Thread: Biofuels Friend or Foe

• • Would there be any "waste" after the biomass was used up?
  • What would it contain in terms of nutrients and could they be ploughed back into the fields as a fertiliser?
  • Has anyone calculated the cost/benefit (including transport and costs of tillage) of a system like that?

I have no real idea of the answers and they have been lost in the mists of time.
I can just recall that the technical people in DPI told me that rice straw was a real problem for burning in a power plant as it had a high silica content.
The study was to be commissioned by SEDA ( Sustainable Energy Development Authority) of NSW. I think it sunk without trace.
My thoughts at the time was that it would never be viable /competitive due to the cost of collection, if the plant was near a major market, or the cost of transmission if the plant was near the source.
Its a similar problem as with farm based forestry. The cost of collection is too high in NSW to be competitivewith WA or Vic plantations.
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I have no real idea of the answers and they have been lost in the mists of time.
I can just recall that the technical people in DPI told me that rice straw was a real problem for burning in a power plant as it had a high silica content.
The study was to be commissioned by SEDA ( Sustainable Energy Development Authority) of NSW. I think it sunk without trace.
My thoughts at the time was that it would never be viable /competitive due to the cost of collection, if the plant was near a major market, or the cost of transmission if the plant was near the source.
Regards Philip A

That is what I thought, the only benefit I reason would be if the farmers had a biomass digester and used the methane etc to power a local generator (possibly returning excess to the grid) very similar to the methane powered generators that are used in some sewerage plants.

I guess the fuel costs of harvesting the stubble and transporting to the digester would only yield as much as energy as was used in the harvest. The capital cost may never be recovered, although the CO2 created in the burn off would be saved.

Cheers
Diana

To add fuel to the fire

Hardy Plant May Ease Biofuels' Burden on Food Costs

While in DPI I was asked about Jatropha and did a small study a couple of years ago.
AFAIK there was none in Australia 2 years ago. assuming there is still none, it will take at least 4-5 years to breed it and commercialise it and by that time according to Ricardo new biomass refining will be available.

I have been involved in testing new crops (sesame)and there are many hurdles to overcame before something like this can be commercialised.
1 Will it grow here? EG Indian ( non dope) hemp has never shown good yields
2 Is it competitive with other crops
3 Is it destined to be another Lantana
4 What herbicides do not kill it
5 Which bugs like it
6 can it be mechanically harvested. In India you can just get a couple of thousand labourers to go out and cut it.
7 Its not tame. One tree could be 1 metre tall and another 10 metres. One could have 40% oil and another 10%.


I think by then there will be other biomass answers.
One that comes to mind is

Non human consumption high yield canola, bred by genetic engineering.

Crops like these are tame, the farmers know how to harvest them, there are herbicides and insecticides available and approved, (and it costs about 500K to have one chemical approved for use on a crop.)
There are also plenty of other high yield hardy plants eg saltbush that already grow here.
I consider Jatropha in the same category as Neem, and Noni Noni.
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by one_iota

To add fuel to the fire

Hardy Plant May Ease Biofuels' Burden on Food Costs

Not that we need more fires for Global warming's sake.

With the price of diesel lately, maybe we can get the Afghan opium poppy growers to switch to biofuel production? That would solve 2 problems and not take any food producing land out of production.

Diana

A few things that I think need to be considered in the debate:

1. India's and China's populations constitute 40% of the worlds population and as those countries develop, as they are, at a much greater rate of growth than western economies their demand for both food and fuel for transport will place great strains on the conventional food and fuel sources. We in the "west" need to change our perspective and remove ourselves from the centre of the argument placing ourselves in their shoes. It is not only about how much I pay at the local service station.

2. The production of fuel crops at the expense of food crops in Africa to fuel my Land Rover in Australia is morally dubious. However if in Australia the cost of food increases and I can afford it and have locally grown biofuel then maybe that is supportable and sustainable.

3. What is an appropriate source of fuel? Crude Oil, GE Canola, Algae, Palm Oil, Coconut Oil? The answer is probably whatever is appropriate technologically and ecologically for the location. PhilipA's point is well made: what will work in India will not necessarily be appropriate in Australia.

I have heard that American farmers are paid NOT to produce crops as there is an oversupply.

perhaps this is where the extra production may come from,,

Biofuel backlash prompts Brussels back-pedal

Corn-based fuel becoming a hot potato

By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Monday 21st April 2008 10:53 GMT

The ongoing backlash against biofuels continues to gather pace, with news out of Brussels that the European Union may postpone or even drop plans for biosource quotas in motor fuel.
The Guardian reported this weekend that officials in the European Commission are getting ready to backtrack on plans for ten per cent biofuel to be required in all European petrol and diesel by 2020.
"This is all very sensitive and fast-moving," an unnamed Commission bureaucrat told the Graun.
"There is now a lot of new evidence on biofuels and the commission has become a prisoner of this process."
Another official said that the ten per cent target "is now secondary", and that anyway it probably could no longer be met due to tough draft standards on sustainable production. This would seem to imply that most existing biofuel production wouldn't qualify under the draft Brussels rules.
At present most vehicle biofuel uses ethanol, ethyl alcohol, either as a percentage of normal fuel or exclusively in suitably adapted cars. So-called "flex-fuel" vehicles can run on any mixture of ethanol and regular fossil fuel.
But ethanol must currently be produced from food crops such as corn or sugar cane. The drive to ethanol - pushed, perhaps, as much by surging oil prices as environmental concerns - is seen by many as being behind recent food price rises and consequent hunger in some regions.
On top of that, many experts believe that ethanol biofuel doesn't reduce overall CO2 emissions as much as its proponents claim. In theory, the exhaust-pipe carbon is compensated for by the CO2 absorbed during photosynthesis in the growing plants used to make the fuel. But critics point out that intensively farmed crops draw carbon from artificial fertilisers, and that the process of turning the harvest into alcohol is also highly carbon-intensive.
Thus the actual reduction in CO2 emissions which can be claimed as a result of burning biofuel is the subject of much debate - the more so as this is critically important in the planned European carbon markets. The Graun reports that Brussels mandarins are hoping to gain acceptance for a figure of 35 per cent carbon reduction by burning agreed types of ethanol as compared to ordinary fossil fuels. In other words, if the whole transport industry could switch to using nothing but ethanol - no fossil fuel at all - the European Commission believe that overall transport-sector emissions would be down by about one-third.
There are alternative types of biofuel, such as methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) which can be made from non-food biomass or other sources. Lacking the support of powerful farm lobbies, however, methanol, biodiesel and the like have failed to gain widespread backing. Even if they did, the same criticisms of low or even notional carbon reduction, limited biomass availability etc might be levelled at them - though some would still pursue such plans on energy security grounds.
UK motor fuel is required to be 2.5 per cent biofuel already, and the plan is for this to rise to five per cent in two years. However, the British government may not press ahead - there is a Whitehall review underway. ®






World Bank chief: Ethanol cars run on human misery

Fill up with E85, starve a child

By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Friday 11th April 2008 15:18 GMT

The head of the World Bank has said that soaring food prices are causing hardship and starvation for poor people worldwide, and implied that at least some of the blame lay with Western governments' efforts to encourage biofuel use.
"While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs," said Bank supremo Robert Zoellick, quoted in today's Guardian.
"This is not just about meals forgone today, or about increasing social unrest, it is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth," he added.
"We estimate that the effect of this food crisis on poverty reduction worldwide is in the order of seven lost years."
Zoellick appeared primarily to be calling for greater agricultural and food aid from the rich nations to the developing world. However, he made it clear that he considered the push toward biofuels part of the problem, saying that this tended to push up food prices.
A majority of transport biofuel schemes involve the use of varying proportions of ethyl alcohol - ethanol - in adapted internal-combustion petrol engines. Ethanol must be made from food crops at present, though its advocates hope to see it produced from non-food biomass or other sources in future. Zoellick would have been referring to ethanol biofuels.
Less mainstream types of biofuel include methanol - wood alcohol - which can be made from inedible plant matter, and biodiesel. These technologies are less controversial than food ethanol, but are usually seen as being harder to implement and have gained comparatively little traction.
Government measures thus far have tended to focus on ethanol techniques, in large part due to pressure from Western farmers seeking lucrative markets for their crops. The UK, for instance, intends to require first 5 and then 10 per cent ethanol content in motor fuel in coming years - a plan which has already drawn widespread criticism.
The Guardian also quoted Oxfam's Liz Stuart, who said:
"Europe and the US must stop adding fuel to fire by increasing crop production for biofuels. These have dubious environment benefits, and by driving up prices, are crippling the lives of the poor." ®






US scientists puncture the ethanol biofuel bubble

Crop switch likely to increase emissions

By George Smith, Dick Destiny → More by this author
Published Wednesday 13th February 2008 15:31 GMT

Good science news (or bad, depending on your point of view) has arrived with two reports on the carbon footprint of biofuels, in the paper edition of Science magazine. They deal serious damage to the belief - which up to now has been driving the biofuel bubble - that stepped-up ethanol production in the US is an answer to global warming.
Writing in "Use of US croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions for Land Use or Change," Timothy Searchinger and many others state: "To produce more biofuels, farmers can directly plow up more forest or grassland, which releases to the atmosphere much of the carbon previously stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fire. The loss of maturing forests and grasslands also forgoes ongoing carbon sequestration as plants grow each year ..." (A companion piece, "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt" by scientists at the University of Minnesota, covers similar territory.)
The scientists step on switch grass, too, a weed peddled by those promoting the still largely theoretical panacea of ethanol production direct from cellulose. "Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on US corn lands increase emissions by 50 per cent," write the authors in the lead paragraph.
The news tosses a good deal of water on the biofuel fire. Unfortunately, the reports are subscription only and while there were a number of pirated copies flowing in email due to the electronic publication of the news last week, the perfectly awful figures still deserve some reporting. For example, the New York Times story on the reports ignored ugly figures like the percentage losses in feed crops contrasted with increases in emission, perhaps figuring correctly that the average reader is too stupid and easily bored to tolerate them. Since the Times has been a cheerleader for miracle alternative energy solutions, the reports were surely hard for it to swallow. One could imagine the nervous gulping in the paper's second sentence. It noted that ethanol mania, therein called the "benefits of biofuels," had come under attack and that the articles in the magazine would "add to the controversy."
This is what happens now in the US when fairly clear cut, inconvenient and unpopular peer-reviewed science shows up in the public arena. As far as mainstream journalism is concerned, it generates a "controversy." In the current political context, controversy is good because it can be used as cover, deployed by the various interests who stand to make a fortune from a boom predicated on previous received wisdoms now contradicted by more rigorous thought.
The authors conclude in Science that as the US ramps up biofuel production, other crops will decline - "corn by 62 per cent, wheat by 31 per cent, soybeans by 28 per cent, pork by 18 per cent and chicken by 12 per cent." The general reply to this is to claim that boosted crop yields on remaining land and greater efficiencies will make this up. Not so fast, reply the authors, stating their figures are already based on the assumption of growth in yields but that "positive and negative effects, "the latter from factors like "reduced crop rotations and greater reliance on marginal land," cause a canceling out.
Declines in production of feed grains due to biofuel diversion cause significant cuts in food exports. Brazil, China and India then cultivate more arable land for food crops. This is a double whammy, not only releasing carbon dioxide locked up in plants and soil in the US but also around the world. It's a strong and compelling analysis of the current US rush to ethanol. Indirectly, it's quite an indictment of it, too.
The choices presented by the study are harsh ones. The pooch is so screwed by current greenhouse gas figures that even with the reining in of biofuel production so that only a much smaller slice of feed grain - 10 per cent - is diverted, cuts in emission then come through with human cost. They adding a little starvation to the balance sheet.
"Counteracting increases in biofuels with controls or disincentives against land conversion would face not only great practical challenges, but also have harsh social consequences," the authors write. The smaller reduction in land use for ethanol as opposed to feed crops would still result in a diminution of production of world milk and meat, the effect of which would reduce carbon dioxide release but at the same time depress poorer diets in developing nations. "In that event, more greenhouse benefits would stem in reality from reduced food consumption," it states. The authors write with a bit of delicacy that this effect is "probably not a desirable one."
The report puts those pushing the fad of biofuel into a real corner. There are no miracles forthcoming and all of the talk about transformative technology seems to be just that. The authors stress that their results mean that only ethanol production from waste material stands not to add to greenhouse gas production and then only if it is conducted under a strict regimen. This means the possible use of cellulose, but only in a system in which good cropland isn't turned over to cultivate the biofuel weed, switch grass.
None of this can be good news to biofuel producers although in the short term it would seem unlikely to seriously impede their current plans. There is too much greed and politicized government subsidy plowed into US biofuels to expect rationality to prevail and brakes to be applied, even gently, immediately.
The final conclusion in Science has the ring of common sense: "[When] farmers use today's good cropland to produce food, they help to avert greenhouse gases from land use change."
Additional note: In January, just one day after George W. Bush's state-of-the-union address, the Department of Energy cancelled its support for a "clean coal" electricity generating facility in Mattoon, Illinois. It effectively killed the project. Called FutureGen and employing Fischer-Tropsch processing, the plant was viewed as a key prototype in the country's energy security future. However, the sticking point on it was its production of carbon dioxide. No one has been able to practically address what to do with it other than offer up the airy fancy that the greenhouse gas be stuffed into the ground, the functional equivalent of an instantaneous miraculous solution.
Taken together with Science's dual reports on biofuel land use causing increase in global carbon dioxide emission, the beginning of 2008 has been a shock to the American belief that silver bullets for energy independence and curbing climate change are nigh. ®