Biofuels Coming With a High Environmental Price?

DurandalTree writes "With the spectre of global warming on the horizon, biofuels have been touted as the solution to motor vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. But with biodiesel use on the increase, it appears a distinctively environmentally unfriendly footprint is being left behind by some of its prime sources; affected food prices are surging out of reach of the poor and rainforests are being destroyed to create larger plantations."

Re:Fairly simple economics

[DragonWriter]

It's the reason China banned ethanol production.

China didn't ban ethanol production, indeed, China has a rather ambitious ethanol production agenda. China, however, has switch focus from grain produced ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from cellulose from sources like switchgrass, rather than from grain crops that are human food staples.

Just throw corn right out the door

[Mr. Stinky]

The argument against ethanol because of corn is going to be off the table in relatively short time. Cellulosic ethanol is coming commerically viable now and it will turn your green-waste trash into fuel. The US Department of Energy gets this and has formerly denounced corn as the future of ethanol. So when you use corn as a reason against ethanol, consider the other sources of it.
Corn is not the future of U.S. ethanol: DOE
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN28 30990020070328 [reuters.com]

A cellulosic ethanol company who was recently awarded a $40M grant from the DOE in February:
http://bluefireethanol.com/ [bluefireethanol.com]

Use unused resources

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to be serious about replacing oil with bio-fuel you probably need to use resources that are otherwise unused. For example in Sweden we use waste to create most of our heat, as well as some electricity. By now the waste burning plants and our other bio-industries produce more energy than all of our nuclear plants! And yet most Swedes are unaware of it. Which is probably because burning waste does not disturb anything else. Another set of resources that exists in many countries is salt water, sunlight and unused land. In theory, countries around the equator could grow algae in salt water and use it to produce enormous amounts of bio-fuel. This would go on without much interference with anything else.

There are things other than corn

[dbIII]

Despite the trollmonkey headline, there is more to biofuel than it just being used as an excuse to apply porkbarrel politics to corn farmers. Ethanol is also being made from cellulose in the USA (sorry podcast has gone - was on ABC Radio Science Show at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/ [abc.net.au]) and there are other options such as methanol and methane gas from waste products as well as biodiesel from food processing waste. In sugar producing countries there is already co-generation by burning the leaves and stalks to produce steam and electricity so that is another thing to consider.

Somebody will mention the word "clean" at some point - it is not a word that really makes sense in the context of burning stuff in air (nitrous oxides are produced), and the clown that always mentions nuclear whenever energy is mentioned should also remember that mining and processing is not "clean" either.

The Solution to the Problem

[Cervantes]

The summary is right... biofuels made from food are causing deforestation and a rise in food prices. The solution is obvious. The USA needs to get it's head out of the sand and legalize THC-Removed Hemp for biofuel production. Hemp is more efficient, has more crops per year, can fill the roll of many other crops that are less efficient, and won't increase the price of foods that shouldn't be associated with fuel anyways (corn? Come on. Painful example of how rampant lobbying can overcome a products inefficiency).

With legal, non-smokable Hemp, we could stop cutting down forests. We could cut back on the amount of cotton crops that have to be grown (and the corresponding amount of land that has to be rested because cotton crops sucked the life out of them). We could even use it for biofuel until we can get algae farms that are efficient. Hemp was made illegal because some big tycoon decided he wanted to protect his cash cow. It's time to get rid of that silliness, and start using our heads. Hemp is where it's at. Wake up, USA.

And, in conjunction with Hemp, let's work on algae... a great way to make use of inhospitable land, and possibly the best/most-efficient biological source that we can turn into biofuel to replace our dependence on dead dinosaurs.

FUD if I ever heard it

[bugnuts]

Oil companies were saying "We'll need to build more coal plants to support the electric cars! You don't want more coal plants, do you?"

Now a shill is saying "We'll all starve if we use biodiesel or ethanol! You don't want to starve, do you?"

If a new car ran on 1/4" bolts, the price of 1/4" bolts would go up. But guess what, so would production. And it doesn't even have to be the kind of production that takes up food. Methanol could be produced by the corn stalks along with all sorts of other waste materials, and then the remainder used to enhance the ground again. Or you could use the corn oil for biodiesel and the starch for ethanol. But you don't even need to use corn, either. You can grown an amazing amount of corn in a very small area, without using all the idiotic equipment or chemicals. Who cares if it has some worms if it'll just be fermented or pressed?

This is what happens when money and politics (but mostly money) start to collide with society who's looking at the situation and saying "Hey, you can't do that!" There are big, big companies getting fat by polluting where we all have to live, and using our money to propagandize it so that we're happy to line thier pockets at our expense.

The biggest problem with all of this are the propaganda machines. They've been in full swing for decades now, and I'm getting tired of it. This blog was a shining example.

Re:Algae

[rrhal]

You mean like 12.5% of the Sonoran Desert: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html [unh.edu]

Algea could make enough oil for biodiesel to replace petroleum for transportation in a fraction of the surface area that is going into corn production this year. And it wouldn't have to be good farm land either. This could be done for roughly twice what the US spends to import oil each year. There are no big technical hurdles to overcome.

Biofuels can be environmentally benign

[Burz]

...it depends on how you produce it.

Note that the linked articles are foreign, discussing production of biodiesel in places like Malaysia. US biodiesel production, OTOH, is a by-product of soybeans grown for human and animal consumption; the fuel does not compete with food here in the USA.

Now, if we started importing biodiesel the way we have with ethanol, then its an entirely different situation. Product from Brazil or Malaysia would almost certainly come from a process of deforestation.

The EU farms rapeseed specifically for biodiesel production, and it is pushed heavily as a rotation crop. They are introducing ways to make the byproducts edible (at least for livestock) although how beneficial this is remains to be seen. At least there seems to be no large-scale deforestation associated with EU rapeseed.

I'd also like to note that the EU some years ago blocked the import of palm oil fuels. Partly because of this, in order to have any biodiesel market at all, Malaysia and other Pacific rim nations have agreed to form a commission regulating the land use associated with the industry.

Re:what happened to hydrogen?

[vertinox]

Hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source.

So? Neither is petroleum, coal, or biodiesel.

There is not a single energy positive creation source on the face of the planet. 99.9% of everything all our energy sources come from the sun (excluding geothermal and uranium) which oil and coal was from plants and animals from millions of years ago that got their energy from the sun, while biodiesel is from more recent plants.

The reason that hydrogen is not used is because it is currently inefficient to convert from your standard energy production methods. You could technically grow corn and burn it to make hydrogen just like biodiesel. It is just not that efficient to do so.

This might change and eventually someday be easier to just use direct solar power and remove hydrogen from water.

Re:Non-food biofuel.

[drinkypoo]

Which might not be as hard as it sounds. The University of New Hampshire did a study in 2004 where they concluded that biodiesel from algae could -- at least theoritically -- supply all the nation's fuel supply without require food oil (like soy or palm) to be used at all.

Yes, and the US Government concluded the same thing in 1998 [energy.gov].

US DOE's approach was to use algae grown in foot-deep "raceway" size pools built in ring shapes and agitated by paddlewheels. Local algae was found to be the best algae to use; just build ponds and the algae will come along and colonize them. Using specially selected algaes produced a single-digit percentage improvement in efficiency at best and actually worked less well than the local stuff in some cases.

They found also that they could capture up to 80% of the CO2 output of a coal power plant and put it into algae growth. This approach is not carbon-neutral but at least the CO2 is used twice.

Interestingly, the same algae can be used to create both biodiesel and ethanol, because the former is made from fats and the latter is made from carbohydrates - and algaes produce both in various ratios depending on species and environment. Remaining solids can be used (without processing) for fertilizer.

Re:Algae

[RainierSnow]

correct. been discussed on /. before here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/ 27/2054231 [slashdot.org]

and some comparisons here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_c ommon_crops [wikipedia.org]

about 10,000 at the moment, with further development should see 20,000 gal/acre

Re:Well, we have to try our best?

[iamacat]

Oh well, if all you care about is some cellulose to burn, you can plant a mixture of plants that will not be a monoculture. You can plant species that need minimum fertilizers and irrigation (you actually want them to be dry). You can burn weeds as well as your indented plants. You can make do with plants half eaten by insects. So overall, growing fuel might be a good way to give land a break from conventional agriculture.

urban renewal

[falconwolf]

In the 90s there was a great deal of urban renewal, and a lot of people who had moved out of the city starting moving back.

Much of the urban renewal going on is due to gentrification [boston.com] which creates more problems. One, two, or more people may buy property in a rundown neighberhood which they'll fix up. Seeing this others will as well which drives up prices pricing lower income residents out, many of whom rent.

Falcon

Re:The Solution to the Problem

[MtViewGuy]

However, you still have a big problem: growing a lot of hemp still will tax agricultural resources of arable land, water usage, and argichemical usage, which is still not a very good idea.

GreenFuel Technologies' idea of "growing" oil-laden algae in vertical tanks makes the most sense, since the algae can be harvested many times per year to make millions of gallons of diesel fuel/heating oil per 200 acre farm of these tanks, and almost just as much ethanol from the solid waste of algae processing.

GE food

[falconwolf]

If there were studies showing GMO food as anything other than a way to grow more, better food on the same land, I'd be the first in line, but there isn't.

Ah but there is. Some people are allergic to brazil nuts, some have gone into shock and have died. Soy was gentically engineered with a gene from the brazil nut. In a study it was shown those with an allergy to brazil nuts were also allergic to the soy. The gene inserted encoded for a protein that's an allergin.

Case study: Brazil nut allergen in GE soybeans [cornell.edu].

Falcon

Re:Happened in the past with renewables

[HW_Hack]

True - inner city blight can be a cause of sprawl as can poor urban/city planning. In Oregon we have strong urban growth rules and boundaries which force more efficient use of urban land. We also have laws that force affordable housing into new developments even if they are upscale developments. Without such requirements sprawl and clumping of poor people into areas (ghettos) is a natural outcome. Our down town area is having a resurgance in the "Pearl District" .... which was once a delapadated area of old warehouses and old buildings ---- now rebuilt into condos + loft apartments along with new shops and restaurants. The city is also tearing down old housing projects and replacing them with affordable (small) single family dwellings built around parks - schools - shops.

Such open housing areas (for poorer residents) are easier for police to patrol with fewer hiding places for bad guys and gangs.

And yes - strong urban growth rules are politically explosive and devisive - and yes sometimes errors are made - but in general: our sprawl is contained - our housing is affordable - we consistently are rated with a high level of livability (Linus Torvalds has a residence here).

Re:Algae

[farmerj]

Growing fuel in the dirt is very hard on the planet. Not only does it suck up a lot of land (on top of what we already need to grow food) it also covers that land with one single crop that needs all sorts of nasty things such as pesticides and fertilizers.

That would very much depend on what you are growing and what you are growing it for.

In many parts of Europe short rotation coppice [wikipedia.org] is being actively researched and grown. Willow is the main crop of interest. You basically grow a field of willow and every four years cut it off about 5 cm from the surface. The willow will then re-grow and you repeat and rinse.
These crops of will require little or no additional fertiliser or pesticides and as they are only harvested every four years the energy consummation per year is low.

They also do not require very good soils in order to prosper, in fact willow does very well on wet heavy soils as it has a very high water consummation and it's roots can tolerate being fully saturated. This aspect can be a positive rather than a negative, much of the work with willow is taking place in Northern Europe where adequate soil moisture is not a problem, especially in the heavy soils which are less suitable for cereal crops.
Due to the high water usage willow can also be used as a treatment medium for organic wastes through Phytoremediation [wikipedia.org]. In fact in the UK and Ireland many farmers growing willow are making most of their profit from "gate fees" [farmersjournal.ie]. This is where they charge to take in material such as sewage sludge, which is land spread on the willow.

There currently also medium scale usages of phytoremediation.
From the FAO [fao.org] website:

In Enköping, a town of about 20 000 inhabitants in central Sweden, a novel system has been introduced. The nitrogen-rich wastewater from dewatering of sludge, which formerly was treated in the wastewater plant, is now distributed to an adjacent 75-ha willow plantation during the growing season. This water contains approximately 800 mg of nitrogen per litre and accounts for about 25 percent of the total nitrogen treated in the wastewater treatment plant. The water is pumped into lined storage ponds during the winter and used for irrigating short-rotation willow coppice during the summer (May to September). The system was designed so that conventionally treated wastewater can be added to promote plant growth. The willows are irrigated for about 120 days annually.

The harvested willow can then be used for CHP [wikipedia.org] which produces electrical energy as well as heat, or directly to produce heat (Northern Europe, lots of heat needed).

Now I know that the OP was probably refereeing to liquid transport fuels, but one barrel of oil saved is one barrel of oil saved, and if it can be done with a much reduced ecological footprint than liquid transport fuels, well so much the better.

Re:Algae production in the desert...

[rossifer]

Batteries have an issue of a pitifully short life

Flooded lead-acid batteries in a well-designed EV will last between 50k-100k miles (lots of variables there). Perhaps you think that's pitifully short, but I'm not so dissapointed in that number. A new lead-acid traction pack will cost about $3000, so that's about $0.03-$0.06/mile spent on the batteries.

God help you if you run out of batteries and don't get around to recharging in time, there's a few hundred kilograms of toxic material to dispose of and a few dozen thousands of dollars to replace them

Are you referring to damaging batteries through overuse? Any modern EV system controller will keep batteries above 20% charge (much cheaper to get a tow after bad planning than to damage the traction pack). As for recyclability, flooded lead-acid batteries have a near 100% recylability and you'll trade then in for the core charge when you buy the replacements. Or NiMH batteries, from which the valuable nickel is recycled into stainless steel, if your community has a battery recycling program (mine does, here in SoCal). To be honest, though, nobody doing their own conversion will use NiMH cause big NiMH batteries are simply too expensive.

and an energy density not high enough to give any sort of range (in an EV you're lucky if you can fit about a gallon of gas worth of electrical energy onboard, with similar range).

Sorry, but that's bunk. I'm in the process of converting a 1998 Saturn SW2 station wagon to an EV and according to the system specs I'll conservatively get between 85-90 miles per charge with a (full charge: 12 hours of 20A @ 110V or about $4 in SoCal). Since my commute is 7 miles one way, 85 miles/day leaves lots of range left over for errands, rides for kids, short trips (to places with plugs), whatever. And we've got the Jeep with the 30 gallon tank (only 20 mpg FWIW) for longer trips.

I'd say to try again with the numbers, perhaps with a vehicle more suitable for EV conversion. Starting from a compact car, EV's are MUCH more practical than what you're talking about.

Regards,
Ross

Re:BioFuel isn't a renewable

[sonofagunn]

Bush and his administration have stated that corn is not the way of the future for ethanol. A lot of money and support has been dedicated towards developing cellulosic ethanol. I'm sorry this doesn't support your conspiracy theories, maybe Cheney is secretly part owner of a cellulosic ethanol company that is receiving DOE funding?

Anyway, ethanol from corn is good FOR NOW because it reduces the need for corn subsidies and helps get people switched to ethanol. It will never be a long term source of massive amounts of ethanol. Everyone knows that. It's just the most easily available source FOR NOW in the US. It's not a conspiracy.