The Obama Plan for Cost-competitive Military Biofuels: The 10-Minute Guide

Domestic, diversified military fuels or affordable fuels? "False choice!" says Obama.

Jim Lane, Biofuels Digest
July 03, 2012 | 81 Comments

It's finally here. The Obama Administration has laid out an integrated strategy for commercializing advanced biofuels, with a focus in this phase on military advanced biofuels at cost-competitive prices with conventional fuels.

The vehicle is a joint program between the DOE, USDA and the Department of Defense (principally, starring the US Navy, though, as we’ll see, critically including other elements).

In his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future released in March 2011, President Obama set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025 and laid out an all-of-the-above energy plan to achieve that goal by developing domestic oil and gas energy resources, increasing energy efficiency, and speeding development of biofuels and other alternatives.

It’s a huge step in the journey toward those goals — a multi-step, integrated program that we’ll investigate in today’s Digest, and provide to you in a convenient 10-Minute Guide with links to the full funding announcements.

The program

On June 27, the Air Force announced a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for $30 million under its Defense Production Act authority. Because the desired fuels will be for military operational use, they must be approved and certified JP-5, JP-8, and/or F-76 equivalents by the time the commercial-scale biofuel production facility would become operational.

The funding

The Defense Department is committing $210 million between two phases.

The first phase is expected to include five awards at up to $6 million each. Only those applicants selected for Phase 1 can compete for the Phase 2 awards. Up to three Phase 2 awards are expected at approximately $70 million each ($180 million total). Only $100 million is allocated for Fiscal Year 2012, so total Phase 2 funding depends on future appropriations.

The big however

No more than $70 million of funding may be available for Phase 2, as FY13 and future years are not yet appropriated. “The funding profile is an estimate only and will not be a contractual obligation for funding as all funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability,” the FOA states.

But as Navy Secretary Mabus notes, “we’re still early in the appropriations process.”

The phases

Phase 1 will involve the planning and preliminary design for a domestic Integrated Biofuels Production Enterprise (IBPE) that meets a target of at least 10 million gallons per year neat biofuel production capacity. Performance is expected within one year. Phase 2 involves the construction, commissioning, and performance testing of such a facility. Performance is expected to be completed within three years of the Phase 2 award.

Additionally, the total enterprise envisioned in this effort must include a capability to blend the neat biofuel product with petroleum-based equivalent fuels in order to meet approved certifications and specifications, which must include blends of up to a maximum 50/50 ratio. Capabilities and/or facilities to store and transport the resulting product must also be an element of the project.

The location

From the FOA: “The proposed refinery must be located within the United States or Canada and use a domestically-produced acceptable feedstock. To qualify as a domestic source under Title III of the Defense Production Act, the IBPE must be located within the United States or Canada (territories and protectorates are not considered domestic). Supply chains that will import feedstock from outside the United States or Canada (including sugars used for microbial conversion processes) will not be considered.

The feedstocks

1. Renewable biomass. Materials, pre-commercial thinning, or invasive species from National Forest System land and public lands (with significant caveats – see the full FOA). Trees; algae and other microorganisms (grown non-heterotrophic for biomass or direct products); Crop residue (including cobs, stover, bagasse and other residues); vegetative waste, wood waste and wood residues; Animal waste and byproducts (including fats, oils, greases, and manure); and Food waste and yard waste.

2. MSW and sludge. The organic fraction therein can be used.

3. Other “transitional feedstocks,” e.g. Corn starch, cane, beet or sorghum sugars, or oils derived from soybean, canola, sunflower, corn, peanut or DDGS can be used, but must offer “a credible 'transition plan' that demonstrates how subsequent commercial production facilities (built after the one built under the DPA Title III Program) could be economically designed and constructed utilizing 'renewable biomass' materials.”

The cost-share

Awardees selected for phases 1 and 2 will be required to share at least 50 percent of the cost.

The due dates

Responses are due to the DPA Title III executive agent by August 13, 2012. The Air Force expects to announce awards by March 1, 2013. This is for the “Phase I” portion of the DPA program, $30 million to go to awardees for architectural and engineering expenses for integrated supply chains.

Phase II would apply the balance of the $240 million ($100 million of which has been appropriated to date) from the Navy and DOE toward physical construction, shakedown, and operation.

The DPA as a funding authority

The Defense Production Act is an authority that dates back to 1950 and has been used to boost industries such as steel, aluminum, titanium, semiconductors, beryllium, and radiation-hardened electronics.

Title III of the Defense Production Act (DPA) provides unique authorities, under which the Government may provide appropriate incentives to create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States, including energy.

Why is the Air Force managing this program?

As the Executive Agent for DoD’s DPA Title III Program, the Air Force is responsible for executing programs that ensure domestic production capability for technology items that are essential to national defense.

More on the FOA

The complete funding announcement is here.

Viewing Page 1 of 2

81 Comments

Vyacheslav Mammadov
July 11, 2012

The scenario of the war, provide several options.
Stop the flow of fuel from the exporters. Cessation of food supplies 80% of exports from countries far, for the war. Applications of climate weapons.
Assume, will act as the military.
There are suggestions that Americans can not control, electrical energy.
Exemptions from oil, electricity attracts, it is an axiom. Electric trains, trams, electric cars, all of this great release
amount of oil exports. External Intelligence of the world interested in the collapse of economies of these countries, which is the basis of the basis on exports of other countries. As practice shows, the money is not in the state to support the economy through deficit imports.
Narrow-minded, attitude millionaires put their dependence on the security their country, and exacerbation of other countries in the action.
Vyacheslav.

greg chick
July 8, 2012

Agave could be owned and controlled therefore stolen and faught over... so it might just be the thing. I seem sarcastic, I am not. Chris Tucker said "Follow the money trail to the rich white guy" in a Jacki Chan movie. His point is if there is money, there is interest. If big interest, it is worth fighting for. this seems to be a historical reality.
The Solar Power has issues about ownership. Agave needs land, I might ad very little water, good thing too! Mexico is just the place to border with here in San Diego. We could do a fence. This is actually quite romantic, I would give it a 10 on my list.

Steve Frazer
July 8, 2012

As I continue to read through these posts, I am struck with the realization that the authors are still speculating about future possible feedstocks or in Cliff's case, long since decided biofuels are a non-solution to our Petroleum Economy.

You folks do understand there are hundreds of millions of acres of lands in production today world-wide for biodiesel? That most every other industrialized nation has biodiesel mandates and that the light fleets of these other countries are primarily diesel powered?

The U.S. government has a long history of altering our "free market" economy with incentives and subsidies. The DoD announcement that motivated this article will push biodiesel forward in the U.S. because it is the right direction. There is no need for continued government subsidies and there is no reason why biodiesel should cost more than petrodiesel at this point.

Until an individual has spent years "peeling back the onion" of this industry, it is difficult to understand all the variables. The published research documents are confusing as they often mix the advantages and disadvantages of 1st and 2nd generation feedstocks, ..., - targets are blurred at best. The rules of Industrial Metabolism are topics for graduate classes.

Very bluntly, I will suggest you reconsider writing about what you have not learned from first hand experience as you are likely confusing the casual readers. Take the time to speak with an expert in the field who can provide you with real world data from his crops and who will paint an accurate future of transportation based on hands-on research and production.

In the words of my 12 year old nephew, " Biodiesel rules and everything else is just noise". Join the Migration - htp://etcgreen.com U.S. Migration

Fred Linn
July 8, 2012

You are absolutely right Erich. Take a look at this field of cultivated agave. Keep in mind, this is planted with the thought in mind to allow work room between the plants. A common name for one species of plants in this genus is Spanish Sword---when you see it, you'll think "Spanish Sword As Big And Tough As A Plowshare Lined With Razor Wire"..........................a bit more descriptive, but hard to say.

http://cocktails.about.com/od/spiritreviews/ig/Corazon-Tequila-/mx_128_corazon_distillery.htm

For an idea of the size of the individual plants---here.

http://cocktails.about.com/od/spiritreviews/ig/Corazon-Tequila-/mx_150_corazon_distillery.htm

If you think you could just plow through them with a truck---good luck, take a look at the serrated edges on the leaves radiating from the center stalk:

http://cocktails.about.com/od/spiritreviews/ig/Corazon-Tequila-/mx_146_corazon_distillery.htm

The black portions of the spikes on the ends of the fronds, and the serrations along the edges are hard enough to drive into a piece of wood with a hammer. Running into the center stalk with your truck would be exactly the same as running into a tree stump. Not something you'd want to do at any kind of speed----it would crumple your truck like tin foil.

erich knight
July 8, 2012

Over-plant Agave and it is a fence, I have hacked my way through many a MultiFlora Rose Thickets, pruned my way through Trifoliate orange Hedges, a vicious ornamental shrub. What I have seen of the Agave fields, being an easterner, makes me wonder which would be the most painful and heinous amount of work to get through.

Fred Linn
July 8, 2012

Erick---Arturo and his work was the one who first got me interested in looking into Agave several years ago. The more I looked, the better it sounds.

My personal thought---instead of building a wall along the border at a cost of $26 billion---we should have been planting Agave plants. I wouldn't want to go running through a field full of Agave plants in broad daylight, let alone at night. I'd think you could plant a heck of a lot of Agave for $26 billion.

greg chick
July 8, 2012

"It's another Tequila Sunrise" What you guys are talking about is the "Science will save us" concept that I think is a reality. I am very glad to read your comments and where is Fox "News" now? This project is so possible it scares me. In a sense that the Mexican Gov. is just as corrupt as Iraq! but at least Oil is not the product. I jest when I say if we got them to smoke some of that weed instead of send it here they might be more peaceful. We need top level diplomats there not ones who are also on the "Take". Either side is capable of ethics I just hope that is the outcome. Collateral damage seems to be a reality.
Thanks for the good news, I am looking forward to seeing it happen.

erich knight
July 8, 2012

Agave Border Initiative (ABC),
Arturo Velez sent his Agave-Derived Biofuels creation of a Bi-National Border Consortium to foster large-scale use of agave as energy crop.
His steering committee; Dr. Soll Sussman, Coordinator of the Border Energy Forum, as well as the National Coordinators of the Border 2012 Binational Environmental Program, Dr. Steve Kaffka, Director of the California Biomass Collaborative and Dr. Matthew A. Jenks, Coordinator for the Western Regional USDA-ARS Biomass Research Center, US Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, USDA.
Government agencies, private initiative, farmers/ranchers/foresters associations, academia/researchers, NGO and entrepreneurs are welcome to participate.
The Western US States produce only ~0.3% of the total USA biomass production, but by planting 25 million hectares of agave on marginal dryland, these States could produce 1.6+ Billion tonnes of dry biomass every year, the same amount the whole US currently produces.
In Mexico he is working with CONOSIL, with six hundred and seventy thousand members. They own at least 40 million hectares of land. They are VERY interested in the Agave Project. Especially the States with more semiarid and arid land (upper half of Mexico).
CONOSIL is a member of the International Family Forestry Alliance.
CONOSIL: http://www.conosil.org.mx/ ,Arturo is the National Administrative Coordinator.

http://www.slideshare.net/agaveproject/Agave-Project-Presentation

Fred Linn
July 8, 2012

The key to thermal efficiency with internal combustion engines is compression ratio. The higher the compression ratio, the greater the specific power output and the greater the thermal efficiency. We can build engines that can generate more power output than the largest V8s, from smaller engines than commonly used in the smallest economy car inline 4s. And get better mileage/BTU. But it can't be done using petroleum. The octane of regular gasoline is limited to 85-87. The comparative octane of ethanol is ~115. The compression limit with gasoline is 9.5:1, the compression limit with ethanol is 24:1. The specific power and thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines can be more than doubled using ethanol. We've been using this for over 100 years to build more powerful race cars. The fastest, most advanced race cars in the world use ethanol fuel. The Indy League Racing Circuit cars all use ethanol fuels---and have used alcohol base fuels for over 50 years for this reason.

We've been able to make ethanol from non-food crops for years. The Agave is a succulent desert plant(of the Aloe family, not a true cactus, though it is commonly called a cactus). The Agave is a native North American desert species of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan desert regions, and thrives arid regions. It is naturally adapted to poor soils, not useful for any other type of agriculture, low nutrient, rocky, dry, hillsides. It provides cover, food and habitat for a wide range of desert fauna. It stores solar energy in the form of nectar a very high sugar content syrupy sap that looks and tastes like honey. It produces yields equal to or greater than sugarcane or sugar beets.

We've been making ethanol from Agave Nectar for centuries---it is called tequila.

erich knight
July 8, 2012

A Brief History of Agricultural Time.... Modern Agriculture has evolved in the ability to remove the limitations to plant growth, from burning forest for ash fertilizers, to bison bones, to Guano islands, then in 1913, to crafty Germans figuring out how to suck nitrogen from the air to now with natural gas derived fertilizers. These chemical fertilizers have over come nutrient limits to growth for 100 years. NPK and the 'Green Revolution' in genetics have brought us to where we are, all made possible by basically mining soil carbon stocks. So we have now hit a carbon limit in two distinct ways. The first is continued loss of soil carbon content, the second is fossil carbon energy cost. The present farming system spends ten cents of fossil energy delivering one cent of food energy. We can not go back, but we can go forward with our newly acquired wisdom. Wise land management, Conservation Agriculture and afforestation can build back our soil carbon, Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar. We can rectify the carbon cycle, and beyond that, biochar systems serve the same healing function for the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, toxicity in soils and sediments and as a feed additive cut the carbon foot print of livestock

Steve Frazer
July 8, 2012

Entertaining banter. You have covered most all the issues. Reminds me of when I worked for Fortune #67 in the 1990's and I was tasked with establishing the new modem standard for the corp. I was a deligate to the ITU - Charter Org of the United Nations. Would it be the obviously superior US Robotics solution that held about 85% of the market or the far less popular Flex-56? US Robotics only got 1 vote and the standard was determined by popular vote. Flex-56 won though it only held about 2% market share at the time.

Cliff is correct, we are never going to run out of petroleum, but we will run out of petroleum we can afford to burn - and sooner than most will embrace. The US already has a total of over 50 million acres of corn for ethanol and 1st gen seed stock for biodiesel. These lands will return to food production over the coming years.

Nuclear power? Been there too. I worked for the largest public utility in the world and helped with systems in their reactor plants - I held various NRC certs. There are 103 operational plants in the US today and I will suggest there will be less than 100 plants 50 years from now. Large scale fleets of EV's are not our future.

Please consider that one acre of land will provide all the transportation fuel a typical US driver will use in a lifetime while at once taking that individual's carbon footprint to zero. And we can achieve this balance at near $1 gallon today.

We expect 1/3rd to 1/2 of all current drivers will no longer own a private vehicle within 10 years. Consider the number of people who returned to farming after the OPEC shocks of the '70's. It is happening again. Biodiesel from 2nd gen seedstock is the only scalable, environmentally friendly, economically viable and truly sustainable solution available. http://etcgreen.com

Fred Linn
July 7, 2012

When the oil runs out---so will your western industrialized economy. No more "Low prices, everyday."

----" As I said before, the Earth is not going to run out of oil. Oil's market share will rise or fall as it competes economically with alternatives."----

Oil is running out. It is already roughly twice as expensive to use as another biofuel alternative, methane, that is why there are 14 million CNG vehicles on the road today---most of them in Europe, Asia, and South America. Most of those are bi-fuel or multi-fuel vehicles. They can run either petroleum or CNG at the flip of a switch---or a range of fuels, petroleum, petroleum and ethanol mixtures, pure ethanol, and/or CNG.

There are only a handful of vehicles that run on yellowcake. And those don't function very well in a McDonald's drive through or a Big K parking lot.

Oil is running out---the economics bear that out. Biofuels are the only realistically achievable alternative.

Cliff Claven
July 7, 2012

@Fred: Your 18th century example of using ethanol as fuel is well into the industrial revolution after the introduction of coal and steam power. The high EROI of coal allowed 18th and 19th and 20th century folks to move from pre-industrial agrarian economies where food must be used as food, to energy-rich industrial economies where food crops can be squandered as fuel. It was first coal and then oil that allowed that luxury. Without coal and oil or other high EROI and high power density primary energy sources, we have to revert back to agrarian rules. That's the whole point of my discussion in previous posts. Sorry you missed it. If you have a pre-industrial example of ethanol in widespread use as fuel, I am genuinely interested. There are ancient examples of petroleum being used for fuel in ancient Azerbaijan and China, and even wells being dug for such purposes, but these are exceptions and not representative behavior. As to how long will modern civilization last, it depends more on the governments than the oil. Those governments that pick one risk scenario (e.g., global warming or peak oil) and destructively reorient their entire societies in ass-over-teakettle conniptions against such a narrow threat are likely to go the way of the Dodo when a different risk they ignored becomes manifest. Governments that take a balanced look at all the risks and make informed decisions that don't weaken themselves by pouring resources down bottomless pits or chase the chicken little fad of the moment are likely to fare better because they will be more healthy when the blow hits. As I said before, the Earth is not going to run out of oil. Oil's market share will rise or fall as it competes economically with alternatives. At some point, some other high-EROI primary energy source will out-compete it. It will likely be nuclear power, but not as soon as it could be because of the foolishness of our modern western governments that seem bent on self-destruction.

Fred Linn
July 7, 2012

----" Yes, as a beverage. Drink up. Olive oil and whale oil and oilseed oils were used as fuel and for lighting. If you want to use ethanol for fuel, then pick which pre-fossil fuel era you want to be a slave in:"------

In the 19th Century, ethanol was a very common household fuel, used for many applications that called for light or heat. As a fuel it was mixed with small amounts of methanol(wood alcohol) which is very toxic---producing denatured alcohol, to make it undrinkable. For lighting purposes, it was mixed with turpentine to give it a higher combustion temperature, hence, more light. The first internal combustion engine built by Nicholas Otto ran on camphene. The first internal combustion engine built by Henry Ford ran on ethanol. The Model T Ford, introduced in 1908 could be ordered with an adjustable Holly carburetor that could be run on either gasoline or ethanol. Henry Ford was convinced that ethanol was a better fuel his entire life.

I could go on and on, but since your mind is made up, I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts.

You never did answer my question in all of your blather about EROI etc.--------just how long do you think that the modern industrial civilization that you are so fond of is going to last considering known oil reserves, and rate of consumption?

Then whatcha gonna do?

Cliff Claven
July 7, 2012

FYI, here's the definitive study on switch grass: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/10/3158/ (30 years to form a mature natural biome, 3 years to get the first crop as an artificially fertilized mono-culture, negative energy balance, far worse than corn ethanol in every respect).

Cliff Claven
July 7, 2012

@Fred: "Ethanol was being made centuries before fossil fuels were ever thought of." Yes, as a beverage. Drink up. Olive oil and whale oil and oilseed oils were used as fuel and for lighting. If you want to use ethanol for fuel, then pick which pre-fossil fuel era you want to be a slave in: Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, etc. I apologize for confusing "their" and "there." You confused 2% efficiency in solar conversion to biomass with EROI. I did not discuss it previously, but the EROI of organically grown wheat (without modern petroleum agrichemicals, and computed as the ratio of grain output in the harvest divided by grain input required for seed and feeding human laborers) is about 10.5, and the resulting feed is predominantly a high-quality starch and protein complex. Alfalfa's EROI is about 27.0, but is a lower quality cellulosic feed. Converting these feeds into the work output of a construction team of human slaves eating wheat and oxen eating alfalfa yields an end-to-end EROI of about 4.2 for continuous hard labor, and about 1.8 for realistic sustained work. These grains and their cousins are the primary energy source of pre-industrial agronomic civilizations, and this is the best-case EROI using each biomass energy source for what it is best optimized--food. This level of civilization was the best humans could do until coal and steam engines transformed everything. Trying to convert feeds into fuels requires a series of chemical transformations that each exact a thermodynamic penalty and reduce the EROI dramatically. Yes, you can sustain large populations of humans and animals with grains because they are FOOD. But no, you cannot power a modern civilization using them as fuel. You need an EROI above 6.0 for that. The widespread industry and scientific consensus for bioethanol EROI is 1.25. That's between ancient Egypt and the stone age.

erich knight
July 6, 2012

I agree with all of Cliff's stated facts about the carbon footprint of ethanol and the complete combustion of biomass. However there are several pathways for carbon negative biofuels...
The Paleoclimate Record shows preindustrial agricultural-geo-engineering is responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. The unintended consequence; the flowering of our civilization. Our science has now realized the consequences, developing a more encompassing wisdom. Wise land management, afforestation and the thermal conversion of biomass can build back our soil carbon. Pyrolysis, Gasification and Hydro-Thermal Carbonization are known biofuel technologies, What is new are the concomitant benefits of biochars for Soil Carbon Sequestration; building soil biodiversity & nitrogen efficiency & in situ remediation of toxic agents, Modern systems are closed-loop with no significant emissions. The general LCA is every 1 ton of biomass yields 1/3 ton Biochar equal to 1 ton CO2e, plus biofuels equal to 1MWh exported electricity, so each energy cycle is 1/3 carbon negative...

Beyond Rectifying the Carbon Cycle, Biochar systems serve the same healing function for the Nitrogen and Phosphorous Cycles....
Since we have filled the air, filling the seas to full, Soil is the Only Beneficial place left.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it...
After 1 million years of playing with fire,Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio research. Thankfully we can do Pyrolitic Biofuels now.

Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture via carbon nanotubes, Graphene, fullerines,DNA programed nano self assembly, etc of virtually all things in the near future.

This convergence of different technologies will end the Combustion age

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

When you burn a plant---every single atom of carbon that you release was first taken out of the atmosphere by the plant. Otherwise, you would not have the plant there to burn in the first place. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels.

When you dig up carbon out of the ground as coal, petroleum or natural gas---you are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was removed from it millions of years ago. This is new CO2 which raises atmospheric CO2 because there is no countervaleing plants to remove it.

The only way to raise atmospheric CO2 is the use of fossil fuels.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

(cont.)

The perennial root systems were unaffected by the fires and new growth would appear in the spring as soon as growing conditions were right.

Would you care to use your equations and and tell me how much energy would be required to support a herd of 100 million animals, each one between 1500 and 2500 lbs. each, migrating an average of about 2,000 miles per season, and then tell me how impossible it is get a meaningful amount of energy from biofuels.

Oh, and don't forget---all the poop that those 100 million buffalo made---was collected and used by the Plains Indians for fuel for their fires. Dried buffalo dung as fuel is pretty good fuel. It has characteristics very much like charcoal, and a dried dung fire can burn as long as 12 to 24 hours.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

------" Ethanol as sunlight in a jar sounds beautifully poetic, but the ethanol in your gas tank took it's equivalent amount of energy in fossil fuel to get their (I know, you don't like that troublesome EROI thing, but it is fundamental)."-----

There indicates a place----their is a plural possessive adjective

Ethanol was being made centuries before fossil fuels were ever thought of. Since about the 7th Century AD. Do your farming, milling and distillation with biofuels and renewable energy and you will not require one drop of petroleum to produce ethanol.

-------" Photosynthesis is less than 2% efficient at converting sunlight to biomass--look it up. "-----

If I plant a corn kernel, and that plant grows and I get 8 to 12 ears of corn with several hundred kernels per ear---that is a LOT more than 2% EROI.

-------" The ammonia, pesticides, and herbicides all come from petroleum. If you want to depend upon only the natural sun and rain for your switchgrass, you'll get a crop every 30 years."-----

You don't even know what switchgrass is do you? It is a native species tall grass prairie perennial. It will grow 3 to 8 ft. in height in about 1-2 months from the onset of growing season, and if grazed or mowed can produce about 150 to 600 tons of plant fodder per acre/season, depending on water availability. The North American buffalo herds numbers somewhere between 60 to 100 million when Lewis and Clark made their journey to the Pacific Northwest. Those herds fed mainly on blue stem and switchgrass--neither of which were planted, cultivated, fertilized, sprayed with pesticides or in other way cultivated by man---with the single exception that the Plains Indian tribes often burned the praires in late fall, early winter to get rid of the massive tangles of ungrazed grasses. This produced ash that enriched the soil following the natural cycles of fire clearence, leaving a layer of ash fertiling the soil.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@Fred: As to the carbon side of the equation, the issue for global warming is atmospheric carbon-dioxide. Carbon sequestered in living biomass is not in the atmosphere, and therefore not contributing to global warming even though it is in the ecosystem. The last thing anyone in favor of a green earth should want to do is burn plants, yet that, ironically, is the cornerstone of biofuels. Living plants have an appetite for CO2 and scrub it continuously from the atmosphere. When great tracts of forest land around the world are burned to make way for sugar cane or oil palm plantations, they commit a double crime toward global warming: they release all that biomass carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and carbon black soot, and they remove a huge quantity of CO2 scrubbing plant life. The lifecycle analyses that take this "land use change" into account have found that so much immediate and even permanent damage is done, that it more than cancels out subsequent GHG benefits from the renewable fuel. Indonesia is now the third highest source of CO2 on the planet behind the US and China because of the millions of acres of peat and forest it is burning to replace with oil palm plantations. Thus have our misguided green policies made the world.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@Fred: you need to put some numbers to your hand-waving. Ethanol as sunlight in a jar sounds beautifully poetic, but the ethanol in your gas tank took it's equivalent amount of energy in fossil fuel to get their (I know, you don't like that troublesome EROI thing, but it is fundamental). Photosynthesis is less than 2% efficient at converting sunlight to biomass--look it up. The vast majority of solar energy absorbed by a plant is used to evaporate water from the leaves and thus perform the mechanical work of drawing up water and nutrients from the ground against the force of gravity. The only way to get the high-yield annual crops that all the biofuels brochures postulate is through massive artificial fertilization of plants specifically bred and/or genetically engineered to pull massive amounts of energy from ammonia-based fertilizer. In yield studies, even switch grass is fertilized at the same rate as corn (and actually requires 3 times the herbicides as it is more vulnerable to invasive species). The ammonia, pesticides, and herbicides all come from petroleum. If you want to depend upon only the natural sun and rain for your switchgrass, you'll get a crop every 30 years. There is no free lunch. Just to meet the current 16 billion gallon RFS mandate for cellulosic ethanol is estimated to require between 30 and 60 million acres of new U.S. farmland.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@John: You make my point. Mabus is doing this because he is being forced to by Obama. It is politics that is forcing biofuels upon the military from above, not the military acting on its own wisdom. As to the long-term answer, its a primary energy source(s) with a minimum EROI from end-to-end of 6.0 that can deliver 1 exawatt of power conveniently distributed to all the nations of the Earth and bring them all to our current economic level of development. Trying to stop global economic development anywhere short of that is in vain. Below an EROI of 6.0, our modern civilization and quality of life goes into sustained recession. Below an EROI of 3.0, modern civilization goes catabolic as the energy cost of eating becomes greater than the nutritional value of the food, and everything slides back toward pre-industrial civilization (e.g., decaying Detroit with rolling blackouts). These energy imperatives of EROI and power capacity must be balanced against environmental impact and risk including land, water, GHG, nitrate, radiological and biohazard footprint. On the path forward I'm with Marion King Hubbert: the answer is migration to nuclear power. It may be light water, it may be lithium flouride, it may be Helium-3 fusion, but that's ultimately where we're headed. However, the peak oil urgency is mis-calibrated by both degree and proximity, as is the doomsaying about global warming. Anyone remember all the pandemonium in the 80s about "nuclear winter?" The eruption of just one of Earth's many mega-volcanoes (such as Yellowstone), or one significant extraterrestial impact, or a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan will kick up enough dust to drop global temperatures by tens of degrees and more than erase the half-degree rise per century some people are panicked about. An impartial risk analysis would lead us to prepare for an ice age at least as much as a greenhouse. We all need to get a sense of perspective and back away from the ledge.

John Carr
July 6, 2012

Cliff- "Secretary Ray Mabus, who know's what side his political bread is buttered on." The secretary has neither the authority or the privilege to act contrary to the Commander and Chief. It is the Executive branch, not Congress. He can be removed for insubordination. Get it right.
We have consumed oil and based our economies on an overabundance of cheap oil. That is coming to an end. All the old arguments are becoming meaningless. EXXON stepped it up. Others followed. Hence, a new oil boom and glut. In 15 years there will be no gluts regardless of drilling activities. All excess will be local. Who cares about past fuel purchases of the military? This is about the future. Besides, do you have a security clearance? No? You presuppose no one but you can calculate entropy, or mass and energy balance. That's crap. I've been doing it for 35 years. So have a whole lot of other very competent people all over the world. We are called engineers. Granted, there are always people who do not do the math. Most of them fail. Some push unsustainable practices through politics and drag others down with them. Yes, that's frustrating and sometimes very expensive. You have offered no solution other than hunker down and conserve until what? Until we hit the wall? Do you understand how much death and pain that would create? Okay Cliff, you have podium, what's the long term answer? Go.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

-----" biofuels burns up fossil fuels even faster than just using the fossil fuels directly for fuel."-----

The energy in biofuels comes from the sun. Ethanol is solar energy in a mason jar. The sun comes up and brings new energy to the equation every single day---whether we use it or not. Fossil fuels come out of the ground. There is no fossil fuel fairy who puts more back into the ground when they are taken out.

-------" t's just a big churn that tears up the environment, releases more net GHG, and sucks up energy that could otherwise power civilization directly. "-----

Using fossil fuels is the big churn that tears up the environment, releases more net GHG and sucks up energy.

The system that nature uses is called the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle----carbon is removed from the atmosphere by plants, converted into glucose by photosynthesis using solar energy and water, storing the energy---the energy and carbon are released when the plant materials produced by photosynthesis are burned.

It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels, if there is no CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by plants---there is no plant matter to make biofuels from. Net gain = 0.

-----" If you're worried about running out of oil, you need to preach conservation, and that means to stop wasting fossil fuel on biofuel."-------

I'm not worried about running out of oil. Anything done with oil, can be done with biofuels. We have no need of oil at all. We can do without oil, and the economic, environmental, political, social and health damages it causes.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

The whole point of the EROI discussion which you dismiss is that making biofuels burns up fossil fuels even faster than just using the fossil fuels directly for fuel. It's just a big churn that tears up the environment, releases more net GHG, and sucks up energy that could otherwise power civilization directly. If you're worried about running out of oil, you need to preach conservation, and that means to stop wasting fossil fuel on biofuel. It's just all a big entropy factory.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

----" When it is gone---it is gone. And no amount of whining or crying about EROI or anything else will bring it back."-----

There's a fact for ya.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@Fred: You say the military has been at this biofuels game for 10 years. The first significant biofuels purchase I can find for the U.S. military was 40,000 gal of camelina jet fuel from Sustainable Oils for $2.6M in August of 2009 ($66 a gallon, $2,800 a barrel). There were purchases of natural gas and coal Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel from Sasol in 2007 and 2008, but no earlier biofuels purchases except for bulk purchases of the same ethanol blended gas everyone is forced to buy. Also, I think you mean F-76 naval distillate. Eagerly awaiting to see some facts in your posts.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

So tell me Cliff----oil is a finite resource. In 150 years of "producing" oil, no one, anywhere has produced even one single drop of oil. Keep taking it out, and putting nothing back in---sooner or later you run out. There can be no question about that. I and a lot of other people see signs that is already happening right now.

When it is gone---it is gone. And no amount of whining or crying about EROI or anything else will bring it back.

The military planning position is, that this is fact, deal with it. I happen to agree with that position.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

D-76 is the designation for standard diesel fuel.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

You have it backwards---the military program has been on going for over 10 years---and was initiated and implemented by the military, primarily the Navy and Air Force.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@Fred: The U.S. military is acting on the wishes of their political masters and are being forced to ignore the best advice of their own think tanks like RAND. For instance, the Navy's lead role in biofuels is being personally pushed by Secretary Ray Mabus, who know's what side his political bread is buttered on. Over 55 biofuels blends were tested and certified before the military got involved, and the raft of highly publicized military tests are thinly disguised publicity stunts that prove what is already well known--making drop-in biofuels is possible. What they are not accomplishing is showing that making drop-in biofuels is sane. I am not familiar with an official government or military body called the "Joint Services Strategic Policy Planning Commission" or with "D-76 fuel." Would you clarify?

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

cliff-----" : Oil companies are not fighting renewables because the government is giving away money to get them to play."------ No, oil companies are fighting biofuels because they threaten their monopoly market status. Widespread use of biofuels would mean that oil companies would no longer have the captive market that can be manipulated and price fixed to maximize their own profits to the detriment of everyone else. Oil companies are the most profitable businesses in history for this reason---they are de facto cartel monopolies.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

cliff---' This most recent cycle of high prices has allowed the oil companies to make and spend enough money to bring tight oil and deepwater oil fully into play. '---- Like BP in the Gulf of Mexico, exactly what we need more of. And in Arctic regions----such a spill or run for years due to climatic conditions. You can't run skimmers on top of ice, or in choppy storm swept seas.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

dennis baker-----" Greg Chick anyone ever suggest that Methane is detrimental to the alleged goal of reducing GHG emissions. not so well edgeamedicated as you claim aye! Dennis Baker"------ The important factor about GHGs is not their presence or absence. The important factor about GHGs is their effect on the atmosphere. The production of biomethane and its use as a fuel makes an enormous effect on the GHG effect in the atmosphere. The production and use of biomethane as a fuel is the only means we have to actually cool the atmosphere. If you capture methane that would be generated naturally, ie: treating sewage or tapping landfills, and then use it as a fuel, you convert high GHG effect CH4 into low GHG effect CO2. Just a 6% blend of biomethane in fossil methane produces GHG effect neutral emissions. Any blend of over 6% will produce a cooling effect on the atmosphere compared to doing nothing.

Fred Linn
July 6, 2012

-----" Forcing the US military to adopt fuels based on biostocks is a bad idea."------- This is a priority policy proposed by the Joint Services Strategic Policy Planning Commission and implemented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Selection, planning, testing, certifications, and field trials have already been done. Biofuels are in use and undergoing shake down field use and handling trials now. The US Navy and USAF are flying planes right now on 50/50 camelina/petroleum----the USAF Thunderbirds aerobatic team is just one of many units now using biofuels or biofuel blends. The US Navy has certified Solyzyme's as a drop in replacement for D-76 petroleum diesel. There are ships at sea right now using it in turbine engine craft on shake down cruises. The US Army is using it Abrams tanks and Bradley vehicles now. Handling and procedure policy manuals are being rewritten as we speak to reflect new procedure for the use of biofuels. For instance, MSDS sheets need to be rewritten, in general, biofuels are much safer in the case of accidental exposure or release and require less specialized equipment and handling than petroleum fuels.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@John: Oil companies are not fighting renewables because the government is giving away money to get them to play. Shell took the 1 year grant, partnered in a JV with Choren, and then dumped them when the money ran out. Where is Choren today? Bankrupt. Lather, rinse, repeat times one hundred. The federal government would create more jobs by paying street people $1 million a year to do nothing than by building more biorefineries while hundreds we've already built are up for bankruptcy fire sales.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@John: Oil exploration and drilling languished from the glut and price collapse of 1986 through 2003. Low oil prices brought a halt to exploration and drilling. Eight years ago, Exxon was right, and that lack of exploration and investment did indeed catch up to us in 2008. Today that Exxon prediction has been invalidated. The climbing prices since 2003 have funded a tremendous amount of exploration and discovery and capital investment around the world in the intervening years--exactly what Exxon begged for. Today, Saudi Arabia only produces 1/27th of the world's petroleum because so many countries are getting into the game. If you know anything about oil, you know we are all following the historical boom-bust cycle. Prices spiked to similar inflation corrected levels in 1919, 1934, 1980 and 2008. This most recent cycle of high prices has allowed the oil companies to make and spend enough money to bring tight oil and deepwater oil fully into play. The next cycle in 10 or 20 years will likely bring methane hydrates fully into play, which USGS estimates at 320,000 trillion cubic feet, or more than a two-thousand year supply of total US energy needs at a current annual use rate of 98 quadrillion BTU. Public awareness of the coming glut is now only starting to trickle out because it has been suppressed by both big oil companies and the alternatives fuels crowd because it is in both of their interests to keep the world thinking petroleum is running out and thus keep oil prices as high as possible. Oil production will peak someday, not because we come close to exhausting the supply, but because we have moved on to something better. However, it is a certainty that the something better will not be biofuels. Here's a brand new study from Harvard to help folks "catch up." http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22145/new_study_by_harvard_kennedy_school_researcher_forecasts_sharp_increase_in_world_oil_production_capacity_and_risk_of_price_collapse.html.

John Carr
July 6, 2012

But we do have a window of time to make changes. Every year that window shrinks. Peak oil is not an academic argument. Consider this, as petroleum gets more expensive, at what point do we as a civilization buckle under the weight of our energy expense? Isn't it prudent to invest in plan B while we have the liquidity, and before we go under on plan A? The military thinks so. Can we replace all petroleum? Yes. Just not anytime soon. Natural Gas is a very different issue. NG is the primary source of fertilizers and plastics. If we burn all of it, we aren't getting the value we should. EROI on NG and petroleum changes constantly. If we use EROI as a basis for future national security and energy policy planning we are just lemmings following each other off a cliff. The only survivors will be those who didn't follow.

John Carr
July 6, 2012

The EROI on petroleum hasn't been constant by nature. It has remained good because chemical engineers at the refinery level have been continually improving the processes for over 100 years. Drilling technology has improved, but it is still a pipe, drill bit, drilling mud, and raw horse power. We can't get off oil quickly because we use so much there is no 100% substitute at the rate we use it. Forget the EROI. What the military sees clearly is not a shortage of oil, but a shortage of CHEAP oil. As crude becomes more expensive there is a downward pressure on margins at the refineries. Refineries are very efficient. While crude prices rise the exploration companies can shrink their margins slightly while increasing their profits. Rising prices through speculation is a godsend for exploration and production companies. Why do you think EXXON has sold off its refining assets? Sorry to drop a name. Eight years ago EXXON predicted a 60% shortfall in oil production by 2015 if new exploration investment was not found. (shareholders meeting). All the predictions proved non-conservative. You may not see the rinsing anxiety publicly, but it's there. You won't read about it much on the internet. Why don't you? Because oil companies are bound by law to not produce production forecasts for fear of market manipulation. The EIA is tasked with this. The EIA has a real interest in painting a overly optimistic picture of energy supply. They were brought to task for this in a meeting in 2004 with the NRC, all the major NG consumers and producers present. I was at the meeting. As a result of this meeting there was a renewed push for Nuclear. We are in trouble. I don't mean just the USA, I mean all of us. This is why EXXON, BP, and many others are no longer actively fighting renewables. The writing is on the wall. They are neither stupid or blind. Petroleum is not sustainable. I am not chicken little, the sky is not falling.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@Greg: Your comments on the money spent to build gas stations raises a very good topic for discussion--the role of capital investment. There are lots of good histories of the oil business (Yergin, Maugeri) that are very instructive in both energy and economics. The key with oil is that it, not the government, has paid its way since 1859. Oil prices peaked at $40 a barrel (not inflation adjusted!) the first year after Col Drake's discovery and bottomed out at 10 cents a barrel the second year because of a glut of oil caused by all the black gold rush drilling. Brief oil price spikes followed by enduring gluts and price collapses is the pattern of history for oil. When people only had to drill 70 feet to hit oil, it's EROI was inherently very high. However, there were no storage tanks or pipelines or refineries or super tankers or gas stations in the early days, which all are capital investments that raise EROI by improving the usability and accessibility of the fuel. As crude oil has gotten progressively more difficult to extract over the decades and its innate EROI has fallen, its overall EROI has been maintained through these offsetting capital investments. The key differences between historical oil and modern biofuels are twofold. First, oil from the start has had a high enough EROI to pay for its own continuing program of capital investment that has, in turn, maintained its high EROI. Second, oil in the U.S. has flourished as a vast complex of private enterprise, subject more to government interference, regulation, and taxation than benefiting from direct assistance. It has literally been America's cash cow and ultimate source of most of our wealth. Crop-based biofuels, on the other hand, have been and always will be of too low an EROI to sustain themselves without fossil fuel help, let alone compete directly with oil. Petroleum has serious environmental risks (as do every energy source), but it shines in EROI.

Cliff Claven
July 6, 2012

@All: The folks naysaying methane because of its greenhouse gas potential (which is actually 72 times CO2 at the hundred year threshold per IPCC) betray a deep misunderstanding of virtually all the issues on the table. Methane made for fuel is not released raw to the atmosphere; it is burned into CO2 and water. Its hydrogen-to-carbon ratio is very high, making it an excellent fuel from a GHG perspective. In fact, it should be viewed as a climate change crime to allow any natural or man-made methane to escape to the atmosphere without being captured and burned into CO2 as we are currently allowing to happen right now with huge volumes of methane from ocean floor plumes around the world and Arctic continental permafrost. Waste-to-energy is the only form of biofuel that makes sense from an EROI perspective; the problem is there simply isn't enough energy in our waste to power our modern civilization. A car's 15-gallon gas tank contains the equivalent of two man-years of labor in energy. So, as a rough order of magnitude swag, we'd need the annual toilet contributions of two adults just to make the methane for a single tank of gas. We'd need a lot more to air condition and heat our homes, refrigerate our food, light your streets, power our kids' schools and our places of work, etc. If we can do it with a positive net energy balance, it's better to capture methane from our waste than to landfill or flush it, but we will still need to look elsewhere for the vast majority of our energy needs.

dennis baker
July 6, 2012

Methane is only 21 times worst than Carbon can't you come up with something 100 times worst to sell?

dennis baker
July 6, 2012

Greg Chick anyone ever suggest that Methane is detrimental to the alleged goal of reducing GHG emissions. not so well edgeamedicated as you claim aye! Dennis Baker

greg chick
July 5, 2012

Cliff, Point Loma Sewer Treatment Plant (Most of San Diego county) Sewage has been going to process using Methane Gas (Bio/Alternate, Waste derived) from Sewage at the plant for many decades. This harvesting has saved hundreds of millions of dollars. They have sold it out to others too. No Fossil fuel has been needed to create this abundance. Cliff are you being paid to research and post your points? your obviously a professional and very educated. I agree that talking heads are a dime a dozen, also agree some subsidies on Corn are a crime for the net they gain. I have found that some programs were meant to fail, give a black eye to a face... As well need to point out the job subsidies for clean energy have a better effect on the Planet then subsidies in Fossil Fuel because it is dirty. So many actual costs of Coal and Oil are obscured while costs for "Green" are considered un surmountable. Do you have a figure how much this country has spent building Gas Stations to distribute this Fossil Gas? How unsurmountable a figure that would be. I bet those Horse /Livery lost jobs changed and grew up to Cars. Change is tough, it even hurts, how much money has been wasted on thrown away clothes from kids out growing them. Lets not stop growing. With all due respect, continue to post and read, we all need to share, I have spent time with your posts and you are like I said well educated. Greg Chick.

ANONYMOUS
July 5, 2012

Forcing the US military to adopt fuels based on biostocks is a bad idea. The fuels the US military uses are very specialized and their composition is tightly controlled. A switch to bio feedstocks would require dedicated facilities, and it is unlikely the bio feedstock supply rate required in a prolonged conflict would be sustainable. The military uses lots of fuel during wartime. This is why the US has a strategic oil reserve. As for the notion that the US military is dependent on oil imports for its fuel supply, this is also untrue. In the event of a conflict, the military would have priority access to all domestic oil production, which would be more than adequate.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

Methane(natural gas) is a biofuel also. We can make it low tech, cheaply and easily from any type of organic matter at all, including sewage and land fills. We've been doing it for over 160 years in recent history. Methane, can be used in any internal combustion engine....we've been doing it for over 90 years. The Fiat Siena Tetrafuel is in manufacture, on sale, and in use on the road by consumers in Brazil, Argentina and Peru, and has been for the last 4 years. The Siena can run on petroleum gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol(unblended), and/or CNG(fossil methane, biomethane, or any mixture of the two). The Siena can use petroleum, some petroleum, or run the entire vehicle lifetime completely petroleum free----including engine oil.(silicon based synthetic motor oils can also be made petroleum free, and are far superior to petroleum based oils, better lubrication, better viscosity retention at temperature extremes, longer lasting and far more heat resistant). So, go ahead and eat first---you'll produce lots of sewage, and make an excellent feedstock for biofuel production. There are about 14 million CNG vehicles on the road today. Most of them are bi-fuel, they can run on liquid or gaseous fuel at the flip of a switch. The left over by products of producing biomethane from sewage and waste organic matter are clean water, and compost(the most fertile soil you can get).

dennis baker
July 5, 2012

that's why I say Eat First convert to energy after

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

Well Cliff, I'd say that the Brazilians got your family jewels in a vise no matter which way you turn. I wouldn't recommend turning or trying to run very far in any direction.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

BRIC---an acronym denoting the fastest growing economies in the world, it stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. Note what country is represented by the very first letter. Well, it seems to me that if demand is exceeding supply by 1.2 billion gallons per year, it is an excellent business opportunity to expand local production---you already KNOW that you have a demand for your product if you invest in more production. ---" I hereby publicly proclaim that Brazil has just experienced "peak ethanol" and furthermore predict that she will be reverting back to an economy dominated by conventional petroleum."----- The only vehicles for sale in Brazil are flex fuel vehicles. They can run on either petroleum, or ethanol, or any mixture of the two. If market conditions dictate that ethanol is in short supply, the petroleum/ethanol mix can be adjusted to suit availability, no problem---as has been done. If the price of petroleum spikes again, the mix is adjusted to use less petroleum and you cut off exports to the US(or better yet, produce more ethanol and send the high priced petroleum to the US). No problem. And if both petroleum and ethanol spike in price or bottom out in supply---you just keep on driving using CNG(compressed natural gas). No problem. -------" I hereby publicly proclaim that Brazil has just experienced "peak ethanol" and furthermore predict that she will be reverting back to an economy dominated by conventional petroleum."-------- Don't try holding your breath while you are waiting, you might turn purple and pass out.

Cliff Claven
July 5, 2012

@Fred: You make an excellent point about Brazil. This is a grand experiment in a biofuel economy being forced upon its citizens by government fiat. We should all watch how this ends and take a lesson. Here is a progress report. http://sugarcane.org/media-center/sugarcane-statistics/2011/revised-totals-for-south-central-brazil-sugarcane-harvest2028show-even-smaller-cane-crush-for-2011-2012-season-1. This year's harvest is off by 20% despite ever-expanding crop land, they lowered their ethanol blending ratio in October to try to mitigate the gap, and now they are IMPORTING 1.2B liters of ethanol. They have been farming unsustainably for years with near slave labor, insufficient fertilizer and herbicides and pesticides (fossil fuel inputs), and now the land is wearing out, the people are angry, and it is catching up with them. Meanwhile they have discovered huge quantities of oil in deep pre-salt formations off their coast. I hereby publicly proclaim that Brazil has just experienced "peak ethanol" and furthermore predict that she will be reverting back to an economy dominated by conventional petroleum.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

If you want to save money---don't get into wars. We don't have to fight wars to produce and use biofuels.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

cliff--" Now DOD has been empowered to issue new subsidies under the Defense Production Act and a recent agreement Memorandum of Agreement with USDA and DOE."---- So, you think you know more about fighting a war, and the logistics of procurement, and supply under combat conditions than the people who actually have to do the procurement and fight the battles? I'd rather listen to the people who are actually doing the work and the fighting to tell me what they need to operate effectively instead of an armchair general. For one thing---the overall strategy of the US DoD is to remove a major cause of conflict in the first place. That strategy was laid down by Sun Tzu in about 600BC.........."The greatest warrior is he who wins the war without fighting." I like that strategy.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

cliff-claven---" If anyone wants to know the truth and deal with the world as it is, the facts are out there. Others will continue to believe their favorite worldview and be comforted by sympathetic propagandists."---- Well, there are two choices for doing research---you can spend hours and hours looking up and reading Cliff's Notes---hand picked and approved with his own personal imprimatur for proper political and emotional bias. OR You can look at Brazil. The world's only functioning biofuel economy and see if any of the dire predictions of gloom and disaster Cliff is so fond of have actually taken place. The short answer is NO, not one single one. In fact, the Brazilian economy is booming----Brazil is becoming wealthy selling oil to el gringos estupido en el norte, oil that they are not using because they provide over 50% of their transportation fuel needs with ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas they make at home. I think research should be based on real world experience.

Cliff Claven
July 5, 2012

@Fred: True, one leg of the subsidy millipede for ethanol was removed, but corn is still hugely subsidized in the most recent farm bill, the 15B gallon ethanol RFS mandate is still in force, and USDA is still handing out loan guarantees, IRS is still giving selective tax breaks, DOE is still funding biorefineries. Now DOD has been empowered to issue new subsidies under the Defense Production Act and a recent agreement Memorandum of Agreement with USDA and DOE. So, for every loss, there are offsetting gains. The oil companies have to buy the ethanol they are forced by the government to mix into their gasoline, do they not?. So in whose pocket does that subsidy money end up? BTW, is the federal government not still fining the refineries for not putting non-existent cellulosic ethanol in their gasoline? I would really appreciate it if you would enumerate for all concerned the full spectrum of biofuels subsidies and how they have recently changed. Thank you.

Cliff Claven
July 5, 2012

@John-Carr: no offense intended, but facts impress me more than resumes and references. Biofuels startup websites and proponency blogs and investment brochures are long on promises but are not reliable sources of factual information. If anyone wants to "catch up" on the true trajectory of biofuels from qualified neutral researchers subject to peer-review and institutional oversight, I would recommend the August 2011 report of the National Academies of Science (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13105) and the Jan 2011 RAND study (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html), or any of scores of biofuels lifecycle analyses performed since 2008 and published in peer-reviewed science journals that take into account land use change, nitrates and eutrophication, N2O and end-to-end GHG emissions, water footprint, food competition, and net energy balance/EROI. If anyone wants to know the truth and deal with the world as it is, the facts are out there. Others will continue to believe their favorite worldview and be comforted by sympathetic propagandists.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

LOL!!! I got a million of 'em..........hot cha cha cha.............Good night Mrs.Callabash---where EVER you are. (if you are less than 50 years old Greg---google Jimmy Durante on wiki and youtube.....and get a few factoids on the old schnoozola.....)

greg chick
July 5, 2012

Factoids, cant live with them, cant read with out them. The rest of the story. Thanks Fred.

Fred Linn
July 5, 2012

@cliff claven----just so you can update your references, ethanol does not get a producers subsidy anymore---it expired and was not renewed 12/31/2011. The blenders subsidy goes to the oil companies. If you want to complain about an ethanol subsidy---you need to complain about the oil companies.

greg chick
July 5, 2012

Well said John.

John Carr
July 5, 2012

Cliff, sounds like some really good internet research there. I won't bother you with all of my references. They do not include celebrities or popular news companies. I am a former chairman of the Dallas Chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Exxon and the like are very familiar to me. So are Peabody Coal, Koppers, and many other diggers. Keep digging, you'll catch up. I am realistic about our addiction to petroleum. Getting off it is a larger issue than quarterly profits. Taking shots is easy. Coming up with solutions is what Renewable Energy is about. So far, your aim needs improvement.

erich knight
July 5, 2012

Hi Cliff, Did you look at the CoolPlanet biofuel technology? To paraphrase a popular US comedy, 'South Park' in an episode where they parody arguments against immigration with characters saying; 'They taken our jobs' repetitively; 'They Taken Our Carbons' @ $165 per metric ton,.... US Biomass: Where Do All the Wood Pellets Go? http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/where-do-all-the-wood-pellets-go?cmpid=WNL-Friday-June15-2012..... Or to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, in 'The Lorax'; I am the Charist.. I speak for the Carbon.. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. and cannot express... what they do with their lungs... Fix all the carbons in lignins and more... Which we Charistas... can recalcitrantly store... Thermal conversion is what biomass needs.. To bring down the World-temps.. a couple degrees It can heat up our pots.. And drive us alots.. With no eco-system giving up what it's gots .. I am the Charist, and I'll yell and I'll shout for the fine things on earth that are on their way out!.. Externalized cost I will shout at the most.... For it's value in soils is easy to boast, I speak for the humus, the fungus, the bugs.... for the structure char give them.... they just loves... Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,.... nothing is going to get better...... It's not...... By 2020, Europe may annually import as much as 40 million metric tons of pellets from all sources, I would have no problem if by then this 40 million tons were destined for carbonization. let me put it this way, if that 40,000,000 tons were processed via CoolPlanet biofuels' technology, that would be 114 million barrels of carbon negative bio-gasoline. Europe uses about 4 million barrels of gasoline per day, that would be a one-month supply. In the US a 15 day supply. However the US does harvest 1.6 billion tons of biomass currently.

greg chick
July 5, 2012

Sounds like Cliff is a Propaganda peddler. Waste is however a good choice not growing stuffs that take water. Oil takes water (never in the calculations), The Taxes are already spent fixing and supporting Oil caused needs so don't count that money as if we can use it to educate kids. Military escorts are very expensive too. Any dry grain bought from the Middle Wast to make fuel is a crazy statement. I think the common sense thing is Solar,Geothermal and Wind, Tidal energy. We need to operate on what we have not what we can need from our enemies. Not a penny of our money needs to go to our enemies. I am not the one judging these people enemies, they openly declare need to kill us. China openly declares goal to be super power over all, and we send millions every day to them. Look at the products in the stores where do they come from?. We are giving away everything we got. Back to Oil, why subsidize the largest netting industry in the world with Tax money?

Cliff Claven
July 5, 2012

@John-carr: First, the subsidy values are not my numbers, they are from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency and were specially requested by the House of Representatives and produced in an official government report in August 2011 (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/). I simply divided the subsidy totals by the total energy contribution of each fuel to the U.S. economy, also provided by EIA (https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png). Please check my math. Often in biofuels, as is many things, what "most others" believe to be true because they heard it from some talking head or celebrity or because it is conventional wisdom is quite far from the facts. Secondly, primary energy is different from derivative products like fuels and consumer goods in that it is the foundation of civilization and its EROI directly determines quality of life. Biofuels do not have a high-enough EROI to serve as a primary energy source for modern civilization. period. The only way to produce them in any meaningful quantity is to steal additional energy from fossil fuels by way of artificial fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, machinery fuel, electrical power, and heat energy for cultivating and processing and refining. Alcohol can be a worthy racing fuel, but even with the highest yield ethanol crops of sugar cane, sugar beet, and corn, all the energy in the ethanol at the end is only just enough to grow and refine another crop to replace itself. There is no extra for race cars. The only net product is distillers dry grains (corn protein pellets), so maybe NASCAR and Formula 1 should be figuring out how to power their cars with this. BTW, the extra fossil fuel used to make biofuels is on top off the fossil fuel used to fuel the economy, so biofuels are actually accelerating our use of fossil fuels, not reducing our dependence. The only logical path is "fuel for fuel and farms for food."

erich knight
July 4, 2012

@ john-carr Yes, John has covered the pertinent points, and the examples go beyond energy security. The military led the way to break segregation and generally uphold the principles of meritocracy for women and now for the gay community.

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

@ john-carr very good post, and very true on all points

John Carr
July 4, 2012

Cliff, according to your assessment @ 27 cents per barrel of crude oil gives a total federal subsidy of about 1.9 billion dollars annually. Most others agree the number is between 10-52 billion dollars per year, (depending on what qualifies as a subsidy). If you add all the federally funded failures in renewable energy in the last 10 years it doesn't add up to 100 billion dollars, much less 520 billion dollars. About failures. 100 years ago the oil fields had thousands of wildcat drillers and/or refiners. Most of them failed or fizzled. Many of them were driven out of business by John D. Rockefeller using predatory business practices. At the beginning of any new industry there are almost always more losers than winners. When the oil industry was in its infancy most people wouldn't bet on it. Whale oil was better. Coal oil was cheaper. The renewable oil industry is no different in its development than petroleum was 120 years ago. Our government is tasked with taking a long view on our country's survival. It is not a business model, nor should it be. The government's role should balance Wall Street not follow it. The Eisenhower Interstate system was not a good short term investment. Now, it's an essential part of our economy. All the lakes built around Dallas in the 1950's were a terrible short term investment. Today, they are irreplaceable. The role of government is NOT to show a profit. Businesses are the engine of profit. The U.S. military is doing the right thing. It is taking a long view on national security. There will be more failures than successes in the beginning. Expect it. The military is about taking risks. There will be losses. In order to win the WAR on sustainability we must be willing to continue to fight those battles even when we lose. I am glad the military has taken a lead role. They understand what is really at stake.

erich knight
July 4, 2012

bio-refineries are ripe for being leapfrogged , new processes and new materials coming from nanotechnologies and biotechnologies are adding a whole new witches brew for the efficiency of attaining all the chemical feedstocks now derived from oil. Modern Thermal conversion of biomass burns only the hydrocarbons in that biomass, conserving the carbon for the soil. At the large farm or village scale modern pyrolysis reactors can relieve energy poverty, food insecurity and decreased dependency on chemical fertilizers. Please take a look at this YouTube video by the CEO of CoolPlanet Biofuels, guided by Google's Ethos (and funding along with GE, BP and Conoco) they are now building the reactors that convert 1 ton of biomass to 120 gallons of bio – gasoline and Biochar for soil carbon sequestration. They report total production cost, starting with 25 ton per acre miscanthus grass as a $1.25 per gallon with a productivity of 3000 gallons per acre. The perennial beauty of giant miscanthus grass from the University of Mississippi are the land-use issues, building soil carbon through perennial roots, lower compaction and fertilizer demand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

-----" Proponents of biodiesel and bioethanol and butanol better be ready to give up their car keys and iPads and air conditioners, because biofuels is a ticket back to the stone age."--------- The fastest, most advanced race cars in the world are in the Indy League Racing Circuit. Indy League racing cars run on 100% ethanol. And they have run on alcohol base fuels exclusively for 50 years. In 150 years of petroleum "production", no one, anywhere has produced even one drop of petroleum. All that has ever been done is to use up what was already there at increasingly faster and faster rates. Use it up, put nothing back, you will run out of petroleum. It is already happening now.

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

USDA----Maclura pomifera (Raf.) C.K. Schneid. osage orange http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MAPO History and range, USDA http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_mapo.pdf Interesting comments about Osage Orange by people familiar with them on a gardening forum. http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/54097/#b Anachronistic Fruits and the Ghosts Who Haunt Them http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/618.pdf

Cliff Claven
July 4, 2012

@ETCgreen: Investment brochure claims like yours are separating many investors from their money (Verasun, Cello, Range Fuels, Solyndra, Choren, Abound Solar, Pacific Ethanol, Cascade Grain, Renew Energy, Bionol, Clean Burn Fuels, Evergreen Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1, Sterling Energy, etc., etc., ad nauseum (with Gevo, Amyris, Solazyme, and more on the way). According to multiple studies by reputable scientists and researchers who specialize in this field and publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, the EROI of crude oil has oscillated between 8 and 24 since the 1920s and is assessed to be somewhere above 8 right now. I used the most conservative value in that 90-year span. Those who previously claimed crude oil EROI was as high as 100:1 historically have since recalculated and recanted. Here's a link to one of these peer-reviewed scientific journal studies of crude oil EROI for those who care: http://www.mdpi.com//2071-1050/3/10/1866/ (see figure 2). If we take you (ETCgreen) at your word of an EROI of 1.5 for your best crops (yellowhorn and moringa), then you are making my point, as, according to the best science, fooling with any energy source with an EROI less than 3.0 is a waste of time as it will not support a modern industrial economy with its huge overhead (see http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25/). The Romans achieved an EROI greater than 1.5 with slaves and oxen. Proponents of biodiesel and bioethanol and butanol better be ready to give up their car keys and iPads and air conditioners, because biofuels is a ticket back to the stone age.

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

Why not use a native species that is high oil content--and the oil is useful as a natural pesticide, and many other uses, hardy, a pioneer species adapted to to poor and neglected soils, already disease and pest resistant, produces a very lustrous yellow extremely dense hardwood(which was highly valued by Native Americans for use as bows, hence the name given it by early French trappers, bois d'arc)? The Osage Orange produces huge quantities of seed pods the size of soft balls or larger---and thrives with little or no cultivation. The main cultivation required is keeping it from spreading outside of desired boundries. The vegetation is extremely dense and has been used as fence row hedge planting since the time of the early pioneers. A dense hedge planting of osage orange can contain cattle and horses with ease. The wood was prized in the early days before the advent of treated wood as the strongest, longest lasting, water resistant and most insect resistant wood available for ground contact use----posts, ground contact and other uses exposed to soil and elements. The fruits are huge---and literally cover the ground, and require no mechanical harvesting---they fall off naturally due to their size and weight. USDA study on Osage Orange oil as a biofuel. Interpretive Summary: This research reveals that Osage orange oil is acceptable as an alternative feedstock for biodiesel production. The objective of this study was to produce biodiesel from Osage orange oil and evaluate its fuel properties, taking into consideration important biodiesel fuel standards. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=263706 Pennsylvania Forestry study http://centralpaforest.blogspot.com/2010/09/osage-orange-for-bioenergy.html USDA wildlife habitat and erosion conservation and remediation study using Osage Orange http://voices.yahoo.com/usda-conservation-innovation-grants-energy-503923.html

Steve Frazer
July 4, 2012

@fred Thank you for asking... http://yellowhorntree.com

dennis baker
July 4, 2012

The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg 7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&... Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions. http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over. Dennis Baker 106-998 Creston Avenue Penticton BC V2A1P9 cell phone 250-462-3796 Phone / Fax 778-476-2633 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com #dennisearlbaker

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

What is yellowhorn?

Steve Frazer
July 4, 2012

@Fred - Hello again. To paraphrase Clint, "Ya gotta ask yourself. Are you feeling lucky today at $4/gallon?" You should because most every other industrialized nation in the world is paying $6-$10/gallon (USD equiv.) at their pumps today. You should also consider if you are willing to pay $5-$6/gallon ($100-$200 to fill up your tank) to drive a gasoline powered vehicle in the next few years? We produce biodiesel from 2nd generation feedstock at about $1.10 gallon today, next year, in 10 years, ... To calculate the resulting pump price; add in the taxes, distribution costs, etc. and $3 gallon is a reasonable projection for decades to come. We just need to increase our production volume radically. 50M acres will meet the entire ground, air and sea fuel demand of the U.S. This total acreage is considerably less than what is currently dedicated to the growing of ethanol and 1st generation biodiesel feedstock. Join the Migration - http://etcgreen.com

Fred Linn
July 4, 2012

If oil is such a wonderful deal---then why is it selling at $3.50 to $4 a gallon at the pump?

Steve Frazer
July 4, 2012

@Cliff-Claven The character Cliff Clavin from Cheers, sat on a bar stool spewing non-sense framed as words of wisdom. While the spelling is slightly different, you seem to have the same inclination. I also notice that you pounce on these biofuel articles as if you are targeting them. It makes me think you might have an alternative agenda - such as a pay check from a lobbyist group. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why would you attack biodiesel so viciously over and over in every article on multiple blog sites without taking the time to understand the current research, stats and facts? In any case, your posts do not reflect any hands-on knowledge of biofuels and does include a long list of mis-directed and simply false information. Conventional petroleum production once returned 100 barrels to 1 barrel of energy used. Today those numbers range from 1.3 barrels from bitumen up to 1.10 from the remaining conventional petroleum reserves. Biodiesel from soy is typically rated at 1.3 as soy only generates about 50 gallons/acre/year. However, yellowhorn and moringa offer an energy return in the 1.50 range as they produce 850 gallons/acre/year. Unlike Mr. Claven, we have been managing orchards in several states and foreign countries for several years. Again, biodiesel from 2nd generation feedstock is the only scalable, environmentally friendly, economically viable and truly sustainable replacement for petroleum on the table today. Join the Migration. http://etcgreen.com/biofuels http://etcgreen.com Article: U.S. Migration

Cliff Claven
July 4, 2012

The energy in one barrel of diesel is enough to drill for and produce and refine enough additional crude to deliver to a gas pump between 8 and 20 new barrels of diesel, plus additional industrial chemicals used to make fertilizers, plastics, asphalt, etc. Producing one barrel of ethanol consumes its total energy value in fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, cultivation machinery fuel, fermenting, distilling, and de-watering and contributes a net zero of new energy to civilization. In terms of national security, ethanol's only contribution is to help reduce our critical dependence upon foreign distillers' dry grain. The huge negative energy balance of all non-food starch biofuels is actually accelerating our use of fossil fuels to make up the energy deficit they create. Because crude oil's high energy return on investment (EROI) of between 8:1 and 20:1, it is a cash cow for the federal government. The subsidies pale in comparison to the revenues. Here are some facts that should water your eyes with tears of fury (if you are a taxpayer and not living off federal grants): All fed gov subsidies and tax breaks for crude oil total a microscopic 27 cents per barrel of oil energy delivered, or less than 1/2 cent per gallon. On the other hand, the Feds tax gasoline at 18.4 cents a gallon and diesel at 24.4 cents a gallon. This actually nets the Federal government $6 per barrel of crude in revenue--far from a subsidy. Meanwhile the Feds do in fact subsidize biofuels at $10.46 per barrel of energy equivalent, wind energy at $31.33 per barrel, and solar at $59.60 per barrel. Big oil would love for all the subsidies and tax breaks to stop and to level the playing field on taxes for all forms of energy. (source: 1. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011.; 2. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 'Estimated U.S Energy Use in 2010: ~98.0 Quads.' Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2011

Jeff Kelly
July 3, 2012

What a shame that national security has no dollar value. Clearly, the only thing that makes financial sense is to continue to depend on fossil fuels and continue to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on their procurement and defense around the world. Thermodynamic dead end? What do you suppose is the total amount of energy that is expended drilling, pumping, transporting, refining and transporting and distributing a gallon of gasoline for my car, vs. the energy it liberates in my engine? Those who wish to blast the free market heresy of biofuels invariably ignore or dimiss the fact that the Almightly Market fails to capture many of the costs and subsidies buried in the production of fossil fuels. There has been much discussion in this blog and elsewhere about the hidden, and blatantly unhidden, government subsidies given to fossil fuel production. There is no thermodynamically perfect fuel, fossil or biofuel, which does not require more energy input to produce, refine and distribute than is released by its combustion. There is no way to annually produce and distribute hundreds of billions of gallons of any essential commodity, be it fossil fuel, biofuel, drinking water or cow manure without some government involvement, subsidy, or political decisions in the process.

Cliff Claven
July 3, 2012

The U.S. Congress has been subsidizing biomass crops to the tune of $6 Billion a year since 2005. The Department of Energy has already spent more than $600 Million on biorefineries since 2010. The IRS has been granting millions in annual tax breaks. The USDA has been giving out hundreds of millions in loan guarantees to the likes of Range Fuels that implode in high-profile bankruptcies. Now the Administration is using the Department of Defense to funnel more subsidies. These refineries go out of business (or never start) as soon as the free money dries up. Google "ethanol bankruptcy" and the endless list will water your eyes. There are failed biorefineries for sale all over the country, yet a government $16 Trillion in the hole is spending taxpayer money to build more. Since 2007, the U.S. Military has purchased 1.3 million gallons of biofuels at an average price of $48 per gallon. Biofuels are not just bad economics, they are bad thermodynamics. Dead end.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Jim Lane

Editor & publisher of Biofuels Digest, the most widely-read biofuels daily and newsletter. The Digest covers producer news, research, policy, policymakers, conferences, fleets and financial news. It is home to the Biofuels Digest Index™,...