I'm not knocking Bio-fuels, but I do feel our policies are a bit shortsighted. This article suggests an often overlooked problem. (broken link removed)
Some Sanity in the Blind Rush to Bio-fuels
- Thread starter jpl1nh
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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).
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).
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)
Here is the link:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Biofuels_and_Greenhouse_gases/
(edit by craig)
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.
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.
Webmaster said:
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.
(broken link removed to http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200802081)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Webmaster said:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
KeithO said:
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.
jebatty said:
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
renewablejohn said:
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
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
