Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Randy Wong
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (40) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
February 13, 2009

Study: Viable, Sustainable Biofuel Production Can Reduce US Petroleum Dependence

by Bob Carling, Sandia National Laboratories
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

An in-depth study by Sandia National Laboratories and General Motors Corp. has found that plant and forestry waste and dedicated energy crops could sustainably replace nearly a third of gasoline use by 2030.

Interestingly according to the study, the domestic investment for biofuels production is projected to be virtually the same as the investment required to sustain long-term domestic petroleum production.

The "90-Billion Gallon Biofuel Deployment Study" was commissioned to assess whether and how a large volume of cellulosic biofuel could be sustainably produced, assuming technical and scientific progress continues at expected rates. The study was conducted over a period of nine months.

Researchers assessed the feasibility, implications, limitations and enablers of annually producing 90 billion gallons of ethanol - sufficient to replace more than 60 billion of the estimated 180 billion gallons of gasoline expected to be used annually by 2030. Ninety billion gallons a year exceeds the U.S. Department of Energy's goal for ethanol production established in 2006.

The "90 Billion Gallon Study" assumes 75 billion gallons would be ethanol made from nonfood cellulosic feedstocks and 15 billion gallons from corn-based ethanol. The study examined four sources of biofuels: agricultural residue, such as corn stover and wheat straw; forest residue; dedicated energy crops, including switchgrass; and short rotation woody crops, such as willow and poplar trees. It examines the costs of producing, harvesting, storing and transporting these sources to newly built biorefineries.

Key Findings

Using a newly developed tool known as the Biofuels Deployment Model, or BDM, Sandia researchers determined that 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol could be produced per year by 2022 without displacing current crops. The Renewable Fuels Standard, part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, calls for ramping up biofuels production to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

The 90 Billion Gallon Study, which focused only on starch-based and cellulosic ethanol, found that an increase to 90 billion gallons of ethanol could be sustainably achieved by 2030 within real-world economic and environmental parameters.

In addition to those key findings, the study also pointed out that continued support of R&D and initial commercialization is critical because sustained technological progress and commercial validation is a prerequisite to affordably producing the large volumes of ethanol considered in this study. Researchers noted that policy incentives, such as a federal cap and trade program, carbon taxes, excise tax credits and loan guarantees for cellulosic biofuels, are important to mitigate the risk of oil market volatility.

Interestingly according to the study, the domestic investment for biofuels production is projected to be virtually the same as the investment required to sustain long-term domestic petroleum production.

In terms of cost competitiveness, the study found that cellulosic biofuels could compete without incentives with oil priced at US $90 per barrel, assuming a reduction in total costs as advanced biofuels technologies mature.

Finally, large-scale cellulosic biofuel production could be achieved at or below current water consumption levels of petroleum fuels from on-shore oil production and refining.

The industrial processes by which nonfood forms of biomass are converted into sugars suitable for production of biofuels were a focus of the study.

Sandia's analysis also included land use, water availability, energy used to produce cellulosic biomass, transportation of feedstocks and other potential leverage points for the development and use of cellulosic biofuels. In conducting its research, Sandia utilized models that examined current and future technologies for development of ethanol.

Future enhancements to Sandia's BDM are planned, contingent on additional partnerships. Such improvements to the current software tool, says Sandia business development associate Carrie Burchard, would provide an even more comprehensive systems understanding of the biofuels industry.

Sandia enjoys a longstanding relationship with all the major U.S. automakers and has worked previously with GM on a variety of automotive research activities. Sandia also plays a major role in the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) and several other transportation energy and biofuels projects.

Bob Carling leads Sandia's Transportation Energy Center. He received his PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Michigan in 1975 and joined Sandia National Laboratories in 1976 as a Member of the Technical Staff. In related research being performed at the DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, scientists are proving that locally-grown and produced biofuels might offer gains in sustainability.


In related research being performed at the DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, scientists are proving that locally-grown and produced biofuels might offer gains in sustainability.

The researchers are using field work and computer simulations — including weather and soil information and many other production and economic factors — in Michigan and Wisconsin to understand the basics of getting home-grown energy from the field to consumers. Preliminary results suggest that incorporating native, perennial plants during biofuels production reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, improves water quality and enhances biodiversity.

"If we can make biofuels sustainable in the Great Lakes region, then we can apply the same methods to make biofuel industries work in other regions," said César Izaurralde of the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. a collaboration between the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., and the University of Maryland.

They study is looking at cellulosic biofuel production from a range of herbaceous and woody species, including native prairie grasses.

How well these other biofuels will perform against greenhouse gas accumulation depends on the feedstock, how they're grown, how the plant is converted to useful liquids and where the industry is based. Something as simple as whether the crop needs to be planted every year or takes root can contribute to whether it's an advantage over fossil fuels.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (40)
 
No image available
February 14, 2009
Mr. Carling---do you know if the study includes the fact that if we were to use ethanol as a fuel in sufficient quantities that it is available everwhere---meaning that Flex Fuel engines tuned to be able to run on gasoline were not needed--------we would be able to achieve almost twice the thermal efficiency of current engines that need to be kept to lower compression ratios to be able to use gasoline?
Comment 1 of 40
No image available
February 15, 2009
Any use of forestry and crop "waste" to offset imported oil and 85% carbon neutral is a plus in my book.

I also engourage new ICE vehicles to be mandated to be flex fuel. There is a bill trying to gain support right now that would enecourage a government coupon of $1500 to $5000 to allow a working vehicle with less than 18 MPG to be cruched. The voucher could be used towards the purchace of a fuel effecient car (IIRC, it has to be 38 MPG or better) or for mass transit passes.

With an assisted phase-out, we can make E85 a norm instead of a novilty.

http://www.aceee.org/press/0901crusher.htm
Comment 2 of 40
No image available
February 16, 2009
In regards to James Stutton's comment that all new ICE vehicles should be flex fuel, what would that mean for diesel engines?
Comment 3 of 40
No image available
February 16, 2009
Dan----diesel engines can already run on biofuels in any proportion including 100%-----they are already high compression. The only problem with diesel engines running biofuels is that the biofuels are much better solvents than petroleum diesel fuel. That means that if you suddenly put a high % of bio in a tank running petro diesel----the bio will dissolve sludges and varnishes left behind by the petroleum. This would cause increased pollutants and clogged filters at first. Not really a major problem. The solution is to use a lower bio mix fuel for the first two or three tank fulls and carry extra fuel line filters. Changing a fuel filter is not a major operation, it is routine maintenance anyway. Once you've run a couple of tanks of biodiesel through the engine, the plus is a much cleaner tank, fuel lines and injectors and less residue in the combustion chambers. This dramatically reduces particulate exhaust. You can see the reduction in exhaust pollutants easily. Watch a truck or bus running biodiesel---they do not produce the clouds of black smoke when starting from a stop or accelerating that engines running petroleum produce. They also do not produce the typical "diesel smell" that petroleum does. Since biofuels have not been in contact with the ground for extended periods---they have not absorbed the sulphur that petroleum fuel contains. When burned it forms SO2 that combines with water to form sulphuric acid. A major component of smog---and not good for internal engine parts. Biofuels on the other hand burn so cleanly that when recycled oil is used---it is possible to smell the foods the oil was originally used to cook---most often french fries. This keeps internal engines lines and injectors clean, and maintains smooth internal surfaces reducing wear and friction. Long term biofuel use reduces wear and friction and improves mileage, reduces maintenance.
Comment 4 of 40
No image available
February 16, 2009
Flex Fuel----flex fuel engines(designed to run ethanol mixtures greater than 30%) work by adding a sensor inline that senses the amount of oxygen in the fuel mix. Ethanol has more oxygen in the chemical make up than gasoline. This is why ethanol is added to gasoline to reduce pollutants---it retards the burn rate and allows more complete combustion in the cylinder chamber----the fuel is more completely burned and produces less unburned pollutants in the exhaust. Since ethanol has a lower specific heat capacity than petroleum---the amount of fuel injected into the cylinder must increase compared to gasoline---which is what the sensor automatically does. This allows you to use either gasoline or E-85(85% ethanol) in any combination. Typically---flex fuel engined cars cost the same or only minimally more than conventional gasoline only cars.
Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline(about 115 vs 85 for unleaded regular). This means that ethanol can support up to twice the compression ratio a gasoline engine can without preignition( 18:1 vs about 9:1) This dramatically increases thermal efficiency by about 2X, meaning a greater % of fuel input is converted to actual work than with gasoline. Flex fuel engines get less mileage/gallon than gasoline due to the need to tune down to be able to use gas. Engines tuned to make use of ethanol only actually get more mileage per gallon than gas because more of the fuel actually produces useful work---they also produce astounding increases in power compared to weight and size due to increased thermal efficiency. Watch the Indianapolis 500 race this Memorial day to see what engines tuned to run on 100% ethanol can do. Ethanol is a nearly perfect fuel for internal combustion engines when all aspects of what we need engines to do are considered. It is also much safer to handle and use---and cleaner for the environment.
Comment 5 of 40
No image available
February 17, 2009
This study completely misses the mark by not considering algae based biofuels. What could be more efficient than a biofuel that begins in a slurry form? The biofuel can be grown in the biorefinery itself.

I understand the need to investigate and develop all forms of RE, but I can't understand how Sandia and GM could be so short sighted as to not include algae in their investigation.
Comment 6 of 40
No image available
February 17, 2009
John---biodiesel from algae would be appropriate to replace about 1/2 of our current petroleum use---diesel powered vehicles, heating oil, jet fuel, marine diesels, railroad locomotives, bunker oil and some other uses.

Ethanol can be used in currently operating gasoline engines. It is better suited to smaller vehicle applications. Flex Fuel vehicles are already in production and have been for many years. We can easily make all new vehicles being produced flex fuel with a minimum of disruption to design, manufacturing and repair networks. Switching to ethanol requires no changes to the ways we use our vehicles----just fill up with E-85 instead of gasoline. Once E-85(or an RE equivalent) is available everywhere---we can begin to take advantages possible by tuning new vehicle engines to make use of ethanol's superior capabilities. For instance, it would be possible to make large SUV's powered by six cylinder engines such as commonly used on small econocars with significant savings in mileage and no loss of power. The engines in Indy race cars are Honda 3L V8s---------and develop around 1200 to 1600 bhp. Far more power than needed by even the biggest SUV.

Biodiesel does not need to be refined. It is processed by transesterification---similar to soap making. Glycerol is removed since it is not needed and is more valuable as a base ingredient for other products.

The Fischer-Tropsch process using thermochemical means to produce ethanol from cellulosic materials can also be used to produce longer chain hydrocarbons suited to use in diesel fuel applications.

I agree with you about the study. We have no shortage of possibilities when it comes to replacing petroleum. We could use good information in selecting the best choices though.
Comment 7 of 40
No image available
February 18, 2009
Biofuel from corn and sugarcane is not made from the structural component of the plants but from the simple sugar and starch. Making biofuel from lignocellulose is is far more difficult. Paper is made from lignocellulose. The process requires acid or base to break up the initially mechanically chopped up structural component of the plant. Environmental contamination of water ways is associated with paper mills. The waste has to go somewhere. Paper is a higher value product, can be sold for more money per unit of weight then biofuel. Paper has been made for a very long time and modern methods of making paper occurred near the beginning of the chemistry revolution. The search for a better environmentally safe and lower cost process has been going on for decades. None to my knowledge have been found and put into commercial use.

Lignocellulose is composed mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Cellulose and hemicellulose are smaller and simpler molecules then lignin. A process to turn cellulose and hemicellulose into biofuel I believe exist and have been put into at least demonstration commercial plants. And I believe plants that start with corn could be modified to handle cellulose and most likely hemiscellulose.

The lignin is another issue. Lignin is the material that remains when you find a piece of wood that has weathered for years. I do mean years. It is the material in wood that makes it tuff. The molecules are long and have many variations. Even paper mills have a hard time with lignin and to my understanding much of it ends up in the waste stream.

My concern about this article is the rose picture it paints by not stating the massive problems of reaching the potential of the feed stock. What else has this article ignored? Are we getting an article designed to spin public opinion away from the center of the issues to a side issue to promote an industry stand? These are the question that come to my mind.
Comment 8 of 40
No image available
February 18, 2009
-------"My concern about this article is the rose picture it paints by not stating the massive problems of reaching the potential of the feed stock. What else has this article ignored? "--------

Ethanol was being produced in both the US and Germany in commercial quantities over 120 years ago from "liquor"---the resulting resins after the thermochemical treatment of wood pulp to produce paper. The same basic process is still used today.

We are not talking about new or untried technologies.

Where there is pollution------it is a result of negligence and poor enforcement.
Comment 9 of 40
February 18, 2009
The predictive accuracy of this study, like all of the others that have preceded it, depend on the accuracy of its many assumptions. Every time they look at "future" scenarios they are rolling dice. For example, it starts by assuming that cellulosic ethanol will become economically viable. If that never happens, the entire study is moot.

Another example, cane sugar from South America may in all likelihood eventually win the economic competition because cane sugar, particularly with cogeneration of power from burning waste, is far more efficient than even theoretical yields from cellulosic, and the Cerrado and Amazon are vast untapped biodiverse carbon sinks that we Americans have no control over.

Graph: http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/ethanolenergy.jpg

Using our limited biomass to make liquid fuel for flex fuel cars is barking up the wrong tree. That biomass would be better spent displacing coal as argued in this article:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/17/12447/1102
Comment 10 of 40
No image available
February 18, 2009
Following the comments and logic of Fred Linn, we might achieve better results by creating ethanol only zones (places close to feedstocks and biorefineries) and mandating that in certain regions by such-and-such a date, engines will run on 100% ethanol with the compression technology set to optimize without the burden of gasoline accommodation. In other areas, FFVs would be mandated as in Brazil. Of course, the vehicles have to be available and the fuel distribution system has to be reliable. One thing seems certain: The strong hand of government--through mandates, carbon tax, etc.--will have to be involved. Of course, given the current, disastrous state of affairs of the US auto industry, it seems that is already the case. Considering all the entrenched interests, the radical changes required are probably unlikely. A clear sign otherwise will be noticeable deal activity on the part of the oil companies to buy ethanol biorefineries; ultimately, the oil companines love the money more than the product; as long as they're in control, they won't care much whether the fuel is called gasoline or alcohol.
Comment 11 of 40
February 18, 2009
I could not agree more with the study findings that continued support of R&D is important (as if that is not obvious enough without a report) but our present levels of mandates and subsidization have to end. They are exacerbating global warming, raising the cost of food, and destroying biodiversity.

In all likelihood, corn ethanol will be a competitor that will work to delay or to keep other fuels out of the field. Corn ethanol is already creating environmental havoc and destabilizing food prices. Cellulosic is not presently economically viable and may forever be just fives years away from ever being so.

Government is not smart enough to pick winners for us with mandates and subsidies. This strategy would not find a cure for cancer and it will not find a cure for our energy concerns. To date these mandates have only increased the price of food and exacerbated global warming. It's rather comical if you stand back and look at the big picture. It took an area the size of Indiana to add 5% to our fuel supplies. A Prius or Honda Insight reduces oil use 50%.

It's a myth that corn ethanol will act as a bridge to better fuels. It is also a myth that there is a market for ethanol. A market is based on consumer demand, not a government mandate that forces consumers to subsidize a product with tax dollars and then makes them buy that same product blended into their gasoline against their will.

Here is a reality check on consumer preference form Consumer Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
Comment 12 of 40
February 18, 2009
James Sutton said"

"...Any use of forestry and crop "waste" to offset imported oil and 85% carbon neutral is a plus in my book...."

The key word there is "waste." There is also no need to waste money making cars flex fuel. We can blend up to 15% into our existing gas supply without the need for special tubing.

What if diesel, or high mileage plug-ins, or electric, wins out over gasoline and we have spent billions making cars flex fuel for nothing?

I'm with you, Thomas. Bias is a fact of life. Researchers set out to prove their points and if by chance they fail to do that you will never hear about it. That's just human nature.
Comment 13 of 40
February 18, 2009
I also agree with William's assesment that the oil companies will eventually own the biofuel industry, or companies that look and act just like them. This isn't a battle of good against evil, its all for profit. One would have to be either naive or self-decieved, or both to think otherwise.
Comment 14 of 40
No image available
February 18, 2009
Lets consider the source of the study first before we believe it. Another confuse and divertion tactic to distract us from the real solutions. High CAFE standards, Public Transportation, and electric cars running on renewable energy. Bio Fuels will contribute to the solution but 1/3 of the solution sounds to rosie.
Comment 15 of 40
No image available
February 19, 2009
A few comments:

First, why does RenewableEnergyWorld simply regurgitate press releases as if they are real news stories? This one is word-for-word the same as that already published on Sandia's web site.

Second, why doesn't it at least require some value-added, like including a link to the actual study? Here is the link to the Executive Summary. (The full study has not yet been released; so why the press release?)

www.sandia.gov/news/publications/white-papers/HITEC_Biofuel%20_Study.pdf

No surprise that the study concluded that "90 billion gallons per year of biomass-derived ethanol can be produced and distributed with enduring government commitment and continued technological progress." If one throws enough money at an expensive but technologically feasible production process, almost ANY level of production is possible.

The split between 75 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol, and 15 billion gallons a year of corn ethanol was, clearly, a decision taken whenthe terms-of-reference for the study were drawn up; it is not a result of the model.

What about some of the other key assumptions? Well, for one, the study assumes that producing 45 billion gallons/yr of cellulosic ethanol by 2030 would require 480 million tons of biomass, of which 215 million tons would comes from dedicated energy crops. These energy crops would utilize 48 million acres of planted cropland from what is now "idle, pasture, or non-grazed forest." I'd like to see what idle and pasture land they have their eyes on.

They also assume that the average capital expenditure per cellulosic plant will be brought down to $3.50 per installed gallon of nameplate capacity. Currently the six demonstration plants funded 40% by DOE grants cost from $4.75 to $6.50 per gallon of capacity.

(Continued)
Comment 16 of 40
No image available
February 19, 2009
(Continued from above)

And the GM-Sandia study assumes an average farm-gate feedstock cost of $40 per dry ton. That is achievable for switchrass on prime farmland if one looks only at the production costs. But often the opportunity costsfor a farmer of changing from a grain to switchgrass is higher. If the study assumes no arable land will be used, what kind of yields (and costs) are realistic?

As for the amount that could come from forests at $40 per dry ton, those closer to the industry often have a different view than those undertaking desk studies.

For example, in a recent report from Wood Biomass Market Report, the publication's editor, William Perritt, commented, "Recent and upcoming project starts in the energy, pellet, and biofuels sectors will add an estimated 37 million tons per year to existing wood fiber demand in North America, and that number could easily jump to 50 million tons in short order." He continued, "In the rush and excitement to develop North America's largest renewable energy source ... these new players should understand that they are going to have to fight much harder than they might have planned to procure enough woodfiber to run at their capacity." He went on, "In fact you can clearly see the prices for woodfiber in most regions of North America, as reported in our Report, seeing significant increases."

http://www.risiinfo.com/technologyarchives/risi-wood-biomass-market-report-woodfiber-supply.html

In other words, it is not only the cost of planting and harvesting a tree that needs to be taken into account, but also the scarcity value of forest land in the context of growing demand from more than just the biofuels industry.

****

Finally, as a footnote, William Griffin claims that flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are mandated in Brazil. They are not. They are popular in Brazil because the government provides tax incentives for their purchase (and a lower tax on ethanol), and because ethanol is cheaper there than in the USA.
Comment 17 of 40
No image available
February 19, 2009
Ron------you are very long winded and good at puffy pseudo intellectual cost accounting but you have NO fundamental concept of what any of this is actually about.
You remind me of a caveman who wants to argue that we should go right on killing woolly mammoths to feed everyone because raising crops and animals for food is too expensive and difficult.
Have you ever seen a strip mine? They destroy the earth and its ability to support life--------for thousands of years. I can take you down to the beach on the Pacific Ocean near here and show you globs of oil tar that are still there from spills that took place over 30 years ago. I can show you strip mines that have been abandoned over 70 years ago where nothing grows and fish are still being killed from periodic acid runoffs.

So what if it costs more to produce biofuel feed stocks than to strip mine coal or petroleum? The point IS, we can KEEP producing feed stocks from the same land year after year after year forever----with what we are doing now----we destroy the land forever(in human terms). With coal or petroleum---you destroy the land once, burn it up and go destroy MORE land forever. With biofuels, you harvest trees or crops---make biofuels, and plant new trees or crops on the same land, over and over and over. If we cut down trees---we plants new trees---and we always have forests.

Now figure out how much it is worth in $$$ to destroy the earth's ability to support life----and keep doing it year after year after year. Sooner or later you will run out of earth, waters and sky to pollute and destroy. We have been doing it for a long time---it is now later.
Comment 18 of 40
No image available
February 19, 2009
From Ron-------"For example, in a recent report from Wood Biomass Market Report, the publication's editor, William Perritt, commented, "Recent and upcoming project starts in the energy, pellet, and biofuels sectors will add an estimated 37 million tons per year to existing wood fiber demand in North America, and that number could easily jump to 50 million tons in short order." He continued, "In the rush and excitement to develop North America's largest renewable energy source ... these new players should understand that they are going to have to fight much harder than they might have planned to procure enough woodfiber to run at their capacity." He went on, "In fact you can clearly see the prices for woodfiber in most regions of North America, as reported in our Report, seeing significant increases."--------

Then why is Weyerhauser closing two lumber mills by April right across the Columbia River from here due to declining demand? Why is unemployment running 20% or more in logging towns throughout the Northwest, British Columbia and Alaska.

It would seem that it is your "expert" who is completely out of touch with reality---demand for paper and pulp products are in a steep decline and jobs are being lost at record rates. All I have to do is look at the news papers or visit the local state employment offices to verify that. The state unemployment offices are so overwhelmed right now that they are having to add 100 new clerks just to keep up with demand.
Comment 19 of 40
No image available
February 20, 2009
"Ron -- you are very long winded ..." -- Fred Linn

Let's see, the score so far on this string: Fred Linn, 7 comments. Ron Steenblik, 3 comments (counting this one).

Fred, I don't give a toss what you think of me, or my opinions. My comments were not even addressed to you, or commenting on your comments. I was commenting on the study, and on Renewable Energy World's editorial policy.

But since you asked, yes, I have visited strip coal mines and stepped in oily goo on beaches. I was not defending that pollution. Have you seen the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico? Have you seen rain forests in Indonesia felled to grow oil palm?

So what if it costs more to produce biofuel feed stocks than to strip mine coal or petroleum? Are those the only alternatives? (Don't bother: I know your answer will be "yes".) But not everybody agrees that spending a lot of taxpayer's money to turn biomass into liquid fuel as opposed, for example, to using it to substitute for solid fuels, like coal, is a good use of that money.

"Demand for paper and pulp products are in a steep decline and jobs are being lost at record rates. -- Fred Linn

More short-term thinking. And corn was in surplus in 2005 and 2006. Look how soon that evaporated.
Comment 20 of 40
February 20, 2009
Thank you Mr. Steenblik

Most informative and very impressive.

It mystifies my why this publication allows biofuel proponents to denigrate other posters. It reflects badly on them.

Fred,

I see you have spent a great deal of energy telling us how clean biofuels are. You have been repeating old, debunked biofuel talking points. It is true that if you burn pure biodiesel instead of regular diesel in cars built before this year that you can expect to see a 50% reduction in soot although a 10% increase in NOx. However, if your goal is to reduce pollution you would be better off driving a gasoline powered car. This link demonstrates how much cleaner a gasoline Jetta is than a biodiesel powered one:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/page6.html

The 2009 Jetta finally has enough pollution control devices to meet air pollution requirements in all 50 states, unlike its predecessors. With these new air pollution devices it makes little or no difference if you burn diesel or biodiesel because the soot is controlled regardless of which fuel you burn. On the other hand, even this car is dirtier than its gasoline equivalent as described in this article:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/5/13333/12308

Your contention that ethanol is cleaner is also incorrect. There have been several recent studies that have found it to be a bigger health risk and more environmentally damaging than gasoline. If anyone wants to see links to these studies, just let me know in the comments and I'll put a list together.
Comment 21 of 40
February 20, 2009
Also Fred,

Biofuels are, pound for pound, far more damaging to biodiversity than oil spills and coal mining, and I'm not defending coal mining and oil spills. From a symposium given at the recent American Academy of Science meeting in Chicago:

"…If the U.S. reaches its target for corn-based ethanol, Coe estimated that Brazilian farmers would plant up to 1 million more hectares of soy. Depending on whether pasture or forests are converted to fields, the amount of carbon emissions released as a result would be 130 to 650 times greater than the emissions saved by burning ethanol rather than fossil fuels…"

"…How much of new farmland comes from forests? Holly Gibbs, a postdoc at Stanford University, quantified this for the first time across the tropics by analyzing a random sample of 600 satellite images taken in 1980, 1990, and 2000. The various types of land cover--cropland, pasture, forests, and so forth--in each image had been identified by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. All told, 80% of new fields had been converted from forests. (Most of the rest is shrubland.) It's not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds. Unless biofuels are planted in pastures or degraded lands, she said, "we're going to be burning rainforest in our gas tanks…."

From http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0219-indonesia.html

"…Allowing the destruction of more peatlands is a disaster for the fight against climate change, and will only confirm Indonesia's status as the world's third biggest polluter," Greenpeace Southeast Asia forest campaigner Bustar Maitar told The Jakarta Post…"

"…With the general elections coming up, the Agriculture Ministry's plan is fishy, because it seems like an attempt to satisfy the country's powerful paper and palm oil industries at the expense of the environment…"
Comment 22 of 40
No image available
February 20, 2009
Ford found that flex fuel engines produced 70% less pollutants when run on E-85 compared to gasoline. Same vehicles, same engines, different fuels.

From the article:----"The question isn't whether biodiesel is cleaner than diesel, it is. "----

You are comparing apples to oranges Russ. This is why we need both biodiesel and ethanol. Diesel engines have always been more efficient than gasoline powered engines---diesel engines are high compression engines---typically 14 to 24:1----this increasest thermal efficiency. Diesels get more work from the same amount of chemical energy, and greater power to size. This is why diesels have always been used for trucks and heavy equipment where compact power output and fuel efficiency are important factors. If you drive a truck, the less fuel you use to move your load, the more money you make.

------"she said, "we're going to be burning rainforest in our gas tanks…."------

A completely ridiculous statement. Why would we import fuel produced from palm trees halfway around the world when we could make the same fuel from algae right here? Either fuel would work exactly the same. The added overhead of transportation would not be justified by any increase in value----palm oil would not be able to compete with algae oil. Nobody would buy Palm oil fuel----it would have to cost more. In fact, if anything, algae oil would replace palm oil.
Comment 23 of 40
February 21, 2009
Fred,

You are going to have to prove that 70% cleaner statement with links to reliable sources. I will in turn provide you with links that say otherwise.

I was referring to people who run out and buy a diesel car under the mistaken impression that it will be cleaner than a gasoline car if they burn biodiesel. And like I said, given the new air pollution devices now feasible thanks to low sulfur fuel, it makes little or no difference if you burn biodiesel in a truck from a tail pipe emission perspective. The soot is trapped in either case.

Imperium Renewables, the largest biodiesel refiner in the United States, was built on a port so it could import palm oil. And it has been pointed out numerous times that nobody is producing commercially viable quantities of algae biodiesel. 90% of all biodiesel is made from soy, canola, or palm.
Comment 24 of 40
No image available
February 21, 2009
To back up Russ Finley's point on palm oil, here is a web page from July 2006 which shows the "transport spread" for palm oil sourced from Malaysia.

www.palmoil.com/index.php?q=D1VTW1NASgIEAhEbVg9WBgQJCw==

When the f.o.b. price in Malaysian ports was $437.50 per metric ton (tonne), the c.i.f. price delivered to Rotterdam was $472.50/tonne. And when the f.o.b. price was $452.50/tonne, the c.i.f. price was $487.50/tonne. In other words, the cost of transporting palm oil from Malaysia to Rotterdam was $35/tonne (about 12 cents per gallon), a mark-up of just 8%.

And that's to Rotterdam -- completely on the other side of the world. The cost of transporting south-east Asian palm oil to the west coast of the United States (e.g., to Imperium Renewables) would be even less.

Transport costs rose thereafter, but are now back to about the levels seen in 2006. And the price of palm oil in Rotterdam is back to around $560/tonne ($1.87/gallon). That is 30% cheaper than the current price of soybean oil:

www.fao.org/es/esc/prices/CIWPQueryServlet

How does that compare with the cost of producing oil from algae? I've seen estimates ranging from $2.50 to $33 per gallon. In this article, Ron Pate, a researcher on algal oil at Sandia (i.e., the same National Laboratory that produced the 90-billion gallon study), is quoted as remarking "The jury is out on all of [the algal production systems]—nobody has fully demonstrated that their system is going to be affordable and scalable, and be robust in terms of operations and maintenance and the ability to produce a large amount of oil routinely."

www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4266137.html?series=19

By the way, technical ability to produce something is not the major determinant of trade: relative costs is. Iceland demonstrated many years ago that it could produce bananas in geothermally heated glasshouses. And from where does it still procure its bananas? From Central America, like everybody else.
Comment 25 of 40
No image available
February 21, 2009
Why not methane from biogas as biofuel?
As usually I wonder if somebody write about biogas produced by High Solids Anaerobic Digestion. - Not fossil natural gas!
Biogas can be transformed to electricity and heat or used as fuel in cars, busses, trains…
Biofertilisers – a second valuable product contains the remaining bioenergy and most of the plant nutrients from the Renewable Organic Materials. The bioenergy in biofertilisers is very important for soil microorganisms, and should be evaluated in economical terms. Biofertilisers will be adjusted to the cultivation needs in ecological farming.
More information:
Study: biogas can replace all EU imports of Russian gas by 2020
http://biopact.com/2007/02/study-biogas-can-replace-all-eu-imports.html
---------------------------------------------
District heating "key to Danish sustainability"
(13 Oct 08) Study shows heating sector could become carbon neutral by 2030 if district heating network were expanded and switched to biogas. http://www.eceee.org/news/news_2008/2008-10-13a/
---------------------------------------------
26.04.06 Reader: Chernobyl Plus Twenty (see text on page 38)
http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/cms/default/rubrik/12/12119.publications.html
Comment 26 of 40
No image available
February 21, 2009
-------"Biofuels are, pounat red for pound, far more damaging to biodiversity than oil spills and coal mining,"-------------

That is the most patently absurd statement I've ever heard. Obviously you've never seen a strip mine or an oil spill.

If you both think palm oil is so bad---OK---prohibit palm oil use as a biofuel, charge an import tariff, exclude it from subsides, require certification of production, there are all kinds of options. That's OK with me. Palm oil is not going to be a major player in the market anyway. It is loaded with saturated fat and very long chain hydrocarbons-----that makes it a solid relatively high temperatures-----not a good candidate as fuels go. That is why its main use is as a base ingredient for chocolate bars and snack foods and baked goods. It is the botanic equivalent of lard.

------"Imperium Renewables, the largest biodiesel refiner in the United States, was built on a port so it could import palm oil. "-------

? I suppose locating in a port area so that they would also be able to deliver their products no matter what they are produced from occurred to you?

-------"30-80% CO2 reduction depending on feedstock/production
process"-------------Ford Motor Company
Experiences with FFV/E85 in Sweden
and European developments
Jan Brentebraten,
Director, AFV/FFV Strategy
Ford of Europe

Last night I had a meeting with Union members and representatives of approximately 4,000 logging and mill work employees who are losing their jobs due to mill closing because of declining market conditions. The topic discussed was saving jobs by establishing an ethanol industry in the Northwest. 68 people volunteered to collect signatures on petitions to the governors of Washington and Oregon to seek ways and means to stimulate ethanol production from forest products and enhance forest sustainability.
Comment 27 of 40
No image available
February 22, 2009
On the viability of wood-based ethanol, here is an exerpt from an article ablut the Kootenai River Forest (KRF), near Libby, Montana:

http://www.thewesternnews.com/articles/2009/02/19/news/doc499dbb9743a16018699678.txt

************

Logger Paul Tisher said the lumber market has endured vast fluxuations the past couple years and what was a viable product last year could not be next year. Tisher said one advantage to getting feedstock to the proposed ethanol plant might be lower transportation costs. However, he said if the facility was competing with other mills for larger timber, the price would drive the market. "What you are going to pay will determine the availability," Tisher said, adding that a long-term contract with a fixed cost is appealing.

Tisher said transportation costs for moving lumber are "somewhat stable" at the time, but getting the small diameter lumber required by the ethanol plant could drive up logging costs.

...

[Lincoln County Forester Ed] Levert estimates that. on a 50 million board feet sale, which is the annual allotment on the KNF, there are 86,000 tons of non-saw logs. The ethanol facility proposal is currently for 5 million gallons, which equals 230,000 tons of material, or an additional 38 mbf.

************

What the article does not make clear is, if the annual allotment on the KNF yields 86,000 tons from logs that are not of sawing quality, and the proposed 5-million-gallons-per-year ethanol facility (10% the capacity of a typical corn-ethanol plant) requires 230,000 tons of material, from where is that extra 144,000 tons of material going to come?
Comment 28 of 40
No image available
February 22, 2009
Ron---we looked at the same issues. Here are some factors that are sort of glossed over in the article. 1) Harvest numbers do not include mill work waste----there will be approximately 20 to 25% waste in the mill from harvested logs to finished lumber. On the low side, that is about 10% of your shortfall----and that is just mill waste. 2) culls from managed timber lots---saplings that are removed to make room for trees to be used for timber to grow tall and straight, are removed every 5-10 years depending on the species and the growth rate of the micro-environment. Typically culls are removed when they reach about 15-20' in height and about 10-12" in diameter. Around 2 to 3 thousand per acre, each cull producing around 1 to 1.6 tons of pulpable mass by Forest Service estimates. Declining demand for paper in the current economic situation means that culls are simply stacked up and burned----it is no longer economically viable to use them.
"Save a tree" by going electronically paperless, or using hand dryers(which use a LOT of electricity generated by coal) means that there is far less incentive to replant managed timber anymore. Ironically---(true it does not make logical sense on the surface) "Save a tree" campaigns are actually working against sustainable replanting---and are increasing demand for coal from strip mines, which not only destroy the trees when mined, they also destroy the ability of land to sustain a forest by destroying topsoil and polluting watersheds.
Loggers are just like farmers. They have to be concerned with the long term viabilty of their harvests. Growing trees is really not too different than growing corn, beans or any other crop-----you take some from the earth, and you leave some for the earth.
Comment 29 of 40
February 22, 2009
Fred said,

"....That is the most patently absurd statement I've ever heard [that biofuels as produced today are pound for pound worse than fossil fuels]. Obviously you've never seen a strip mine or an oil spill....."

As ususl Fred, your remarks are unsubstatiated. Add up the total area of land and beach damaged by coal and oil and compare it to the total area of carbon sinks usurped for biofuels. Divide those numbers by pounds of fossil fuel and pounds of biofuel respectively. Go ahead. Do it and tell me its absurd. Biofuels are in their infancy. They can't scale without horrific environmental ramifications. Picture trying to meet all of our energy needs with plants.

"...I suppose locating in a port area so that they would also be able to deliver their products no matter what they are produced from occurred to you?..."

I was quoting from their own press release. They deliberately located in a port to recieve the cheapest possible stock, specifically palm oil.

"....30-80% CO2 reduction depending on feedstock/production
process ...."

Link to study please.

From the Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Science and Technology:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976

Figure 3 shows corn ethanol to have 3 times worse aggregated environmental impact than gasoline.

America already consumed 95% of its forests for fuel. We used it for steam engines and in our fire places. That is why we turned to coal. We can't expect the 5% of what remains of our forests to make a dent in our energy consumption. Letting forests grow will absorb more carbon than converting them to cellulosic will save, or at least, that is what the new studies are showing. Converting a tree to cellulosic puts its carbon in the air. The seedling that replaces it will take decades to absorb that carbon back out of the atmosphere. We don't have decades. Energy efficiency is the only game in town.
Comment 30 of 40
No image available
February 23, 2009
Russ----there is no such thing as a "carbon sink"-----there are certain situations where carbon becomes fossilized under specific conditions without fully decaying---usually as a result of acid formation, of which volcanic activity is a main source, or temperature and oxygen conditions, such as in sediments at the bottom of the ocean or very deep lakes. Peat bogs and swamp areas that get covered with silt by floods would be another example. You only find fossils in areas where the local conditions were just right to form the fossils at the time the fossils were living creatures. These conditions are not present in forests-------otherwise, there would be no forest---------the conditions that produce the fossils would very quickly kill off any new life.

Carbon is constantly recycled through the atmosphere. Plants and animals that have died in rainforests are very quickly destroyed in rainforests. Forests are not static. Forests are succession. Forests change and have differing plant and animal life at differing ages in their succession. In nature, fire is the most important factor determining forest succession. Old forests burn, and new forests are born out of the fire.

We can have as much forest lands as we want----what we use, we need to replant. We need some old growth forests to maintain biodiversity---but all old growth forests started out as new forests. And one day, all old growth forest will die off and be replaced with new growth----whether we use it or not. This has been going on for billions of years.

How much forest we have to use depends entirely on us. What we are willing to protect(old growth)----and what we are willing to plant and maintain---to "farm" if you want to call it that, although "managed timber" may be a little more accurate.
Comment 31 of 40
No image available
February 23, 2009
Before we get too quick to be critical of countries where rainforests are being cut down---we should consider what is happening right here. Everywhere I look forest lands are being destroyed and replaced with suburbs, industrial, commercial and recreational building. A rainforest that is cut down and replaced with palm trees still carrys on photosynthesis. A megamall with 10 acres of forestland bulldozed out for parking lots and covered over with asphalt with a few ornamental trees here and there to make it look pretty is niether pretty, nor does it support any photosynthesis. Not only that----take a look any night----thousands of lights illuminating acres of empty parking lots. You cann't even see the sky.

We need to protect old growth forests, here, and in other countries where we can. We need to actively replant forest lands to replace what we use.

If we don't use biofuels----we continue to use coal and oil. Both of which are coming from strip mines now. Strip mines that destroy the earth's ability to support life, pollute the water and air.

------"Picture trying to meet all of our energy needs with plants."--------

Biofuels are only part of the picture. There is wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-----each technology has its own strengths and weaknesses. We can use each one where it is strongest. I agree that conservation----only using what we need is a very good idea.

---"As ususl Fred, your remarks are unsubstatiated."--------

I don't see any substantiation to the incredibly ridiculous statements you are making. Show me anywhere the kind of destruction producing ethanol that are clearly visible in th pictures of tar sand strip mines in the pictures in this article. Destroy the earth like that and you cann't produce ethanol. Clear and simple.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1
Comment 32 of 40
February 25, 2009
Carbon sink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink

Here's a national geographic video for you:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/environment-news/brazil-logging-apvin.html

"300 square miles destroyed in August"

And from the recent annual meeting of the AAAS:

"It's not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds."
Comment 33 of 40
No image available
February 26, 2009
From the article:

"Leaf litter and humus are rapidly oxidized and poorly retained in sub-tropical and tropical climate conditions due to high temperatures and extensive leaching by rainfall. Areas where shifting cultivation or slash and burn agriculture are practiced are generally only fertile for 2–3 years before they are abandoned. These tropical jungles are similar to coral reefs in that they are highly efficient at conserving and circulating necessary nutrients, which explains their lushness in a nutrient desert."

"Grasslands contribute to soil organic matter, stored mainly in their extensive fibrous root mats. Due in part to the climactic conditions of these regions (e.g. cooler temperatures and semi-arid to arid conditions), these soils can accumulate significant quantities of organic matter. This can vary based on rainfall, the length of the winter season, and the frequency of naturally occurring lightning-induced grass-fires. While these fires release carbon dioxide, they improve the quality of the grasslands overall, in turn increasing the amount of carbon retained in the retained humic material. They also deposit carbon directly to the soil in the form of char that does not significantly degrade back to carbon dioxide."

"In 2006, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion were estimated at nearly 6.5 billion tons[vague]. If a 2,000 (lb/ac)/year sequestration rate was achieved on all 434,000,000 acres (1,760,000 km2) of cropland in the United States, nearly 1.6 billion tons[vague] of carbon dioxide would be sequestered per year, mitigating close to one quarter of the country's total fossil fuel emissions. This is the emission-cutting equivalent of taking one car off the road for every two acres under 21st century regenerative agricultural management (based on a vehicle average of 15,000 miles per year at 23 mpg; U.S. EPA data)."

If we use biofuels and renewable energy, carbon sequestration is not necessary.
Comment 34 of 40
No image available
February 26, 2009
"A key culprit is the national government itself, according to reports."

Forests are being destroyed in Canada to strip mine petroleum. Forests are being destroyed here to strip mine coal.

Land that has been farmed can go back to forest. Land that has been strip mined can not go back to forest.

------""It's not known how much of new farmland is being used for biofuels, but Gibbs estimates it could be anywhere from a third to two-thirds."--------

Well, if it is not known how much, then his estimate is just a guess. Maybe it's a good guess, maybe not, who would know?
Comment 35 of 40
March 1, 2009
Your lack of understanding is appalling, Fred. There have been several peer reviewed science papers that have shown that converting different kinds of carbon sinks into biofuel crops takes decades to centuries to recover the carbon put into the air, depending on the crop and the ecosystem destroyed.

Mines destroy a tiny fraction of forests that biofuels do as was pointed out earlier. Coal is used for power, not car fuel, so it does not even belong in the discussion. You are now just repeating yourself hoping new readers won't notice that your points were already refuted. That's a troll tactic. A well moderated thread would delete attempts by posters to repeat already refuted claims.
Comment 36 of 40
No image available
March 2, 2009
----"Your lack of understanding is appalling, Fred. "----

I understand just fine. It seems to me that you are the one who refuses to get it. If you start with a basically flawed assumption, you end up with flawed results. Studies that start out assuming that using petroleum to make biofuels is a static situation that won't change are flawed. Why would we do that? The point of making biofuels is to use less petroleum, that is what they are for. Biofuels will be produced using biofuels.
It is very simple. If petroleum use to make biofuels causes increases GHG production, don't use petroleum. Use biofuels to make biofuels.

----"Coal is used for power, not car fuel, so it does not even belong in the discussion."------

It is if it is used to charge electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are not pollution free if you use coal to charge them. You are only moving the pollution from vehicle to power plant.

------"Mines destroy a tiny fraction of forests that biofuels do as was pointed out earlier."-----

Permanently. And not all biofuels even do that. You want conservation----and pointed out an article that showed we can double the thermal efficiency of engines using ethanol compared to gasoline. Producing the same amount of work with 1/2 the energy input is conservation, regardless of differences the volume of fuels required to produce equal amounts of energy.

------"You are now just repeating yourself hoping new readers won't notice that your points were already refuted. That's a troll tactic."--------

Exactly what I think.

----" A well moderated thread would delete attempts by posters to repeat already refuted claims."---

Like yours.
Comment 37 of 40
No image available
March 2, 2009
Fred, you frequently refer to the ideal in biofuels, yet seem uncomfortable in addressing the current reality. You write:

"The point of making biofuels is to use less petroleum, that is what they are for. ... If petroleum use[d] to make biofuels causes increases GHG production, don't use petroleum. Use biofuels to make biofuels."

Actually, the amount of petroleum used to make biofuels is already fairly small. But the amount of fossil fuels used to make them, especially ethanol, is still large. Yes, biofuel plants COULD use biomass for process heat, but most do not: most use natural gas, and most farmers producing feedstock for those plants use predominantly petroleum diesel to run their farm machinery. Telling them they should use bio-energy is not going to change their practices. What they respond to are policies and incentives.

Some recent studies have shown a fossil-energy input ratio for corn ethanol of around 0.50 -- i.e., 1/2 MJ of fossil fuels for every MJ of ethanol produced. But those studies look only at the amount of energy inputs on prime, Corn Belt farmland. If the effect of diverting Midwest corn to biofuels means that more corn has to be produced in states like Georgia (which require energy to irrigate corn), then more energy in fact is still required, albeit in another part of the country.

http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ethanol_chart.html

Not to defend coal per se, but your claim that coal mining necessarily permanently destroys land is not true everywhere. Since Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), coal mining companies commencing new mining activities have had to post a bond to ensure that the land is restored to something close to its original contours and land use. In the three decades since then, land reclamation has developed as a science and in many cases the restored lands are hard to distinguish from their original state. See:

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/lrp/reclamation/aml/amlinfo.htm
Comment 38 of 40
No image available
March 2, 2009
--------"Not to defend coal per se, but your claim that coal mining necessarily permanently destroys land is not true everywhere. Since Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), coal mining companies commencing new mining activities have had to post a bond to ensure that the land is restored to something close to its original contours and land use. In the three decades since then, land reclamation has developed as a science and in many cases the restored lands are hard to distinguish from their original state. "--------

I grew up in Missouri in an area that was extensively coal mined for about 100 years. I am familiar with re contouring and reclamation.

While re contouring restores the an original look to the topography----it does not restore land to its original state. Topsoil that took thousands of years to form is gone. The subsoils exposed to the surface contain acidifying agents that require massive amount lime and fertilizers just to get anything to grow at all. They also do not hold moisture. They percolate easily allowing moisture to drain from the surface very quickly---carrying the chemicals used to fertilize and re mediate the soil with them. As surface waters percolate down through the mined soils, they pick up the toxic chemicals contained in the soils that overlaid the coal seams. These chemicals were laid down at the same time as the plants that formed the coal. Those chemicals are what made the plants into fossils in the first place----they killed off organisms that would have decomposed the plants under ordinary circumstances. Release them into the environment again, and they still kill organisms. Mining destroys the underground aquifer system. Pile more subsoils on top of the destroyed aquifer system, and you have toxic chemical laden soil hiding any new water courses that develop----you don't know where the effluent will emerge.
Comment 39 of 40
March 12, 2009
Fred,

We are not defending coal. The use of coal has to end. So does the use of biofuels grown on arable cropland. We just pointed out, repeatedly, that biofuels of today are far more destructive than oil, gallon for gallon. The peat bogs being converted into palm plantations destroy biodiversity and carbon sinks, ditto for soy and cane.

Fred said:

".....pointed out an article that showed we can double the thermal efficiency of engines using ethanol compared to gasoline. Producing the same amount of work with 1/2 the energy input is conservation, regardless of differences the volume of fuels required to produce equal amounts of energy...."

That is not what the article I referenced said ...Fred. It said the opposite.
Comment 40 of 40
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
PeopleSense Consulting LLC Apricus Solar Co., Ltd GiraSolar SMA America, LLC FRONIUS USA LLC  Solar Electronics Division SAF
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo