# Some Sanity in the Blind Rush to Bio-fuels



## jpl1nh (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm not knocking Bio-fuels, but I do feel our policies are a bit shortsighted.  This article suggests an often overlooked problem.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_re_us/ethanol_global_warming


----------



## jebatty (Feb 8, 2008)

The [in]sanity of the rush to biofuels has been an undercurrent for quite awhile. Most people do not recognize the really huge amount of carbon stored in root systems and soils. This is far more than what is growing on top of the ground. Disturbing these soils is likely to cause an "explosion" of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. 

Ag-type plants in general do not develop the deep or extensive root systems as exist in native plant communities. Biofuels based on clearing and planting are a path to disaster. 

I believe the sanity of biofuels lies in maintaining natural ecosystems and sustainably using them for their products. The forest products industry in the developed world, in spite of criticism and while there is room for disagreement, overall does this reasonably well, while at the same time really messing some things up.

Nature has achieved a balance which supports life as we know it, which has worked for 1000's of years. Everything we do which affects that balance introduces uncertainty as to the outcome, and uncertainty in nature plays no favorites so far as human life is concerned. A responsible course of action is to use nature in ways which sustains the natural systems. That is the only way life can continue as we know it.


----------



## d.n.f. (Feb 8, 2008)

GM is saying that by 2012 (or something don't quote me I scimmed the article) that 1/2 of all their vehicles will be run on ethanol.

Unless the manufacturing process becomes more efficient this is just plan idiotic.

How about by 2012 1/2 of all GM vehicles become 50% more fuel efficient instead?


----------



## webbie (Feb 8, 2008)

I really get worried when I see the new GM commercial where they say "I want to grow my fuel".

In a world where lots of people are malnourished, it is folly to produce fuels that cost more in input than you get from the output. Nothing wrong with the concept of biomass burning or even distilling, but it has to be done with efficiency in mind.


----------



## sgcsalsero (Feb 8, 2008)

I was able to get the entire 6 page article in .pdf from Princeton, hey Craig is there a way to upload it, I tried and it didn't work, thanks


----------



## webbie (Feb 8, 2008)

PDF's can be uploaded to the wiki.....and then a link here.
or, you can just link to the PDF url here.
or, if the wiki confuses you, email me the doc and I will upload and link. You have to upload the doc to the wiki and then paste the link that the wiki upload gives to you into a wiki article (which you start).


----------



## sgcsalsero (Feb 8, 2008)

Craig, I PM'd you the article

Here is the link:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Biofuels_and_Greenhouse_gases/
(edit by craig)


----------



## Eric Johnson (Feb 8, 2008)

I heard that report on the radio as I was driving my gasoline-fueled car last night, and it confirmed what I kind of already knew, which is that the world's food supply is a zero sum game. If you stop producing food in one place, you have to start producing it in another. And that usually means converting forestland into farmland. Burning food just doesn't make any sense, especially when you're doing it inefficiently like most of our vehicles tend to do.

It's obvious to me that the future of biofuels, if any, lies in using low-grade trees for a feedstock. The radio report also mentioned garbage and other waste-stream material. That's probably a bigger challenge than using wood, but it's probably worth some research.

It's not forest industry propaganda to say that you can improve the heath of a forest by intelligent management--it's a fact. In the process, you generate large amounts of biomass that can be used for any number of things. These days we use low-grade wood--when we use it at all--to make paper. In the future, as our paper industry moves offshore, I hope we'll be using that stuff, and much more, for various energy products.

A forest that's being managed for timber and fuel production is not a virgin forest by any means, but it is a lot more environmentally friendly than any farm field. Managed forests are sanctuaries providing food and shelter for wildlife, watersheds, carbon sinks, fresh air, etc. Any human exploitation of nature is an environmental compromise. Managed forests are one of the better ones.


----------



## Burn-1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I really get worried when I see the new GM commercial where they say "I want to grow my fuel".



He must have been one of these guys

Science Friday had a pretty fairminded program today about biofuels today. There's a lot of information and a podcast at the link below.

Biofuels


----------



## jpl1nh (Feb 9, 2008)

Nicely said Jim.  We tamper with incredibly intricate and delicately balanced systems at our own peril, we who think we know lots and quite likely hardly really know anything.  the other end of that article that has increasingly captured my imagination as of late is the use of garbage for energy systems.  UNH in conjunction with Waste Management is just putting on line a power plant to supply virtually the entire Durham NH's campus energy needs fueled by methane piped from the Rochester NH Turnkey Landfill.  The UNH campus has a student body of about 14,000 students, their entire power needs being met by gargage generated methane.  Pretty cool huh?


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2008)

I think the biofuel rush is a typical example of a manipulation of the voters and the political process. People want renewable fuels. They want to 'go green". Yet business and industry needs for folks to consumer. The last thing that the "status quo" wants is REAL conservation.....because the consumer drives the economy. So the government and business are giving the customer what they way - renewable energy. But they are still getting to sell their fossil fuels because so much of it goes into the making of these renewables. And the prices of everything else is going up, which is good for business.

It is similar to GM, who is giving us gigantic SUV's which are hybrid. 

I think many of the "average" voters who see this stuff (biofuel, hybrids) automatically thinks it is all good. But the truth can be somewhere else. 

It is telling that conservation seems to be the least discussed option.


----------



## Outdoorsman (Feb 11, 2008)

I agree.

Conservation should be the very first step.

Ethanol from biomass could also be a very good thing, if done right.

And done right does NOT mean corn.

Wood waste from normal timbering operations, and grass grown on pasture grade ground or even marginal ground.  But not normal pasture grasses used for livestock, though they'd work to up to a point anyway.  Grasses grown for biomass should be native warm season grasses such as switch grass, indian grass or Big blue stem grass.  You hear a switch grass mentioned some, it's supposed to be the best, but anyone who knows what's up also knows you get far higher tonnage per acre by planting a mix of the native types.  And from reading I've done Big blue stem & Indian grasses are very close for this purpose to what switch grass produces per pound.  So if that's true a mixed planting would yield more gallons of ethanol per acre than a mono culture planting can.

All three of the above types have very extensive root systems to, so they'll all take a bit of carbon out of the air and put it in the ground in their root systems as well, another plus.

A mixed approach to biomass is the way to go, grasses, wood waste & just plain old garbage or even the leaves from fall leaf pick up would be a good way to a much cleaner ethanol fuel.  So many other options than to use corn.  Corn should continue as a food stuff & feed for stock, not for ethanol.  Just buying farm country votes & most farmers know this full well, but are glad to cash those bigger grain checks.  They're just try'n to survive higher fuel & fertilizer costs, which are huge for a farm operation.  A large tractor can & does burn more fuel in one full day in the field working the land than my wife's car & my Jimmy do in a month combined.  But the REAL money is being made by Archer Daniels Midland and others like them, not the farmers.

A sad situation overall.


----------



## jpl1nh (Feb 12, 2008)

We might consider our food sources as bio-fuel of a different sort, the fuel you and I eat every day for our own personal energy. There is only so much bio-fuel this humble little planet can produce and I don't believe it's enough for both our food sources and our fuel sources, at least not with our current energy gobbling technology and life styles. As of now, we are way past being energy neutral organisms and we are part of an integrated system; an integrated system that we are dependant on for our very survival and a system that is currently losing ground at an alarming rate. Like Eric says, a managed forest is one of the better options. Even in a managed situation it's still basically a fully integrated system, perhaps the only integrated crop system we have. We have reached a point where, perhaps with the exception of forestry, we are virtually completely removed from being anywhere near part of any kind of an integrated system. As several of you state, energy conservation techniques and/or technology efficiency methods are another key part.  Energy from waste, be it municipal sewage, the common garbage stream, forestry bi-products seems another part of the puzzle. Whatever the methods, our goal must be to get back to being a harmonious part of the biological system once again by returning to energy neutrality as a civilization. The only other option is to find another immense energy source beyond fossil and bio-fuels.


----------



## Ken45 (Mar 3, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I think the biofuel rush is a typical example of a manipulation of the voters and the political process.



And pandering to the corn belt for votes and $$$ from agribusiness.   Corn/ethanol is horrendous scam.  Oh by the way, ethanol reduces fuel mileage at the same time they want to raise fuel mileage....   That logic only works in Washington.  ADM, ConAgra, etc. sure appreciate the windfall their lobbying folks have earned for them.





> GM is saying that by 2012 (or something don’t quote me I scimmed the article) that 1/2 of all their vehicles will be run on ethanol.



Did GM also claim they would be profitable at the same time?  (joke)  This country could not produce anough ethanol to accomplish that unless GM drastically cuts their production by 80%

The ethanol craze has driven up ALL GRAIN PRICES.  The global increase in grain prices is literally affecting people's ability to feed themselves in some poor countries.

Ken


----------



## begreen (Mar 3, 2008)

Food to fuel = bad idea, very bad. Congress continues to disappoint. It's hard to pick which is the stinkiest piece of legislation in the past 5 years, but this is close to the top of the dung heap.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 3, 2008)

If you haven't watched LinkTV's current programming which persuasively demonstrates how Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are in the pockets of the big corporations and their lobbyists, take a look. George W. hired into the Executive the son of Scalia and the daughter of Rehnquist - I wonder why? The only sanity likely to take place in the bio-fuel arena is the sanity that makes billions for the big corporations. 

And wasn't it "interesting" that Clean Coal was the big sponsor of the recent debate? . . . and a big banner ad on CNN's website right next to the names and pictures of the candidates? Clean coal is nothing other than dirty coal wrapped in a slogan. Get ready to take you last breaths, because big coal doesn't care if you're not around tomorrow, as long as there still are mountains to level.

The profiteers and greed-mongers will have their take regardless of the survival of this planet as we know it and regardless of the debt set upon and illness that will be set upon our children and grandchildren.

Edwards has the right message, it's time to take our country back. It's not ours now and the time is a 'tickin.


----------



## caber (Mar 3, 2008)

Our food supply is based heavily on corn.  Corn for animal feed so we can have milk and meats and eggs and cheese.  Corn syrup for much of what we drink and sweeten.  Corn in cereals.   Bad idea turning your food into fuel. Especially corn.  It's hard to pick a worse crop to use.  Corn is incredibly energy intensive to grow.  Fertilizers, pesticides, diesel gas for the equipment.  Plus all the water it needs.  Better off looking at other biofuels that 1. require less resources to grow and 2. are not so important to our food supply.  The little bit of reading I have done all points to switchgrass as a far superior biomass to corn.


----------



## KeithO (Mar 4, 2008)

Ignoring Ethanol and other distilates, I have no fundamental disagreement with burning corn as a wood substitute, only the price, when that has been driven through the roof by Ethanol production.   Burning corn involves no further wasteful processing and farmers have the opportunity to sell directly to their local communities.  The quality of the corn (compared to that for consumption) is less important and it may be feasible to reduce crop spraying if it is grown to burn.  Remember that corn is grown in many places on earth where fertilizer consists of animal dung and the locals do not own a single internal combustion engine.   I think it is a question of how one chooses to farm, or shall we say how farmers have to compete for ever higher yields from the same patch of land without allowing the land to recover with alternative crops.   Then add in typical oversupply problems (forcing the corn price down) and it is a very tough business to be in.  With current prices, corn should be making a comeback, lets just hope the ethanol bandwagon doesn't turn things on its head.   Without subsidies, they would have never got started.    Bio diesel on the other hand is a much more interesting alternative, oops but I just remembered that the only diesel passenger car sold right now is a mercedes that most of us cannot afford..  It seems like a diesel is OK as long as it has at least 5.9L displacement and 200hp and up...


----------



## jebatty (Mar 4, 2008)

KeithO said:
			
		

> Burning corn involves no further wasteful processing and farmers have the opportunity to sell directly to their local communities.  The quality of the corn (compared to that for consumption) is less important and it may be feasible to reduce crop spraying if it is grown to burn.



Many would consider the large use of water in the corn-ethanol production cycle to be wasteful. Just on the processing side, 4-6 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Then on the farming side a great deal of the corn is grown under irrigation.  Water sustains all life, and water use for ethanol appears to be having a very deleterious effect of draw down of aquifers relied upon to provide water for human use. While all the water used is returned to the environment in one way or another, little of the water is returned to the aquifers from which it originated, and the returned water and where it ends up may not be very usable.

While varieties of corn are grown in sustainable agriculture, it is highly doubtful that the output under such conditions would even begin to scratch the surface of the volume of corn needed for ethanol as a replacement for petroleum. While the quality may be relevant, I suspect that more relevant is the low level of production in this type of agriculture, as compared to other bio-mass production in sustainable bio-agriculture.

Corn in the agri-business world, which is the corn used in ethanol, is highly petroleum dependent, from the herbicides and pesticides used in the growing process; to fuel used to plant, cultivate and harvest; to trucks used to transport the harvested corn; to the energy used to manufacture the ethanol (much of that energy currently is natural gas, although other fuels, including sustainable bio-mass fuels, could be used -- it's a matter of price).

Estimates vary, but total energy inputs for ethanol energy output range around 10% +/-, meaning up to 10% more energy in than energy out, to 10% more energy out than energy in. 

Most at this time probably would agree that corn ethanol is a transition energy crop, born out of low market prices for corn and low prices for petroleum used for the various inputs. As those prices have and continue to move up, and as technology for other bio-ethanols develop, corn ethanol likely will be a matter of historical interest. And, IMO, a sad commentary on the human condition.


----------



## Ken45 (Mar 4, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Most at this time probably would agree that corn ethanol is a transition energy crop, born out of low market prices for corn and low prices for petroleum used for the various inputs. As those prices have and continue to move up, and as technology for other bio-ethanols develop, corn ethanol likely will be a matter of historical interest. And, IMO, a sad commentary on the human condition.



I agree with most of your post except the last.  I believe that ethanol is born out of the desire to use our tax money to buy votes and buy campaign contributions.

Ethanol would NOT be at all practical if gasoline was not heavily taxed and ethanol heavily subsidized by our tax money.  In a "free market", this boondoggle would never have happened.  And we are all paying for it with higher fuel and food prices, along with higher taxes and federal deficits.    It has nothing to do with saving fossil fuels and all with corrupt politics (redundant term, I know).

Ken


----------



## jebatty (Mar 4, 2008)

Good point. I would like to see all tax incentives and subsidies for energy ended, except possibly for energy sources which involve minimal fossil fuel use to obtain the energy. That I would be willing to consider after more evaluation.

We would have no corn ethanol without subsidies, and we would be using much less petroleum and natural gas without the history of tax incentives, subsidies, and probably payoffs.

It seems that those who argue most for a free market economy and capitalism are the same ones that feed at the public trough of subsidies and tax incentives and then argue no more taxes while borrowing trillions to fund their adventurous follies.


----------



## renewablejohn (Mar 11, 2008)

What happens to all the straw from the cornfields??? in europe we have straw burners which work in the same way as woodchip burners. so you can have food production and fuel production at the same time from the same plant.

What is it with diesel engines in America In Europe they are the staple solution to rising fuel prices including diesel . Once the secret that a diesel engine was actually invented to use peanut oil there has been a revolution in what you will now find in a european diesel tank. Waste vegetable oil from restaurants is a favorite as well as cooking oil from the supermarket. (Do read how to do it before putting in the tank and of course in the uk you still should be honest and pay the duty on the oil used.)


----------



## Ken45 (Mar 11, 2008)

renewablejohn said:
			
		

> What happens to all the straw from the cornfields??? in europe we have straw burners which work in the same way as woodchip burners. so you can have food production and fuel production at the same time from the same plant.
> 
> What is it with diesel engines in America In Europe they are the staple solution to rising fuel prices including diesel . Once the secret that a diesel engine was actually invented to use peanut oil there has been a revolution in what you will now find in a european diesel tank. Waste vegetable oil from restaurants is a favorite as well as cooking oil from the supermarket. (Do read how to do it before putting in the tank and of course in the uk you still should be honest and pay the duty on the oil used.)



Corn shocks are normally chopped up and turned back into the ground to improve it.  However, here locally we had such a shortage of hay this year that many farmers baled it and fed it to their livestock this winter. 

Small diesels have a bad reputation in the U.S. because in the 70's the US auto companies converted gas engines to diesel rather than properly design them.  They were not very reliable.  Also a lot of people don't like the diesel noise and smell.  Right now, diesel fuel is priced out of sight, 60 cents a gallon more than gasoline.  Diesel engines are also more expensive to purchase than gas engines (about $3000 more on a pickup truck).  Here in the U.S., the only advantage seen to a diesel is more hauling power and longer life, but then most gas engines last far longer than the rest of the car anyway.

Ken


----------



## renewablejohn (Mar 11, 2008)

Only time we would chop straw and put it back in the land was on very heavy clay soil to help drainage. On well drained land it had a negative effect on soil fertility hence the reason why we baled it and led it away. Would finally return to the land in the form of manure but this would add  fertility not reduce it.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 12, 2008)

As seen in Europe by taxation and other parts of the world by scarcity, high price of fuel is one of the mother's of invention. Downsizing, efficiencies, alternatives all bring more effective options. Petroleum and NG should have their tax subsidies, incentives and depletion allowances ended and should be taxed to bring their price at the pump equal to their social cost, as should coal as well as other fuel products. Then we can rationally decide whether we want to burn food or eat it.


----------



## SE Iowa (Mar 13, 2008)

Does anyone here know how much more a box of corn flakes cost since corn has gone from $2.35 to $5.00? How about eggs? How much more does it cost to produce an egg? Does anyone here also know how many bushels of corn it takes to finish out a steer? How much does that add to the cost of the end product (price per pound of supermarket meat + 600lbs of by products)? I'm not trying to cause a stir but I notice we are represented by alot of heavily timbred states and not too many farming states. As usual, everyone thinks that they are right. 

I for one am a farmer and a pharmacist as well. I see both sides of the debate. I do not necessarily believe that ethanol from corn is the answer (and think bio-diesel is a joke-has anyone calculated how much soy oil we could possibly produce). I do believe ethanol from corn is a START. I firmly believe the answer is going to come from a number of sources including conservation, ethanol, bio-diesel, WIND, Solar, hydropower, bio-mass, hybrid cars, locally grown products, timbre industry etc.  Look at Brazil, with over 50% of their vehicle fuel coming from sugar-cane based ethanol. The solar, wind, coal, petroleum and wood industries have all had to go thru growing periods where they may not have been the most efficient or best use of resources (PV payback periods?) but as technology improves and new processes are developed and created things can get better. 

By the way, a box of cornflakes is $0.09 more, an egg cost less than $0.03 per unit more, roughly 100 bushels of corn to finish a steer to a weight of 1200lbs (so additional cost of $265 per head) which leads to about $0.50 per pound or $0.12 for a 1/4 pound hamburger if all of the increase in cost was only given to the meat and not the byproducts. What do you think it cost to get that cow sent from my farm to the processor with labor and then send it to New York City to a steak house?


----------



## Telco (Mar 13, 2008)

My mother has a small cattle farm, and she isn't really seeing any more per pound when she sells a cow than she did 5-6 years ago.  Still around 1.50 a pound.  Then they sell steaks for 10 bucks a pound and blame it on higher corn prices.  Where does the cow get that much corn between being raised and being butchered?  They don't eat that much corn in the feed lots.  The issue is, everyone knows they can now ask what they want and blame fuel prices.

I still think biodiesel is the answer, for now.  Used to be an ethanol proponent, but not as long as they are using corn.  It costs a little more to use nonfood sources, which is why they won't do it.  Biodiesel can actually be produced from algae, in areas where food can't be grown.  Not to mention algae will produce some 17 times more biodiesel per acre than soybeans.  And, they are just now really beginning to research it.  If they can get it to where they can get 5000 gallons of biodiesel per acre, I can convert an acre of my retirement property to grow algae and never buy another drop of fuel.  Heh heh heh... :lol: 


From the article:

"Algae also are highly productive compared with conventional crops. For example, a productivity model estimates that 48 gallons of biodiesel can be produced from an acre of soybeans. Algae could produce 819 gallons in a single acre, and theoretically as much as 5,000 gallons.

One of algae's most remarkable qualities is that it can grow using carbon dioxide generated from fossil-fuel combustion, Murthy says. Greenhouse gases from industry and coal-fired electrical generating plants can be piped to algae ponds, where carbon dioxide is a necessary ingredient for growth.

Research has shown that algae can grow 30 percent faster than normal when fed carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. "


So far as why the US is anti-diesel?  Ken45 hit it right on the head.  The new Duramax diesels in the Chevy trucks don't have the knock or the smell, and now that they HAVE to get fuel economy up I'll bet we'll start seeing some small domestic diesel cars based on the Duramax.  I'm really looking forward to this so I can put one in my 87 S15.  On the 70s diesels, many owners would just replace the heads on their diesel blocks with gasoline heads, stick in lower compression pistons, and put on a carb intake to convert their "diesel" engines to run gasoline.  That was all that was needed.


----------



## SE Iowa (Mar 13, 2008)

I pretty much agree. I hope they can figure out the whole algae thing, but until then lets do what we can until the technology can fill in the gaps. There has never been a shortage of food in the world. It's politics that gets in the way. For example, the US farmers produced 12+ billion bu of corn, 2.3 billion bu of soybeans and somewhere around 4 billion bushels of wheat last year. That would be over 680 billion pounds of corn, 138 billion pounds of soybeans and 240 billion pounds of wheat for a total of nearly 1 trillion pounds of grain food. This does not include all the vegetable vrops that are actually what we consume in our daily diets excluding grains used to produce meat. IF we just used these 3 sources of food (corn, wheat, soybeans) we could supply every man, woman and child on the face of the planet with about 1/2 of pound of food per day. Maybe not all the nutritional requirements a person would need but then think about all the other foods produced and all the other food produced in the world. Take a drive to  north dakota, montana and canada and look at all the edible beans, peas canola and countless other edible foods. 

What I'm trying to say as others have, we all know that the price of oil is not because of any shortages or increased use by other countries (china, etc). Ethanol production has not caused the supposed increases in food cost in the supermarket either. Trucking, which relies upon fuel, is SOME of it and the other is just the little extra that everyone else takes along the way.

By the way, why is no one mad at the commodity traders that have created the histeria in both the corn/soybean as well as the petroleum pits? It seems to me that all this happened so suddenly, like we now all of the sudden use more oil than 2 months ago.  This market is artificial!


----------

