  |
|
|
|
 Myths of Biofuels |
|
April 2008 Rabbit on a Roof
Myths of Biofuels by John Rawlins John Rawlins has a B.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He retired in 1995 from the Westinghouse Hanford Co. at the Hanford site in Eastern Washington. Currently, he teaches physics and astronomy at Whatcom Community College. The focus this month falls on use of biofuels to replace gasoline and diesel fuel in our transportation sector. Ethanol made from high sugar-content plants substitutes for gasoline in some engines, and bio-diesel made from high oil-content plants is a diesel substitute. A longer-range goal is to develop commercial processes for converting high-cellulose plant parts to ethanol. All remaining presidential candidates appear to be supporting biofuels now (not necessarily in the past), most likely because the first primaries were in the state of perpetual corn. To win in Iowa, one must favor ethanol produced from corn kernels. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/21/the_heat_or_eat_dilemma Rising Prices: This heat-or-eat story is not from a third-world country, but from a northern climate city in the U.S.: Boston. With rising food and heating prices, there is an increase in babies suffering from the combination of malnutrition and cold homes (neither heat nor eat). How will this country respond as prices continue to rise and the increasing number of people facing this dilemma cannot cope? One of the causes for rising food prices mentioned is, naturally, the rush to biofuel production. Ironically, when I last viewed this story there was an ad adjacent to the article, with a cartoon sketch of a bikini-clad woman sipping a martini under an umbrella on an ocean beach, and she just happened to get there via airplane. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/11/biofuels.energy Palm Oil: From the U.K. comes this interesting story about human rights abuses associated with growing plants for biofuel in equatorial zones. The article sounds similar to stories about oil exploration in poor countries. European demand for palm oil (the 'best' feedstock for biodiesel production) is resulting in large-scale forest clearing/burning to plant oil palms throughout Indonesia, displacing tens of millions of people who depended on those forests. What is new in this report, however, is the following quote: "Last week a study by the University of Minnesota and Nature Conservancy, published in Science, found that the carbon lost through the clearance of forests, peat lands or even grasslands far outweighs the greenhouse gas savings that can come from biofuels." The forest (trees and soil combined) sequesters huge amounts of carbon (big surprise?!), and it takes decades to centuries of biofuel production and burning to reach net carbon neutrality. Are humans really smarter than mushrooms? http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3621 Europe: This story by Robert Rapier provides an interesting contrast between Europe and the U.S. in the approach to biofuel development. Rather than try to summarize, I urge you to read this timely summary, which is not very long. Rapier also notes that two of the current three main presidential candidates have switched positions on biofuels (McCain and Clinton). The issue of dealing with peak oil, along with biofuel policy, is almost certain to become one of the major problems of the next U.S. administration, and I'm certain it will increasingly dog all future administrations during the remainder of this century. http://www.samefacts.com/archives/energy_and_environment_/2008/02/a_really_bad_day_for_biofuels.php Ethanol Effects: This article summarizes a peer-reviewed article (which is behind a paywall) on the effects of ethanol production in the U.S. In addition to the previously-cited effect of carbon release in the initial stage of implementation, the article points out that humans will eat less corn and meat. Also, farmers will plant more corn, which means less of other major crops such as soybeans and wheat, which means prices for all grains will rise in accordance with oil (fuel) prices. The location of this biofuel production does not matter, and the effects will be worldwide. The lesson for Whatcom County residents who like to eat: Start Thinking and Planning for Food Security Actions. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-02-11-food-prices_N.htm Food Prices: This detailed article looks around the world for effects of biofuels on food prices and finds plenty to discuss. After reading some pretty surprising statistics about food inflation and how many people are already affected (hundreds of millions), one can easily imagine that number becoming a few billion. Then there's a particularly inane-sounding comment from a biofuel promoter. "Bob Dineen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, in recent testimony to Congress defended the ethanol industry as a bright spot in the midst of a U.S. economic slump, saying the ethanol sector created more than 238,000 jobs in 2007." What are the economics of weighing jobs in the U.S. versus deaths worldwide? http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/647848.html Biodiesel: This excellent bit of investigative journalism discusses the effect of European and, increasingly, U.S. consumption of palm oil in the biodiesel production business. The following quote captures the essence of the article: "People who buy palm oil have orangutan blood on their hands." This extends, of course, to buying biodiesel made from palm oil! As you peruse the article, remember that Washington state now has on our coast (near Grays Harbor) the country's largest biodiesel plant. It began operation in 2007 (http://westernfarmpress.com/environment/081707-biodiesel-plant) and is on the coast in order to be able to import palm (and other) oil from Indonesia and elsewhere. http://www.energybulletin.net/40268.html Investing: This entertaining, but deadly serious, Energy Bulletin article summarizes a long Harpers Magazine (February 2008) report from Eric Janszen: "The Next Bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash." Janszen's prediction is that the next mega-bubble (overvaluation) will be in the alternative energy and infrastructure sector (Alt E&I). Remember that you read about it here, and beware what you invest in (be sure to get out before the next crash). Another quote describes the allure: "Reality aside, what could be better than the cleantech boom? Abundant renewable energy, no serious interruptions to shopping, saved from the perils of global warming, life goes on! This is the promise of Alt E&I 1.0, the cleantech revolution." Ah, well, anything to keep the old growth party alive, eh? Tech didn't last; housing didn't last; but cleantech is forever! The original Harpers article is online at the following URL: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/magazines/fortune/ethanol.fortune/index.htm Ethanol Subsidy: The title of this article is "The Ethanol Bust." Wait a minute — the previous article no sooner predicts the bubble than this one announces the bust? What happened? Well, corn prices went up, ethanol profits therefore went down, and the 51 cents per gallon federal subsidy is not enough to warrant finishing plants in construction or starting new plants. This is very bad news for the administration's mandate to quintuple ethanol production from the 2006 level. Would anyone bet against me if I predict Congress will increase the ethanol subsidy? http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746 Cellulosic: From a technical perspective, this blog report (complete with references) could prove to be the nail in the coffin of ethanol in the U.S. The current administration plan is predicated on the eventual production of ethanol from cellulosic plant parts, as opposed to high-sugar corn kernels. As time goes on, so the story line goes, research will result in a commercial process in a 10-year time period, and then all that wonderful ethanol plant infrastructure can transition from corn kernel ethanol to cellulosic ethanol (which would be able to scale up to much higher production levels). Three economists tied to the agriculture mainstream, however, conclude that cellulosic ethanol production will come nowhere close to the desired levels; furthermore, massively bigger ethanol subsidies will be required before anyone would invest in cellulosic ethanol production. I highly recommend reading this gristmill story — it neatly describes the overall U.S. ethanol situation as of March 2008. The economists work at Iowa State University and might want to work on their resumes. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007862.html Flex-fuel Car: This engaging article is from a man who purchased a flex-fuel car in Sweden and originally felt good about his purchase. He then describes his education about the domino-like effects of switching a crop from food to fuel production. He also neatly summarizes some technical work concerning the greenhouse gas contribution of biofuel crop development. The article is actually a great summary of the pros and cons of transport biofuels from a personal perspective. Now he's ready to give up his car altogether. Education and critical thinking can apparently be deleterious to car ownership. Fertilizer: This U.K. report projects a serious shortage (and high prices) of fertilizer during the 2008 growing season due, in part, to (you guessed it!) U.S. biofuel production (aka corn) increases. The situation could last for a few years. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000792/index.html And then, here comes a report from Italy that says there will be enough fertilizer through 2012, even enough to support increased amounts of land being brought into production. Whom do we believe? I have no idea. http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/26/breadbasket_inflation/index.html Africa: I generally try to end this column on a humorous note, and this article comes as close as possible this month. However, it also contains a major ingredient of irony. Andrew Leonard tries to understand how the world of food (and biofuel) works. Like oil, crops are a fungible commodity (meaning it's easy to produce and ship anywhere at world market prices) and are one of the quintessential globalized economy markets. Start producing biodiesel in Washington state, and watch the knock-on effects in China and everywhere else. The unique argument in this article, compared with all the foregoing, is that the rush to biofuels has made some consumers more receptive to genetically modified (GM) plants, engineered for success (higher yields) in specific locations around the world. And where might one look to produce five times more food per unit area, you might ask? How about Africa — lucky them. (The rest of the commentary on this article is my own speculation.) But in the face of rising food and biofuel prices, maybe they'll be willing to use GM crops to grow way more plants, for biofuel of course, instead of subsistence crops for food. And of course, they happen to live near the equator where sugar will grow, and sugar happens to be the only proven ethanol feedstock with decent energy return for energy invested, and the U.S. just happens to need lots of ethanol. But how could you sell Africans on that program? With promises of aid, gobs of income from their GM fuel crops, and access to world food markets to spend their newfound income on food, of course! Seems that I've heard this song before (John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"). Now I wonder what President Bush was really discussing on his recent tour of Africa. Maybe it was about far more than finding another place to stash big U.S. military installations. If we begin to see a wave of World Bank loans to Africa coupled with regime changes and assassinations for uncooperative leaders, we'll at least understand what's really happening. I don't know whether to laugh or cry or go work in the garden. In closing, during the next couple of years keep your eye on world oil prices: http://www.oilnergy.com/1onymex.htm#year. This will explain so much of really important current events in our world. § Next MonthWith Whatcom Watch alert readers now mentally prepared for peak oil, climate change, and the building and eventual bursting of the Alt E&I bubble, in the May 2008 edition we are now ready for a critique of the energy proposals described in “Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy,” by Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks.
Letters From Readers of “Rabbit On the Roof”Hi John, First, I want to thank you very much for the excellent Peak Oil Series you wrote. It has opened my eyes to a new world around me. As far as a column name, I might suggest something like: Solutions, Problems and the Ignorant. You mentioned the presidential candidates in the last article without endorsement, but I would say Obama is the best one regarding energy policy. This seems to be a subject all the candidates are not talking about, same as overpopulation, but in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama claims he would take all the subsidies from Big Oil and give them to the renewable energy industry for R&D. Sounds like a step in the right direction, even if it may be too late. Thanks again, and keep up the great work! Sincerely,
Eric Kouvolo
Hi Eric, Thanks for the note and encouragement. I’ve not read (nor do I plan to read) Obama’s book, and had heard of his proposal to remove big oil subsidies and plow that into renewable energy. While it might not be much benefit to my generation, it would surely help the next generations. I’m tending to think that the only shred of hope of positive change in the next administration (through the peak oil lens) would be with Obama. My main reservation is that he may be thinking of biofuels as the main recipient of renewable energy funding. And I’m convinced most biofuels are not economical, scalable, environmentally friendly, human friendly (food impacts), or sustainable except at very small scale (such as biodiesel from used grease or on a farm to run small tractors). John
Dear John, I enjoy your articles; we are currently subscribers to the Whatcom Watch. A column title might be Tumultuous Times: with a subtitle of energy and weather and whatever. But I digress. Just yesterday I read the Friday issue of the “Capitol Press,” the farm paper published here in Salem, OR. Page one has an article about weather and water with quotes from Dr. Art Douglas (The Weatherman) from Creighton U. He indicates 1998 was the hottest year and temps have been down since then, that CO2 may not be an issue AND that the Arctic has refrozen beyond recent historic boundaries (a surprisingly quick turnaround). Is he completely bogus? I am finding it very difficult to figure out who is really on first, etc. It is increasingly obvious that the corn (and other subsidized bio-mass) fuel issue is going to really screw up food supplies and economics, etc., before it is rejected. Prices for sunflower seeds for feeding birds are getting crazy already. Thanks, Russ Graham
Salem, Oregon
Hi Russ, Anyone claiming that, on the basis of one year, the planet is no longer warming is a hoaxer, or else is confusing weather anomalies with climate trends. Likewise, the fact that the arctic ocean lost far more mass percentage-wise during the summer of 2007 does NOT mean that’s a trend. It takes several years, at least 10, to support any claim of climate change trends. And a frozen surface tells us nothing about the total mass of ice re-frozen, which is what really counts from the perspective of mass-loss the following summer (2008). If the next several summers do continue the observation of 2007 (exceptionally high mass loss, but not yet a trend), the arctic ocean could be completely free of pack ice by the summer of 2013. So that is when we might look back and say whether we were (are) seeing a trend near the end of the trend-line that began more than two decades ago when nuclear submarines first noticed pack ice thinning in the northern arctic ocean. For the story on 2007/1998 average global temperatures and recent history, along with a nice graph, see the following (note that 2005 was the hottest year): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm. And from a pure physics perspective, anyone claiming that carbon dioxide may no longer be an issue is either on the payroll of big oil or (to be more polite than in my original response) “outside the mainstream of climate change science.” The greenhouse effect on Venus, Earth, and Mars is in each case dependent on carbon dioxide. And the more of it there is, the more thermal energy is trapped and the warmer the resulting blanket. The science behind it is simple: those molecules are effective absorbers of the infrared radiation produced by the planet’s surface, and they share the energy they absorb with nitrogen and oxygen to warm the entire lower atmosphere accordingly. The amount of gas we emit is on a comparable scale with the total emitted naturally each year, so we are absolutely the leading cause of climate warming. If you want to read about climate change by experts, you can trust what you read by people who post articles at RealClimate.org ( http://www.realclimate.org ). They are actual climate scientists, publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Simply being a scientist does not qualify me to evaluate or do work in that specialized field. I trust the specialists and avoid so-called skeptics like I would a plague; that trust extends to specialists in any field. We seem to understand that when it comes to doctors, car mechanics, and plumbers, but for some weird reason the thinking pattern is vulnerable to change when the outcome is inconvenient in the larger social context. Thanks for the note; I hope the articles are of some help. John
|