring ethanol. That means that the blender will be willing to pay up to $0.45 per gallon more than would otherwise be dictaded by the market, because they get it back in the form of a tax credit -- again, depending on supply and demand conditions. The main effect of the federal tax credit, thus, has been to artificially raise the domestic price of ethanol. If it did not, and only rewarded the oil companies, why has the ethanol industry lobbied so hard to maintain and extend it?
Comment
11 of 76
January 30, 2009
The ethanol industry lobbied for the subsidies because without the tax credit for the oil companies, the oil companies would refuse to blend it into their fuels. How else would the ethanol get into the system. This is why it is important to pass legislation for all new cars to be flex fueled vehicles. It will give consumers a CHOICE of what fuel they want to burn. With blender pumps across the nation, you can bypass the oil companies "blending monopoly".
Comment
12 of 76
January 30, 2009
Mike: How else would they get ethanol into the system? Through the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates. Numerous studies have showed that the effect of the tax credit (and the RFS, when binding) is to raise the price of ethanol. See, for example, "The Welfare Economics of an Excise-Tax Exemption for Biofuels", by Harry de Gorter and David Just:

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5151/1/MPRA_paper_5151.pdf

The U.S. ethanol industry maintains that the import tariff on Brazilian ethanol was put in place to keep U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing Brazilian ethanol. But if, in fact, the subsidy does not benefit Brazilian suppliers but U.S. blenders, why should U.S. ethanol producers care about that?

The notion that the VEETC benefits only blenders and not the ethanol producers itself is a myth perpetuated by the industry to deflect public attention from the subsidy.
Comment
13 of 76
January 30, 2009
Pet peeve: the article contains neither the title of the report nor a direct link to its text. Also - as someone else has noted - the link at the end of the article does not work. Altogether, this looks like a typical PR piece. I strongly recommend thatthe editor of this site insist that each article contain the title of the cited report(s) and links that really do operate properly - BEFORE publication.
Comment
14 of 76
January 30, 2009
Charles (and others), here's a link (note the web site):

www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/2109/2009_jie_improvements_in_corn_ethanol-liska_et_al.pdf

Adam J. Liska, Haishun S. Yang, Virgil R. Bremer, Terry J. Klopfenstein, Daniel T. Walters, Galen E. Erickson, and Kenneth G. Cassman, "Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Ethanol", Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2009: 1-17.
Comment
15 of 76
January 30, 2009
It seems to be a hobby for some people to denigrate bio-fuels. To them, I have to ask: "What is the alternative?" If we carry on as we are, fossil fuels will run out eventually, maybe not in our lifetimes, but long before that, the price will be become absurd. For the foreseeable future we are going to need liquid fuels for transportation. Electric powered cars (as battery hybrids or possibly fuel cell) will take some of the load, but electric powered aircraft, ships, tanks, farm machinery, earth-moving machinery, heavy goods vehicles etc.? Nope, that's not going to happen. Only liquid fuels can provide the high energy content and rapid refueling. The problems with bio-fuels are all there to be SOLVED, not used as an excuse not to do it.

There is another fact to consider: Crude oil is the basis for thousands of synthetic chemicals that are used to manufacture pharmaceuticals, solvents, paints, varnishes, plastics, synthetic rubber, dyes, food preservatives, antifreeze, carbon fiber, adhesives .......... the list is endless. We need to preserve oil for these uses and for subsequent generations. When oil is gone - what then? The path from oil to carbon dioxide is a 1-way journey.

Our backs are against the wall - as a nation and as inhabitants of this earth. The future depends on bio-fuels and the "problems" are challenges that must be overcome.
Comment
16 of 76
January 31, 2009
"It seems to be a hobby for some people to denigrate bio-fuels. To them, I have to ask: "What is the alternative?" If we carry on as we are, fossil fuels will run out eventually,"

What is the alternative?

How about using less? We live on a finite planet with finite resources. The pyramid scheme of continual growth and consumption is not sustainable.

Todd
Comment
17 of 76
January 31, 2009
Ron S:
------"Yet the effect of expanding demand for corn for ethanol has been to push corn production into more marginal areas --...."------"...there was a considerable difference between energy inputs to corn growing in Iowa and energy inputs to corn growing in Georgia."-------

Exactly how is corn grown differently in Georgia than it is in Iowa?

If I were a farmer going to grow a crop for ethanol production and sale, and my land was marginal for growing corn, I'd choose another crop. If I were in Georgia, I'd choose either sorghum, sugar cane or sugar beets, all of which grow well in Georgia and Florida, and produces several times the ethanol per acre that corn does. I'd make a lot more money at harvest time.
From Aziz Ahmed:---"Cellulosic ethanol is the best option."--------
A cellulosic ethanol plant is being built to produce ethanol from wood, of which there is a lot of in Georgia.

There is no "best" choice---the best choice is which feedstock best suits local conditions.
Corn is only one option---ethanol can be produced from any type of plant material at all. The "best" choice is selecting the ethanol process that matches local conditions and availability of feedstock.
Comment
18 of 76
January 31, 2009
From D. Doty-----" It is still not appreciated by many that only 29% of the carbon in the feedstocks going into cellulosic ethanol refineries ends up in the ethanol. Most of the rest is released from the processing plant as CO2. "----
100% of the carbon in the feedstocks going into any ethanol production was first removed from the atmosphere by the plants used as feedstock. No matter what percentage remains in the ethanol, or what percentage is released from the processing plant---it is still not greenhouse effect producing---it was removed from the atmosphere in the first place.
The alternative to using biofuels is to use petroleum. 100% of the CO2 released from the use of petroleum is greenhouse gas effect producing since it was pumped up from underground and released into the atmosphere.

Would you explain the chemical process for your Wind Fuels?
------"Fortunately, there is a better solution. Scientists have recently shown that off-peak wind energy can be used to recycle CO2 into ethanol, gasoline, and jet fuel at up to 60% efficiency. These wind-generated carbon-neutral fuels, dubbed WindFuels, will sometimes compete when oil is only $45/bbl. "-------

How does that work?
Comment
19 of 76
January 31, 2009
Todd---conservation, using less petroleum, is good. I go along with that. However, conservation alone does nothing to alter the basic fact that petroleum is running out. Even if we conserve, we still run out eventually.


Conserving gives us more time to make a switch---time we are fast running out of. But we still have to make the switch.

I favor conserving what we have until we have made the switch too.
Comment
20 of 76
February 1, 2009
Fred Linn asks, "Exactly how is corn grown differently in Georgia than it is in Iowa?"

Different parts of the country have different hours of daylight during the growing season, rainfall and soils. Do some research, for cripes sake, before shooting from the hip. (Have a look at the link I provided, for a start.) Corn grown on non-irrigated land in Georgia averages only around 74 bushels per acre. Farmers in that state can obtain yields close to those on rain-fed Iowan farms only with irrigation. And pumping irrigation water requires energy:

www.caes.uga.edu/commodities/fieldcrops/gagrains/documents/LeeSectionCorn2008.pdf

As pointed out in the above document, corn was planted on more than 1.6 million acres in Georgia during the 1970s, but declined to 0.3 million acres in 2006. However, "[d]ue to significant price increases caused by increasing demand for ethanol and shorter carryover stocks, acreage increased in Georgia and the U.S. in 2007."

It does not matter whether the corn grown in Georgia (or other states) is for ethanol. If its production is expanding is to supply existing demands for corn -- e.g., for dairy cattle -- then it is cherry-picking to assume the yields in the best corn-growing part of the country when calculating net GHG emission effects of ethanol. It is analogous to the issue over indirect land-use effects.

"If I were a farmer going to grow a crop for ethanol production and sale, and my land was marginal for growing corn, I'd choose another crop. If I were in Georgia, I'd choose either sorghum, sugar cane or sugar beets, all of which grow well in Georgia and Florida, and produces several times the ethanol per acre that corn does. I'd make a lot more money at harvest time."

Well, clearly you are not a farmer in Georgia, Fred. Neither sugar cane nor sugar beets are grown in commercial quantities in Georgia, and the amount of land planted to sorghum is a tiny fraction of that planted to corn. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Comment
21 of 76
February 1, 2009
The point is, choose the crop that is best suited to where you are at. That is just economics. The northern half of Georgia is quite mountainous and logging is an important industry. Maybe that is why Range Fuels is building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Soperton---there is lots of wood.

----"Neither sugar cane nor sugar beets are grown in commercial quantities in Georgia, and the amount of land planted to sorghum is a tiny fraction of that planted to corn."--------

Farmers can change crops. Just because you grew on thing this year doesn't mean you have to grow the same thing next year.

Ethanol can be made from any type of plant material. And biofuels need not be ethanol. The very first diesel engine Rudolf Diesel built ran on peanut oil. There are a lot of peanuts grown in Georgia. And peanuts are legumes, an excellent rotation crop for corn or cotton.

It appears to me that your only interest in the whole matter is to keep everyone buying petroleum.
Comment
22 of 76
February 1, 2009
Fred Linn is taking the discussion off course yet again, and not listening. Coming out with a comment like "It appears to me that your only interest in the whole matter is to keep everyone buying petroleum" is the typical last resort of the biofuel booster. Unable to come up with any better argument, they lash out and accuse anybody who disagrees with them as obviously a stooge of the oil companies. Pathetic.

The subject of this string is the analysis described in the original article. My points have been technical, and on topic: if diverting corn grown in the highest-yielding areas to ethanol production stimulates corn grown elsewhere in the country, and that corn requires significantly more fossil fuel inputs to grow it than the corn going into ethanol production, then measuring the life-cycle emissions of corn ethanol on the basis of the best fossil-fuel energy balances from corn production (i.e., in the Corn Belt), rather than the energy balances of the corn grown elsewhere to replace it, could end up understating the actual GHG emissions created.

Fred, you have provided no cogent evidence or argument negating my point. You talk instead about what YOU would like farmers to grow instead of what they actually are growing -- through their own free choice.

And, of course, you can't resist resorting to character assassination through innuendo.
Comment
23 of 76
February 1, 2009
-------"Fred Linn is taking the discussion off course yet again,"------

I've already answered your question 50 times. Ethanol can be made out of any plant material at all. Corn is not the only sorurce of ethanol. A plant is being constructed in Georgia to make ethanol out of wood.

--------"Fred, you have provided no cogent evidence or argument negating my point. "---------

I just did------again.

---------"And, of course, you can't resist resorting to character assassination through innuendo."--------

If it walks like an oil company stooge, and it swims like an oil company stooge, and it quacks like an oil company stooge---------then it must BE an oil company stooge. You sure do a lot of quacking.

----"My points have been technical,........"----------

You are good at inventing minor technical points or fictious "problems" that don't even exist to divert attention from the real problem. But you have no solutions---just stand around and talk and continue business as usual.
The real problem is that continued use of petroleum is leading to wars, terrorism, revolutions, civil wars, global poverty, economic collapse, climate change, pollution, wildlife and habitat destruction, social elitism and other problems that will destroy us all.
Here's a violin, perhaps you'd like to fiddle while the world burns in a sea of petroleum.

The rest of us have work to be done.
Comment
24 of 76
February 1, 2009
"Fred Linn is ... not listening."

Again, you have answered nothing. I was talking about the higher level of energy required to grow corn in Georgia -- not necessarily for ethanol, but for any purpose. I was answering your question. Yet, rather than thanking me for my answer, you respond with the irrelevant point that one can produce ethanol from any plant material (yes, of course, if cost is no barrier). Corn, Fred, I was discussing corn.

And the point is hardly nitpicking. Look at some of the other comments above, a number of which refer to displacement effects.

You can try to paint me as a petroleum stooge all you want, Fred, but it won't stick. As you well know, I have argued for a carbon tax -- something I hardly think the petroleum companies favor.

Rather, it shows how narrow is your vision: in your world, everybody is either a biofuel fanatic, or they are working for the oil companies. There is no in-between.
Comment
25 of 76
February 1, 2009
Wouldn't it be great if the poor countries of Central America could get on the band wagon and produce ethanol from sugar cane or from excess wood?Their climate is similiar to Brazil's isn't it? Wouldn't it be great if they could get some of the energy wealth that is now going to the Mideast?

The only problem I see with this is that Russia and the US would soon be competing for those countries' loyalty because they would soon have enough money to start buying military equipment. And of course, the drug lords would get their fingers in it.

What a world we could have if everyone would look out for each other instead of themselves.
Comment
26 of 76
February 1, 2009
------"What a world we could have if everyone would look out for each other instead of themselves."--------

I agree Mike.
Comment
27 of 76
February 1, 2009
Todd Corry raised a good question asking: how about using less (fuel)? He also pointed to finite resources of the planet. Fredd Linn took that point but felt that conservation was not sufficient and only "gives more time". Anyway we seem to agree that saving( fuel) and conservation (resources ?) readily offer solutions and can contribute to serve the overall purpose of mitigating climate change. Now, please add to this climate aspect the fact that increased resource productivity, linked with energy efficiency and complemented with consevation/saving of energy (including fuels) is possible and needed since this is the alternative not only to "gain more time" for use of finite resources but also to reach a sustainable level of resource exploitation and climate protection on this planet. The possible margin for Co2 saving from corn-based biofuel technologies which R. Steenblik defends only offers a tiny (and controversial) contribution. Why not thinking broader when natural resources are close finite, other options besides biofuel- technology are available (efficiency and saving) and when global food supply is also at stake?
Comment
28 of 76
February 1, 2009
Peter----biodiesel can and is being produced from saltwater algae.

Biodiesel offers the same and a few advantages that ethanol does not have. Diesel engines are designed to perform with biofuel in the first place, the original engine designed by Rudolf Diesel ran on peanut oil. Diesel engines are already high compression so they are more thermally efficient than gasoline.

If efforts were concentrated on increasing biodiesel production from algae, we could still use all of our diesel powered vehicles with no modification. If all new vehicles had diesel instead of gasoline engines, normal relacement would eventually mean we would no longer be using petroleum.

Saltwater algae are some of the fastest growing organisms(and oldest) on earth. They are photosynthetic so they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Some species store as much as 50% of their volume as oil, and have yields of over 30,000 to 50,000 gallons per acre/yr.

We could use biodiesel and do everything you suggest and still replace oil.

I think that would incorporate your ideas of efficiency and conservation. There would be no competition with food sources because people do not eat saltwater algae.
Comment
29 of 76
February 1, 2009
Ben Cloud said:

"...The economics will decide the viability of corn or any other commodity for energy production. After all, it has been a tough economic climate for ethanol and all renewable fuels with oil less than $50 per barrel. Let's keep pumping that carbon out of the ground...."

Corn ethanol plants were going bankrupt when oil was at an all time high. The excuse then was that the high oil prices were driving up the price of corn. If economics decided viability, corn ethanol would have disappeared thirty years ago when the government first started its welfare program for it. Remove government support of it and it would just go away.
Comment
30 of 76
February 1, 2009
Good point, Grant

The study boundary does not include effects around the globe. Global warming is global. By ignoring impacts outside of the American farm belt you get incomplete results. Crutzen's and Searchinger's studies of nitrous oxide and crop displacement effects respecitvely would probably show corn ethanol to be worse than gasoline from a GHG perspective, aside from its impact on biodiversity, carbon sinks, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, or the price of corn for hundreds of millions of the poor.
Comment
31 of 76
February 1, 2009
Peter Grandgeorge said:

"...The US consumes almost no corn directly as food, it is either heavily processed for human consumption (net-energy loss) or fed to cattle.

The tired refrain that corn is food may be valid in subsharan Africa, but it does not hold in the US economy. The study stands on its merits that corn-based ethanol makes sense in the Upper Midwest..."

It is an equally tired refrain to pretend that beef is not food made out of corn. Corn based ethanol does indeed make sense if you are a farmer in the Uppper Midwest recieiving welfare from the rest of America's citizens.
Comment
32 of 76
February 1, 2009
Geoffrey Gunning said "...It seems to be a hobby for some people to denigrate bio-fuels. To them, I have to ask: "What is the alternative?..."

For God's sake Geoff, the alternative is to drive higher mileage vehicles. Improving America's average gas mileage from 24 mpg to 25.4 would save more oil than all of the corn ethanol produced last year.
Comment
33 of 76
February 2, 2009
"…If we carry on as we are, fossil fuels will run out eventually, maybe not in our lifetimes, but long before that, the price will be become absurd. For the foreseeable future we are going to need liquid fuels for transportation…."

The price of all liquid fuels will become absurd. That's why efficiency is the only way out. We will have liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. There is no rush to turn food and carbon sinks into liquid fuel.

"…Electric powered cars (as battery hybrids or possibly fuel cell) will take some of the load, but electric powered aircraft, ships, tanks, farm machinery, earth-moving machinery, heavy goods vehicles etc.? Nope, that's not going to happen. Only liquid fuels can provide the high energy content and rapid refueling…"

Hybrid cars and trucks are adequate. We don't need all electric yet.

"…The problems with bio-fuels are all there to be SOLVED, not used as an excuse not to do it. …"

Promoting the environmentally destructive biofuels that are being mass-produced today is nonsensical from an environmental perspective.

"…Our backs are against the wall - as a nation and as inhabitants of this earth. The future depends on bio-fuels and the "problems" are challenges that must be overcome…."

Agreed. So why do you continue to promote corn ethanol as a solution?
Comment
34 of 76
February 2, 2009
Fred Linn said:

"...The real problem is that continued use of petroleum is leading to wars, terrorism, revolutions, civil wars, global poverty, economic collapse, climate change, pollution, wildlife and habitat destruction, social elitism and other problems that will destroy us all...."

That strikes me as an intensly naive comment Fred. You just described all of human history. You think biofuels are going to change human nature and our proclivity to fight over resources, be they cane fields or oil fields? The destruction of wildlife habitat by oil pales in comparison to what biofuels are doing to it gallon for gallon.

"...Here's a violin, perhaps you'd like to fiddle while the world burns in a sea of petroleum...."

Here's a tuba, keep blowing while cropland usurping biofuels starve the poor and destroy what remains of our biospehre.
Comment
35 of 76
February 2, 2009
Peter H.C. Schroeder writes, "The possible margin for CO2 saving from corn-based biofuel technologies which R. Steenblik defends only offers a tiny (and controversial) contribution." Huh? Are you perhaps confusing my comments with those of somebody else? I wasn't defending anything. I was pointing to the implications of a key assumption in the study.
Comment
36 of 76
February 2, 2009
Russ--------"It is an equally tired refrain to pretend that beef is not food made out of corn. "----

The final product of producing ethanol from corn is DDG(dried distillers grain) which is used as a high protien, high quality animal feed. That is why ethanol plants are located near feeder and dairy operations.
Meat and dairy products are still classified as food. Your "either or" arguement that corn takes away food when ethanol is made is the tired refrain. It still produces both. And DDG is a better feed than the unprocessed corn. It is used as a less costly substitute for soybean meal to provide protien.

--------"Corn based ethanol does indeed make sense if you are a farmer in the Uppper Midwest recieiving welfare from the rest of America's citizens."---

Yes, we should give our money away to two bit dictators, despots and terrorists in the Middle East, Africa and South America instead. After all, American farmers do nothing at all but give you one of the best living standards in the world. Those lazy, good for nothing bums.
Comment
37 of 76
February 2, 2009
------"That strikes me as an intensly naive comment Fred. You just described all of human history. You think biofuels are going to change human nature and our proclivity to fight over resources, be they cane fields or oil fields? "----------

Humans fight out of greed and lust for power and control. Whether it is over cane fields or oil fields. Oil by it's very nature is disproportionately distributed and by the nature of how it is produced and used lends itself to manipulation and monopolization. Biofuels on the other hand, can be produced anywhere there is sunlight. That is the reason the oil companies are so dead set against allowing biofuels to gain a foothold in the market. Once that happens, they lose their monopoly control over energy----one thing that everyone needs. Biofuels won't change human nature---but it will change one thing that is a major cause of wars, poverty, and environmental destruction.

--------"Corn based ethanol does indeed make sense if you are a farmer in the Uppper Midwest recieiving welfare from the rest of America's citizens."---

Your statement above about midwest farmers seems to me particularly greedy and unappreciative of your fellow citizens who keep food on your table. I can just imagine your care and concern for starving people in Haiti or Africa. It sounds to me like your only concern is how much you have for yourself.
Do not offer to take the splinter from your neighbor's eye until you have taken the beam out of your own.
Comment
38 of 76
February 2, 2009
"That is the reason the oil companies are so dead set against allowing biofuels to gain a foothold in the market." -- Fred Linn

Perpetuating another myth, Fred?

Small, independent oil companies (some of which don't want to invest in extra equipment to handle ethanol) may not like being forced to blend biofuels, but most of the Oil Majors love 'em. Here's a small sample:

BP (with DuPont): www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021782&contentId=7041023

ConocoPhillips (with ADM): www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021782&contentId=7041023

Exxon and Chevron: http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/exxon_and_chevron_study_new_biofuels_and_shun_food_based_fuels

Petrobras: www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/news/petrobras-biodiesel-plants-inaugurated-in-cear.shtml

Shell: www.shell.com/home/content/media/news_and_library/speeches/2008/routs_biofuels_debate_29102008.html

Suncor Energÿ: http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx?cid=71&lang=1

If there's money to be made from biofuels, be it from the market or from government subsidies, you can be sure that the big corporations will make it their business to procure an ample slice of the pie.

(Oops, there goes the myth that this is all about independent, Ma & Pa biofuel plants!)
Comment
39 of 76
February 2, 2009
to Mike Miller

"Wouldn't it be great if the poor countries of Central America could get on the band wagon and produce ethanol from sugar cane or from excess wood?"

It hardly ever seems to be about 'excess wood' when it goes from theory to practice and involving multi-national corporations with no connection to land and people. It would be nice if as you put it - if we looked out for each other and not just ourselves, however corporate legal entities are often worse than some of the most selfish people. I'd suggest watching the documentary called, The Corporation. Clips are available via Google Video

As for Agrofuels and their status in South and Central America - I would recommend reading. The Real Cost of Agrofuels : Path to. Deforestation, Climate Change and Loss of Livelihoods.

Available at the link below
www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/publications/Therealcostofagrofuels.pdf
Comment
40 of 76
February 2, 2009
s GHG emissions:
Second-gen biofuels are likely to exacerbate, not mitigate the situation: Industrial tree plantations, including GE trees, are expected to become one of the major sources for future cellulosic ethanol or synthetic biodiesel. In South-east Asia, for example, both palm oil and acacia plantations are the two main drivers behind the destruction of rainforests and peatlands. The carbon dioxide emissions linked to this destruction are so high that they have turned Indonesia into the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Furthermore, one of the worst recent human rights abuses against Indonesian communities has been the fire-bombing and destruction of a village linked to a tree plantation company which is part of the Sinar Mas group that also invests in palm oil (tinyurl.com/bn6ptq)

Agrofuels are linked to the displacement of indigenous peoples and small farmers, often involving violent evictions and human rights abuses. In Brazil, for example, a large number of social movements and NGOs have rejected the sugar-cane ethanol model, which is linked to degrading working conditions and the use of slave labour, to violent evictions, to increasing hunger and poverty to the pollution of soils, air and water and to biodiversity losses (tinyurl.com/arc9wu and tinyurl.com/apr7vk).

There are many options for addressing climate change and energy security which are far less damaging than agrofuels and I hope you will turn your attention to these, including massive improvements in energy efficiency and public transport, support for truly clean energy from decentralised wind and solar power, supports for small scale organic agricultural practices and local food production, effective measures to protect biodiverse natural forests and the rights of indigenous peoples. And overall reduced consumption, particularly of energy and forest products. Which wouldn't just be "using less" but intelligently redesigning our processes
Comment
41 of 76
February 2, 2009
"There are many options for addressing climate change and energy security which are far less damaging than agrofuels ... "

Yup. But don't be surprised, Robert, if one of the commentators here tries to label you as a stooge of the oil companies (the same companies he would like to enrich through a $50/bbl import tariff!).
Comment
42 of 76
February 2, 2009
It wouldn't be the first time that someone would try to attack my character rather than address the information and facts available concerning such issues. Some people are too quick to pass blame and avoid an honest look and by doing so they give away their power.

I am a 24 year old working for a non-profit and hardly the "oil company stooge." I see the flaws of the status quo and am a naturally inclined systems buster with the understanding that positive change will require something better to replace the old ways, of which many of those in power are so fearful to let go. I see the problems as a manifestation of ego based fears and the correlative desire for power over others. Awakening to reality and a holistic view (ie seeing causes, not just symptoms) of the problem just takes some introspection and a willingness to accept responsibility.

However, fear and programming via many methods cause people to falsely believe:
1) They are not responsible for the way things are.
2) They have no power to make any changes.
3) Any changes made will be undone by others and are therefore useless.

I've been quite pleased with your perspective on Agrofuels and Subsidy matters, Ronald. If you want to develop a dialogue - my e-mail is

mida@energyjustice.net
Comment
43 of 76
February 2, 2009
To Russ Finley:

"For God's sake Geoff, the alternative is to drive higher mileage vehicles. Improving America's average gas mileage from 24 mpg to 25.4 would save more oil than all of the corn ethanol produced last year."

Driving higher mileage vehicles is only a temporary solution. Oil WILL run out and before it does it will be bid up to ridiculous levels. Also, you don't mention the fact that bio-fuels are, (or potentially are) carbon neutral. Recycling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be the name of the game, not producing more.
Comment
44 of 76
February 2, 2009
-----"Driving higher mileage vehicles is only a temporary solution. Oil WILL run out and before it does it will be bid up to ridiculous levels. Also, you don't mention the fact that bio-fuels are, (or potentially are) carbon neutral. Recycling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be the name of the game, not producing more."-----------

Yes.

Ron----watch what they do, not what they say. I've seen a lot of effort to buy up proprietary patents, but no move to bring anything to market. It strikes me as a lot of green paint. Far and away the most stations with E-85 available are MFA(Missouri Farmers Association), Double Circle Co-op(farmer's co-op), and convenience stores----sometimes they have branded petroleum(Conoco and Mobil mostly)---and mixer pumps that mix ethanol from separate tanks while pumping.
I think it would be great if the large oil refiners actually WERE turning to blending biofuels----but I have doubts about whether they actually are, or just trying to greenwash themselves.

Robert----I don't think there is anything in your list that we couldn't find spread throughout US history. The link you provided does not work---but the abuses you mention have occurred. The government is now intervening and protecting indigenous peoples and rainforests. I see that all as a failure of the government to protect ---- I don't see it as a failure of biofuels. If there are bad working conditions, then it is a responsibility of the government to insure that working conditions are improved. If for every tree cut down, there is a tree planted---there will be no deforestation. Forests grow back----especially rainforests if given an opportunity. Forests grow in progressions, as long as some old growth is left, and the natural new growth is planted---rainforests regenerate.
Comment
45 of 76
February 3, 2009
From:

www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_business/oil_products/fuels/biofuels/biofuels.html

"Shell currently buys, trades, stores, blends and distributes these conventional biofuels. We are the world's largest distributor – more than 5 billion litres in 2007 – and continue to build our capability."

Shell is the "largest distributor" of biofuels -- not in the United States yet, perhaps, but in the World. Vertically integrated oil companies are in the business of producing, transporting, blending, storing and distributing liquid fuels. Rest assured, they will do everything they can not to be shut out of the liquid-fuels market. Afraid of competition from biofuels? What a laugh. They are positioning themselves to become the main suppliers of them.

Biofuel boosters, oil companies and the manufacturers of big personal vehicles (SUVs, pick-up trucks) may be bickering siblings, but they are ultimately on the same side in this debate: all three, naturally, want to see the continuance of the internal combustion engine as the dominant mode of transport, and of the liquid fuels that power it. What they fear is a deep contraction in demand, or a radical change in transport, such as through electrification.

Should we be at all surprised, therefore, that the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition sells a bumper sticker enabling drivers of E85 vehicles (most of which are equipped with 4.5 L or larger engines) to proudly proclaim to the world that they are an "Ethanol Guzzler"?

www.e85fuel.com/promoitems/large_ethanol_guzzler_bumperstickers.php

All this posturing by biofuel fanatics that they are Davids, up against Big Oil's Goliath, is simply smoke and mirrors: a ruse to keep inquisitive people from pulling back the curtain and seeing what the two really get up to once the floodlights are turned off.
Comment
46 of 76
February 3, 2009
Fred - You're not even trying, attempting, or allowing. You listen to respond and not to understand. I don't want to be involved in a long, drawn out argument with you, but I will respond.

The tinyurl links work and the report can be found easily with a search engine.

I recognize that atrocities that I've cited are just a few found throughout our history. If anything, that just adds precedence. You seem a defeatist if assuming that is how it will always be (read my philosophy above) or maybe naive. Yes, it is a failure of governments, but don't you see the power of money and the multi-national corporate influence involved? It's not a failure of agrofuels, but they exacerbate the problem. Look into La Via Campesina

I recognize that plants grow back. And that's a big assumption "If every tree cut down, there is a tree planted" especially when considering vast amounts of carbon stored in the soil and biodiverse natural forests compared to monoculture tree plantations of GMO Eucalyptus or Palm. More carbon and life is in the soil than you recognize here on the boards. It's obvious that "natural growth" is NOT BEING replanted, but replaced for what will make agrofuels to be exported to OECD countries. How can you address that Indonesia - with little industrialization is now #3 in GHG emissions from clear cutting - then burning forests to be replaced by Oil Palm only.

check out National Geographic Nov 2008 Vol 214 No5 - Borneo's Moment of Truth

The rain forests regenerate - but hardly at the rate they are being consumed, which is only increasing from the agrofuel pressures of the industrialized nations.

Please read that National Geo article or The Real Cost of Agrofuels before responding.

I can tell by your comments that you are intelligent, which is why I am bothering to involve myself. I've read your material, I've read the industry propoganda, I've given it a chance. Will you allow yourself to gain a broader perspective?
Comment
47 of 76
February 3, 2009
Fred Linn said:

"...Meat and dairy products are still classified as food. Your "either or" arguement that corn takes away food when ethanol is made is the tired refrain. It still produces both...."

It takes 56 pounds of corn kernels to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol, 11.4 pounds of distiller's grain., 3 pounds of Glutan meal, and 1.6 pounds of corn oil. So, 56 - 11.4 -3 -1.6 = 40 pounds of corn lost that cannot feed people (or the cows that people eat). In other words, about 70 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the food chain when you use it to make ethanol.

"...Yes, we should give our money away to two bit dictators, despots and terrorists in the Middle East, Africa and South America instead. After all, American farmers do nothing at all but give you one of the best living standards in the world. Those lazy, good for nothing bums...."

Calling farmers lazy bums is a strawman. They are businessmen, out to make a profit just like the oil and biofuel companies. Putting them on a pedestal does not work for me. They populate the Red States. Farmers don't give me the highest standard of living in the world. The free market does. Farmers do give us the cheapest per capita food in the world, thanks to the policies put in place by Earl Butts. Biofuels are increasing the price of food.

If you don't like buying ten percent of our oil from the Middle East, buy a car that gets ten percent better mileage. Buy a Prius, it gets 50% better and you will compnesate for five pickup truck or SUV drivers.
Comment
48 of 76
February 3, 2009
Fred Linn said:

"...It sounds to me like your only concern is how much you have for yourself.
Do not offer to take the splinter from your neighbor's eye until you have taken the beam out of your own...."

Back at you, Fred. You are the one promoting the fuel that is taking food out of the mouths of the poor, not me.

Geoffrey Gunning said:

"...Driving higher mileage vehicles is only a temporary solution. Oil WILL run out and before it does it will be bid up to ridiculous levels. Also, you don't mention the fact that bio-fuels are, (or potentially are) carbon neutral. Recycling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be the name of the game, not producing more...."

Your larger point is valid, Geoffrey. Oil will run out some day. We will replace it with something. Higher mileage cars buy time to find a replacement. What we must not do is replace it with something worse than oil. So, research into ways to replace fossil fuels with more environmentally benign energy sources is critical.

Here's the problem. Food based biofuels do not pass muster. They are worse than oil in the aggregate. This isn't just my unsubstantiated opinion. This is the result of several peer reviewed high quality science studies that have appeared over the last year in respected science journals. They starve the poor, they destroy carbons sinks and biodiverstiy via crop displacement, exacerbate ocean dead zones with runnoff, and one study showed corn ethanol to be up to 50% worse than gas because of nitrous oxide released from the soil.

And corn ethanol does not lead to better fuels to replace it. It hinders their arrival as a heavily subsidized rival.

I know of no biofuel being mass produced today that is even close to carbon neutral.
Comment
49 of 76
February 3, 2009
To Russ Finley:

Me: "…Our backs are against the wall - as a nation and as inhabitants of this earth. The future depends on bio-fuels and the "problems" are challenges that must be overcome…."

Russ Finley: Agreed. So why do you continue to promote corn ethanol as a solution?

My response: I don't want to nitpick here, but I am NOT promoting corn ethanol as a solution. I am promoting bio-fuels in general as the only viable alternative. Whether it's bio-diesel from algae, switchgrass, jatropha seeds, etc or ethanol from corn, sugar, cellulosic materials etc. is something that has to be thrashed out. I only know what I read about corn ethanol and opinion varies so widely that I am not taking sides on it. On balance, the views are negative. If corn ethanol is doomed, we can still argue that it has paved the way for other ethanol production methods and so may be serving a useful purpose.
Comment
50 of 76
February 4, 2009
Geoffrey, you write that "we can still argue that [corn ethanol] has paved the way for other ethanol production methods and so may be serving a useful purpose."

How so? Humans have been fermenting ethanol from corn and other grains for millennia, and distilling concentrated alcohol from beer for centuries. Indeed, we are constantly reminded by ethanol enthusiasts that there was a thriving market for fuel ethanol in the United States until Prohibition.

The main innovation in recent times has been techniques to dehydrate distilled alcohol, to remove all but a fraction of the remaining water still left after normal distillation. But Brazilians were already doing that with their ethyl alcohol (made from sugarcane) a couple of decades ago. So what, really, have been the technological "paving stones" laid by the modern corn-ethanol industry? Did it really require tens of billions of dollars over the last three decades to get there?

Or has the main thing that corn ethanol has paved the way for is ... more corn ethanol? The following comment, made on the DTN Ethanol Bog by somebody close to the ethanol industry, I find ro be very revealing:

www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc1ed243cf011f37d099b3044b&showCommentsOverride=false

"For the next two years, farmers ought to produce as much corn as possible to 'flood' the market with cheap feed in order to create a firm E [i.e., ethanol] industrial base for their future corn production. Otherwise, the search for an alternative to corn will continue; once alternatives take hold, this will jeopardize the economic basis of corn-based ethanol."

Translation: "Let's make corn ethanol so dominant that nothing will knock it off its throne."

Doesn't sound to me like the corn-ethanol industry is planning to bow out of the picture any time soon.
Comment
51 of 76
February 4, 2009
to Ronald Steenblik:

I agree that statement from dtnprogressivefarmer.com sounds particularly ominous and yet another example of vested interests trying to elbow their way into dominance. I can only hope there will be some neutral arbiter one of these days that will give all competing methods a fair shot, but with the massive corruption that goes on in this country, I won't be holding my breath.
Comment
52 of 76
February 4, 2009
Geoffrey: I wish the same.
Comment
53 of 76
February 4, 2009
Fantastic repartee! I am not going to say the obvious, look at the source and location of the epiphany. We are fighting the good fight, here's my company's contribution:
a) The energy solution is simply the means to accomplish the mission: Cheap, Copious and Carbon Free Energy. 1 or 2 of the 3 criteria is failure

b) Developing a High Efficiency, Low Cost, Mass Manufacturable Thermo-Mechanical Engine ("RET") for direct mechanical power e.g., the 6.5 Million 18 wheelers, 100 Million plus cars in the US. It will extend enginer life cycle to 2 million miles, get over 150 MPG on equivalent BTUs of a gallon of diesel (Powering a 5-passenger type vehicle AS IS PRODUCED by Tata Motors, India, selling for $2,500!). Even small penetrations will save 1 Billion barrels/year and a hundreds million $ in fuel savings, gains in efficiency, conferred to the early adopters. ROI 1 year, with zero Gov largess.

c) Other Renewable paradigms where the cost/KW will be $1,000 ($.05/kWh). Our NGWED (Wind Energy Turbines) are at least 50% more cost effective than competitors. A RET Powerblock (RET-PB) used for geothermal, bio-fuel, Solar Thermal applications will generate $.05/kWh electricity.

d) Paraphrasing Einstein: Its not the Technology, it's the Politics (entrenchment, egos etc).

e) Remember the US Oil monopoly dismantled in the 1900's? Production and market locations were separate, thus you needed transportation. Research the cost/ availability of an independent Ethanol Refiners leasing essential tank cars to bring its Ethanol to market "efficiently" and report back to the readers.

f) Energy is a commodity, a zero sum, brandless game. Good Technology is disruptive, eg the PC, Efficiency is good technology. Automotives, Utilities aver efficiency, it kills their future and reduces their products to commodities you buy at big box retailers or the internet.
Comment
54 of 76
February 4, 2009
Economic collapse, war, political turnmoil and terrorism, starvation, environmental destruction and climate change---all brought on or exacerbated by petroleum use.

We need to get rid of petroleum use, and we don't have the luxury of time any more.

Biofuels do anything that petroleum does and they do it better.

Biofuels do not require any or only minor changes to our current infrastructure.

If you don't want ethanol produced from corn---fine with me, there are lots of other choices, ethanol can be made from any type of plant material at all. Biodiesel can be made from algae. Ethanol can be made from wood. Make biofuels from whatever you want.

But we STILL need to make biofuels and replace fossil fuel use. And we need to do it now----not 30 to 50 years from now.
Comment
55 of 76
February 4, 2009
To Fred Linn:

Bravo! What more is there left to say?
Comment
56 of 76
February 5, 2009
We could look at the numbers and realize that biofuels can't and won't replace petroleum use. Sustainable methods could only provide for a fraction and I would encourage such methods (if it isn't obvious - corn ethanol is NOT sustainable).

As you rightly put it - our current infrastructure (and management thereof) of petroleum is exacerbating "economic collapse, war, political turnmoil and terrorism, starvation, environmental destruction and climate change."

AND "Biofuels do not require any or only minor changes to our current infrastructure."

The infrastructure needs change. The concurrent 'emergencies' shall be a catalyst for the needed change. It's a matter of scope and a broader perspective is required to cope.

Biofuels can play a small role in the solution, but we can't afford to keep running in the same direction, disillusioned with the idea that we need only
"minor changes." And just continue to rape this living planet, converting any and all biology into combustible fuel to burn in old, inefficient engines - when there are and will be greater technologies to integrate into our expanding wealth.

If you want to talk transitioning, fine, but don't force feed us BS on how we don't have the luxury - while relying on the old ways that you are so quick to criticize and claim you want to move away from. I agree with you in many respects, but your rigidity and attachments are a major blockage. This isn't to say that I am perfect - I know that I too need to be open to new ways of understanding.
Comment
57 of 76
February 6, 2009
RM----"As you rightly put it - our current infrastructure (and management thereof) of petroleum is exacerbating "economic collapse, war, political turnmoil and terrorism, starvation, environmental destruction and climate change."--------

When you speak of "infrastructure" you are refering to what I would call the political/ideological social structures currently in place. When I refer to infrastructure, I am refering to the production facilities, the refining facilities, the vehicles, the roads, bridges, and all the other means of use, storage and distribution, repair and maintainence, and other related physical stucture of the system.

When I refer to minimal changes to the system, I am refering to changes necessary to the system to maintain operation on physical terms.

When you say that the political/ideological/social system needs to be changed-----I completely agree with you. The most obvious change that needs to be made is that petroleum by its very nature of production, marketing, use, and geopolitical distribution makes it easily monoplolized. We have known for 100 years about the dangers of monopoly to democratic systems---Teddy Roosevelt and John D. Rockeller showed us that a long time ago. It is time to break the Oil Monopoly again----and biofuels are the perfect tool to do just that.

---"We could look at the numbers and realize that biofuels can't and won't replace petroleum use."--------

I look at the numbers and conclude that we CAN NOT afford to continue to use petroleum. We'll be a LONG way ahead if we switch to biofuels.
Diesel, heating fuel, bunker fuel(ships and stationary boilers) and jet fuels are all basically the same thing----and easily replaceable with biodiesel produced from algae. This accounts for approximately 1/2 of petroleum use.

Just use algae to produce biodiesel---that alone will take oil out of its monopoly position----and give democracy back to the people.
Comment
58 of 76
February 6, 2009
"Just use algae to produce biodiesel---that alone will take oil out of its monopoly position----and give democracy back to the people."

So tell us, Fred: in how many states of the Union can one buy algal biodiesel at the moment. And what is its price?
Comment
59 of 76
February 7, 2009
--------"So tell us, Fred: in how many states of the Union can one buy algal biodiesel at the moment. And what is its price?"---------

Ron, the English language has three tenses, past tense, present tense, and future tense. You seem to be stuck in past tense.

I favor present tense and future tense. You cann't go back and do somethng about a situation in the past(unless you want to budget billions of dollars for research and hope that somehow, someday, someone invents a time machine).

You can however, do something about a bad situation in the present tense that will effect what happens in the future tense. The really nifty thing however is, even if we do the wrong thing, the future is always becoming the present. So, even if we do the wrong thing, and the future isn't turning out like we want-----we can do whatever we need to fix things.

Living in the past and whining that we shouldn't change anything because it might not turn out like we'd want it to, is being a ship moored to the dock. A ship cann't change course moored to a dock. A storm is here---and it is going to get worse. The worst place a ship can possibly be in a hurricane is moored to a dock.
Comment
60 of 76
February 7, 2009
Brilliant, Fred. I think you have a future as an existentialist novelist. When somebody talks about electric vehicles, for example, you say they don't exist. But you are willing to instruct people to "use" (present tense) algal biodiesel, even though it is not yet commercially available, and probably will not be for many years.

And, of course, you refuse to recognize any future but the biofuel nirvana that you have subscribed to. For you, anybody who has a different idea of how to shape the future, by definition must be living in the past ... because you can't see them in your dream. Not in your future = living in the past.
Comment
61 of 76
February 7, 2009
"So, even if we do the wrong thing, and the future isn't turning out like we want-----we can do whatever we need to fix things."

Technically, one can often (though not always, if permanent damage has been caused) go back and fix the prolems created by poorly designed policies. But it can take a very long time, and be very expensive. The world is full of suffering owing to the unintended consequences of well-meaning but misguided policies ... especially policies made in haste. Ever hear of "the transitional gains trap"?

www.rje.org/abstracts/abstracts/1975/Autumn_1975._pp._671_678.html

Basically, it describes the common phenomenon that, once governments start creating subsidies for particular groups, those subsidies get capitalized into fixed assets. In the case of subsidies for crop-based biofuels, that means land values. (Look at the evolution of the price of Iowa land over the last six years.) Problem is, once the government wakes up and realizes that the policy is a mistake, only then does it realize that terminating the policy would lead to large losses for owners of those assets. In short, the government finds itself stuck. That, in a nutshell, sums up why agricultural subsidies (including those for biofuels), created decades ago, have proved so resistant to reform.
Comment
62 of 76
February 7, 2009
-------" That, in a nutshell, sums up why agricultural subsidies (including those for biofuels), created decades ago, have proved so resistant to reform."--------

Agricultural price supports have worked well. The US has more food than any other country. The US has enough food that almost 67% of the population qualifies as overweight by the medical definition. Almost 25% fall into the medically obese category.

--------"So tell us, Fred: in how many states of the Union can one buy algal biodiesel at the moment. And what is its price?"--------

PetroSun opened an operation to produce biodiesel oil from algae on 1200 acres of abandoned shrimp farm pools, in Rio Hondo Texas. Oil production is scheduled to reach 4.4 million gallons per year---and the last time I checked no final decision had been made about how to handle the 55 million tons of biomass remaining after oil extraction. Options were animal feed production, ethanol production, and pelletizing for use as a direct biofuel source.
The PetroSun operation opened in April of last year, you'd have to call PetroSun for price quotes.
Comment
63 of 76
February 8, 2009
Interesting, Fred. PetroSun: another example of a petroleum oil company (still involved in petroleum production) investing in a biofuel venture. Most of their press releases relate to plans -- studies, options on possible future sites, and so forth. That is not a criticism, by the way: it shows they are prudent. Nevertheless, readers should heed the paragraph supplied at the bottom of every one of their press releases:

"Except historical matter contained herein, matters discussed in this news release are forward-looking statements ... . These forward-looking statements reflect assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties, which may affect the Company's business and prospects and cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements."

Ironic, also, that PetroSun are taking options on distressed catfish farms to grow algae for biodiesel, as one of the reasons that those farms are getting out of the fish business is the high cost of feed -- due in part to ethanol:

www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/18catfish.html

I wish PetroSun and other budding algal biodiesel companies luck, but I would be surprised to see them produce and sell on a large scale any time soon. Their original investments were made at a time when oil prices were much higher. All the (fresh) press reports about PetroSun's intention of producing 4.4 million gallons per year that I can find on the web predate June 2008, by the way. The company's web site (which contains many blank pages) does not give out such a figure. And 4.4 million gallons of algal oil, while a good start (if indeed they can reach that level), is 1/10th of the annual output of a typical soy-methyl-ester biodiesel plant in the United States.

(continued)
Comment
64 of 76
February 8, 2009
(continued from above)

What algal biodiesel producers may be able to do is exploit a niche market for low-carbon jet fuel -- either for commercial airlines that want to be able report that they are reducing their emissions, or for the military.

Some experimental flights of jetliners have already been made using algal biodiesel -- most notably by Continental Airlines with a Boeing 737 (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28547191/). But, as one of the companies involved in that flight noted, "the only bottleneck is not just having the facilities to produce it," ... "There isn't enough sustainable feedstock at the right price point to able to be competitive with petroleum."

Similarly, the publication Defense News recently noted, "It's no secret that jet fighters can fly on fuel extracted from algae. What's not yet known, though, is how to squeeze oil from algae at a reasonable price."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/118658-saic-s-algae-based-jet-fuel-gets-darpa-funding

Note, in both cases, the emphasis on price.

The point, of all this, Fred, is that numerous technologies and techniques that are vying to both replace oil, and avoid the need for them in the first place. These technologies and techniques vary enormously in terms of their costs, scalability, future potential, and impacts on the environment and on other sectors (e.g., food production). Perhaps algal biodiesel will take off in a big way eventually: airlines and the military in particular will need some kind of liquid fuels to keep their airplanes in the air. But when it comes to ground transport, there are a lot more options whose proponents would argue as equally promising. Let's let the outcome of this historic competition be played out on a level playing field, in a policy environment that has a high chance of avoiding costly unintended consequences and leads us to a sustainable outcome.
Comment
65 of 76
February 8, 2009
---------"Ironic, also, that PetroSun are taking options on distressed catfish farms to grow algae for biodiesel, as one of the reasons that those farms are getting out of the fish business is the high cost of feed -- due in part to ethanol:"---------

It is ironic to me that Ron and Russ both decry ethanol because you claim it is taking food out of production, yet you cite catfish farms going bankrupt because of lack of feed due to the rise in oil prices as a reason for not switching to biofuels. Yet, the remaining end product of both corn ethanol and algae production, DDG and algae biomass would make good feed for catfish. Catfish eat just about anything. The recent spike in oil prices are putting catfish farms out of business. Biofuels are not limited in supply---unlike petroleum. The more biofuels you produce, the more food you have left over, unlike petroleum.

-------"I wish PetroSun and other budding algal biodiesel companies luck, but I would be surprised to see them produce and sell on a large scale any time soon. Their original investments were made at a time when oil prices were much higher. "---------

Then placing a tariff on imported oil will protect US business investments and stimulate US production and jobs---both of which the economy needs right now.

------""It's no secret that jet fighters can fly on fuel extracted from algae. What's not yet known, though, is how to squeeze oil from algae at a reasonable price."--------

Press it, like olives. Spin it, like clothes in a washing machine. Blend it like Pesto in a blender---the oil will rise to the top because water is heavier and oil and water don't mix. Boil it like soup. Use a solvent like a dry cleaner. Doesn't seem to me like some insurmountable technical problem.

------"But when it comes to ground transport, there are a lot more options whose proponents would argue as equally promising."-------

What options would that be?
Comment
66 of 76
February 8, 2009
Boy, it seems almost anything will set you off, Fred. I thought the tone of my post was a pretty neutral (and not anti biofuels), but still you go on the attack.

I guess you didn't read the article about catfish farms very closely: they went out of business because of the high cost of feed, not the high cost of petroleum fuels. Feed is a bigger component of their operating costs than oil. Biofuel supplies ARE limited, certainly in the short and medium term. (And in the long term by trade-offs society will have to make between water, land, food and wilderness.) And so is animal feed. In any case, I did not say that the former catfish ponds should not be used to grow algae, I just observed that the sitiuation was ironic, which it is.

"[P]lacing a tariff on imported oil will protect US business investments and stimulate US production and jobs---both of which the economy needs right now."

Fred, for somebody who claims to hate the oil companies, you sure manage to come up with ideas that would result in showering lots of money on them. (Hmm, quacks like a duck ... ) Even at your proposed $50/bbl import tariff (which I have already explained at length would be extremely difficult to implement without precipitating a trade war), the main beneficiaries over the next decade -- by a long shot -- would be U.S. oil and natural gas producers.

Fred, has anybody here disputed that algal biodiesel is a technical possibility? My reference was to cost and price. People have been working on making fuel from algae since the 1970s, and still the cost is high.

"What options [for ground transport] would that be?" I am not going to repeat myself again. I, and numerous other people, have noted numerous ways that oil consumption can be reduced. Look it up on the web. If there were a carbon tax, you can be sure that people will find new technologies and techniques that neither you nor I have yet dreamed of.
Comment
67 of 76
February 8, 2009
from the article--------"Last year Dillard & Company raised 11 million fish. Next year it will raise none. People can eat imported fish, Mr. Dillard said, just as they use imported oil.

As for his 55 employees? "Those jobs are gone."--------

Like I said, catfish can eat algae, it is part of their natural diet. That is why you put catfish into a fish tank--to eat the algae.

So, if we put 55 people to work growing algae to make biodiesel, and you have algae biomass left over after you take off the oil to feed to catfish, you'll need another 55 people to grow catfish. And we won't need to import either fish or petroleum.

As for your "other options"----you don't have any. Only hopes that someday, somehow, somebody will think up something. Your plan is do nothing.

The price of oil has gone down temporarily because of a downward plunge in demand caused by recession. Any rise in demand due to a recovering economy will cause the price to go right back. Rising oil prices will choke off any economic recovery very quickly. Yo-yo.

The time to be replacing oil is right now----not someday, maybe, if someone invents something, somehow, ......................
Comment
68 of 76
February 8, 2009
Fred, your posts are getting tedious. I never said anything against growing algae in former catfish farms. If you want to invest in such schemes, be my guest. I hope it makes you a rich man ... as long as those riches come from selling to willing customers, and not from government subsidies.

As for your constant allegations that people who don't share your vision of the future are "do nothings", see my comment above. I am not about to engage in yet another endless cycle of pointless debates with you. You are the first one to "assume a can-opener" when it comes to biofuels, pretending that one can snap one's fingers and "presto" biofuels will displace petroleum oil overnight. Yet you pooh-pooh conservation that is happening rigtht now -- as people downsize their vehicles, keep their tires inflated, buy manual transmission vehicles instead of automatic-transmission vehicle, walk and bicycle more, car pool, take more public transport, combine errands, telecommute, move closer to their place of work, etc., etc., etc.

Regarding the longer run, I am not going to claim that electrification will win out over biofuels. I am not so prescient. But what I hope will not happen is that public policy will so skew the playing field that alternatives like electric vehicles are not given an equal chance to compete.

Good night.
Comment
69 of 76
February 8, 2009
-------"Yet you pooh-pooh conservation that is happening rigtht now ........"-------

Conservation is fine.....there is nothing wrong with conservation. However, without action to replace petroleum, conserving is only palliative treatment. It only treats the symptoms and not the disease.

The link you cited to the company GreenFuels Technology Corp. is a very good example of the type of thing I don't agree with and I'll fight against. GreenFuel has chosen to use algae to try to paint coal green. "Gee, it's OK to use coal because we are growing algae from the CO2 in the flue gas so now it doesn't produce GHG anymore."(paraphrasing and adding sarcasm a bit--but that's the gist of what I got out of their announcements.
It doesn't work like that. The original coal STILL came out of the ground. All they are doing delaying the carbon entering the atmosphere for a little while.
You are worried about land use, putting additional lands into cropland, and making ethanol from corn being inefficient for use as a fuel. You are right---it is inefficient for that use only---that is why I don't particularly worry about the economics of corn ethanol. When biofuels become widespread enough that they begin to form more of a market on their own----farmers will plant other crops such as sorghum, beets and sugar cane that produce many times the ethanol per acre that corn does. And the fermentation process is the same, however, you won't need the milling and worting steps to convert the starch to sugar that you do with corn. That is why I don't have much worry food shortages due to ethanol production. There are plenty of substitutes and alternative sources available.

If you want to worry about land use, starvation, GHG, and water pollution---worry about "Clean Coal". There is no such thing as clean coal. Even if you clean up the smokestacks that everyone sees--it still comes out of stripmines.
Comment
70 of 76
February 9, 2009
"The link you cited to the company GreenFuels Technology Corp. is a very good example of the type of thing I don't agree with and I'll fight against." -- Fred Linn.

Very interesting Fred, and I take your point about the misnomer "clean coal." But I did a search for GreenFuels Technology Corp on the web pages to which I linked, and I cannot for the life of me find any explicit references to GreenFuels. My interest was in the ironical petroleum-and-biodiesel company, PetroSun, and their ilk.
Comment
71 of 76
February 9, 2009
Here is where the link you gave me ended me up----GreenFuel Technologies.
In my opinion, GFT is using algae to cash in on some of the $50 Billion ++ the government has voted over the years on "Clean Coal" technology at the "May We Help You?" program for fossil fuel lobbyists.
In this case---I have to agree with you about the subversion and misuse of subsidies, R&D funding, and government officials who pander to entrenched lobbies. In this case, "Clean Coal"----I explained what "Clean Coal" is supposed to mean to a 7 year old neighbor girl who likes to go with me to walk the dogs---and she understood IMMEDIATELY that there can not possibly be any such thing, and she is only in second grade. HOW on earth can they fool so many adults into even thnking there can be? Beyond my comprehension.
The oil industry gets a huge chunck of the pie when it comes to special favors-tax write offs, credits, etc. etc. etc.-----oil leases on public lands for instance----at a tiny fraction of the cost to the taxpayers(the government usually is required to build roads, bridges etc. to the lease sites)----and nothing is returned. Basically, we are being robbed. This reached fever pitch during the Bush administration----they were even giving leases away free.

So here is what I see. We need biofuels to break the monopoly hold of fossil fuel lobbyists in Washington and state governments in producing states. If that requires some subsidies to get the fossil fuel lobbyists hands out of our pockets FINE with me. The only reason they[lobbyists] can get away with the things they pull is that they have a virtual monopoly on energy. Biofuels by their nature would not be a monopoly. They can be made too easily from too many sources to be able to corner the market on production and raw materials. Even the very poorest countries in the world like Haiti could easily produce biofuels.
Comment
72 of 76
February 9, 2009
--------"My interest was in the ironical petroleum-and-biodiesel company, PetroSun, and their ilk."---------

Then we look at the same thing and see completely different pictures. I don't see any hypocrisy or under the table dealing there. PetroSun is making a business plan to provide energy----in BOTH petroleum and biofuel. This is the strength of biofuel technology---the ability to be brought online in gradual phases. PetroSun does not need to be either-or, they can be both. Then as the effects of Peak Oil become more and more appearant in the long run, they shift their business more and more toward the renewable biofuels giving themselves an advantage over their competitors. That seems to me to be good business practice.

I forgot to add the link to the GreenFuel site above, here it is:
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/contact_faq.html#Impact%20of%20Algae%20on%20CO2,%20Water,%20and%20Other%20Resources
Comment
73 of 76
February 9, 2009
Fred, you are reading too much into the word "ironic". (Ironic: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is.)

I was not criticizing PetroSun's business plan (which I called "prudent" in one of the posts above). But, yes, given all the railing one reads against oil companies, and about their monopoly power (including in your previous post), I do find it ironic that so many of the investments in new forms of biofuels are being made by ... oil companies. I find it ironic, also, that one of the reasons that a company like PetroSun can offer deals to former fish-farm pond owners is because demand for another biofuel, ethanol, helped drive up the cost of their feed, and some fish farmers out of business. Let's hope, as you say, that they can soon start feeding their fish on algae "meal" (or whatever one calls what is left after the oil is squeezed out).
Comment
74 of 76
February 9, 2009
Yes, I rale against oil companies, not because they are oil companies---but just like a ship or any other large entity, the larger they become, the greater the inertia. It becomes harder and harder to stop, or change direction. This happens in human organizations as well. That is why I want to see competition and choice for consumers enter the energy market. The choice alone will act to break down the monopolistic market forces that allow the concentration of wealth, and political power in the hands of a few---in this case large oil companies.

We really do have the same goal in mind. However, what you see as the cause(government subsidies)---I see as a natural outcome(symptom) of the underlying disease----monopolistic concentration of power and wealth. My approach is to attack the cuase of what makes oil and coal lobbyists able to influence and control government officials in the first place.
It is no surprise to me that it is a small oil company(PetroSun) that is leading the way in merging biofuel and petroleum technology. That is exactly how I would expect it to work---small companies do not have the inertia of layer upon layer of lower upper management and middle management resisting change at every turn to maintain the status quo and protect vested interests. Change is scary.

I think if we foster a biofuel industry that uses many sources and processes to produce their product in the end we'll all benefit. Ethanol from corn serves a purpose----but it won't be enough---we need ethanol from wood, trash, beets, cane, grasses, and as many other sources as we can muster. What I don't want is biofuels from genetically altered bacteria like E. coli GM'd to produce diesel fuel. I can guess at horrible results from that--if even one bacteria should escape, and take up residence in your gut producing diesel fuel could mean disaster for you and the whole human race. E. coli is natural flora in your GI tract.
Comment
75 of 76
February 9, 2009
"What I don't want is biofuels from genetically altered bacteria like E. coli GM'd to produce diesel fuel. I can guess at horrible results from that--if even one bacteria should escape, and take up residence in your gut producing diesel fuel could mean disaster for you and the whole human race."

Indeed. It would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "wind power". Just avoid open flames!
Comment
76 of 76
November 19, 2009
Great discussion.
We're asking the same questions.

Join the discussion at facebook.com/askquestionsplease or learn more at www.askquestionsplease.com.
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
Sign Up

Recent Research & Reports

New Wind Prospecting System in Development at the University of Barcelona
The Forest's Treasure: A Profitable Solution to Woody Waste
Discovery of Plant Proteins May Boost Agricultural Yields and Biofuel Production
Rutgers Builds Solar-Powered Computing Center, Studies Power Management
Can We Reduce the Ecological Risks of Extended Bioenergy Production?

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Geothermal Energy Association Solar Network International Ambient Technologies, Inc. Stoel Rives LLP The Stella Group, Ltd. 3TIER
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