View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Some arguments against biofuels |
|
|
I just sent a long-winded reply to someone's PM about biofuels and thought I should cut and paste my reply here, as hopefully it might provide some food for thought (certainly better than food for cars).
The problem with many biofuels is that they can actually do more harm than good. I understand that in the case of American corn-based ethanol it takes more energy to produce the fuel than the fuel actually provides. Also, critics have noted that if the United States' entire farmland was 100% dedicated to growing corn purely for fueling cars it would still only provide 25% of what American motorists consume.
Proponents of corn-based ethanol have claimed that they will dramatically increase the amount of fuel produced in the future by using the entire corn plant rather than the corn cobs alone. This means however that every season the whole plants - leaves, stalks, cobs - will be dragged off to the refineries. They'll need more trucks and fuel to haul the corn plants and the completely denuded soil will lose nutrients and vegetable matter, which will then require more polluting and energy-intensive fertilizers. Finally, the lack of soil cover in the form of rotting corn plants will dry out the soil and increase wind erosion. Combine this with increasingly erratic rainfall and the Americans will have another dust bowl.
Biodiesels are problematic too. If you can use old cooking oils that's great, but it won't take many bio-diesel cars in a town to consume the town's entire waste cooking oil supply. A very large proportion of the rainforest clearance in Indonesia these days comes from clearing land for palm oil plantations. And it's turning out that palm oil is also becoming increasingly expensive, as the palm oil processing plants are heavily dependent on conventional energy supplies in order to operate.
In the European Union most vegetable oils come from rape seed (those massive fields of yellow seen all over the UK). The EU had been making some progress in the last couple of decades with encouraging farmers to set aside marginal land as wildlife meadows and so on. Now, with the biofuel boom and increasing food prices, this policy is being abandoned in favour of a return to intensive farming that leaves very little space for wildlife.
Basically, most biofuel options seem to be a bunch of dead ends.
The simplest answer to so many of our energy, traffic congestion, pollution, obesity, and quality of life problems comes on two wheels. When I lived in Wellington, New Zealand I had beaten up little Nissan Sunny that was used so rarely that I would always worry if it would start. 90% of my travel was done by bicycle and the car was only used for long trips. From my hilly suburb I would zoom downhill in the morning to the city centre and change into my suit at work. Riding home was a bit more of a drag back up the hills but was bloody good exercise.
By all means have a car if you need it for the weekly shop or longer trips, but keep this in mind - the best way to halve your car's pollution is use it half as often.
Discuss. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i am from the land of E85. even i think corn is a passing fancy. they'll get to where they can make fuel from anything. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kimchi Cowboy

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mistermasan wrote: |
...They'll get to where they can make fuel from anything. |
Calling Dr. Brown, Dr. Emmet Brown....
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC correctly some folks have it down to where they can take biomass waste and produce a gallon for less than a buck. as always the question will be over distribution as fuel can now be made from anything. grass clippings will no longer be trashed, they are fuel. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheChickenLover
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Location: The Chicken Coop
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just bought a car that gets double the mileage of my old one.
Hence my carbon footprint from my car has been reduced by half while driving the same distance
Chicken |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
exceptin' what it took to mfg the new car vs. using the perfectly good old car that was already rolling. and the old behemoth is still out there racking up the miles. but if it makes you feel good, that's all that really matters. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
4 months left

Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kimchi Cowboy wrote: |
mistermasan wrote: |
...They'll get to where they can make fuel from anything. |
Calling Dr. Brown, Dr. Emmet Brown....
 |
Actually: General Motors Corp. is planning on making biofuel with garbage at a cost of less than a dollar a gallon, the company's chief has said.
http://www.physorg.com/news119544873.html
Biofuel made from corn is a waste. Cellulosic ethanol - made from the stalk of plants such as corn hopefully is the future along with switchgrass. Along with companies developing seeds that need much less water to be cultivated hopefully will reduce oil dependency and ease food prices. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 Location: Incheon
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the US a majority of the corn grown is used as animal feed. It is possible to make ethanol from the corn and retain the protein which can be used for the animal feed. In this case, ethanol is a useful byproduct.
Full scale production of ethanol is a bad idea.
Growing food to feed cars.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
4 months left wrote: |
Actually: General Motors Corp. is planning on making biofuel with garbage at a cost of less than a dollar a gallon, the company's chief has said.
http://www.physorg.com/news119544873.html
Biofuel made from corn is a waste. Cellulosic ethanol - made from the stalk of plants such as corn hopefully is the future along with switchgrass. Along with companies developing seeds that need much less water to be cultivated hopefully will reduce oil dependency and ease food prices. |
Thanks for the GM link. Considering how much food we throw away in Western countries it would be good if we could try to get more usage out of it. Composting is great, but not possible for everyone, so at least have huge municipal 'digesters' like they are developing in Germany.
I still have my doubts about cellulosic ethanol though. As I noted in my initial post, taking away 90% of the plant matter to the nearby processing factory will leave the fields with very little soil cover and the soil will then dry out and be blown away.
And MisterMasan, good point about old cars. My brother is nuts about classic cars from the 1960s and 70s, and is a very capable mechanic. Yet he still gets around mostly by bicycle (he works in a bike shop) and argues that you can do more to reduce greenhouse gases by maintaining the same car for 20 years than buying a new car every 4 years. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BS.Dos.

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recently completed an assignment for my MSc in Environmental Decision Making where we analysed the overall energy, materials and emissions efficiency of a cassava-based fuel ethanol LCA case study in China (Sorry, but you have to pay for download). The report concluded that cassava fuel ethanol (in this instance) was found to have a conversion efficiency of 1.28 and therefore had a positive effect on the environment.
It should also be noted that despite revealing significant energy and material inefficiencies and also considerable emissions, the conversion was still proven to produce favourable environmental results. With improvements to both upstream processes and to the actual cassava-ethanol conversion, more gains were anticipated.
The organic matter you mention which is taken from the soil is not irretrievably lost as you suggest as considerable organic sludge is generated during both the conversion process and the fermentation stage, which in itself, produces valuable quantities of combustible methane. The waste sludge can be used again as fertilizer. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007 Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good article on alternative energy, from the Independent.
Cars are responsible for 20% of world Co2 emissions and planes 2%. The lion's share is from fossil fuels and eliminating them should be our priority. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
4 months left

Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BS.Dos, I did a little research - It is one of the 10 most important food plants. So is it better to use than corn, sugar? How about compared to cellulosic?
The product is heavily subsidized by Beijing - from Sept. 2006.
I found "But worried over food security, Beijing said it would use non-grain raw materials for fuel ethanol as part of its effort to cut dependence on imported oil." But isn't is used in flour?
One Chinese co - Gofar is developing it, know anyway to play it through other companies on world stock markets? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BS.Dos. wrote: |
I recently completed an assignment for my MSc in Environmental Decision Making where we analysed the overall energy, materials and emissions efficiency of a cassava-based fuel ethanol LCA case study in China (Sorry, but you have to pay for download). The report concluded that cassava fuel ethanol (in this instance) was found to have a conversion efficiency of 1.28 and therefore had a positive effect on the environment.
It should also be noted that despite revealing significant energy and material inefficiencies and also considerable emissions, the conversion was still proven to produce favourable environmental results. With improvements to both upstream processes and to the actual cassava-ethanol conversion, more gains were anticipated.
The organic matter you mention which is taken from the soil is not irretrievably lost as you suggest as considerable organic sludge is generated during both the conversion process and the fermentation stage, which in itself, produces valuable quantities of combustible methane. The waste sludge can be used again as fertilizer. |
Thanks B.S.Dos. Interesting stuff but I still think dedicating large areas of farmland to growing fuels for cars is a foolish move. Even if they can improve the efficiency of the ethanol production process they will still lose vast areas of farmland so that the Chinese can emulate the crass materialistic culture of the West. (For the record here, I'm not saying that the developing world has to give up on having the same standards of living as the West - I personally think we in the West have to dramatically lower our consumption so as to level out the field and offer a less materialistic model)
Also. taking the plant materials all the way to the factory, rotting it down then trucking it back to the fields will require lots of energy.
I reckon the Chinese would be better off if they stick to bicycles. And Americans, New Zealanders and Canadians should in fact follow them back down that path. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BS.Dos.

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Also. taking the plant materials all the way to the factory, rotting it down then trucking it back to the fields will require lots of energy. |
Well, the trucks would presumably be returning to the farms to collect more corn material anyway so having the trucks full both going to and from the farms makes more economical sense. In fact, the two transportation stages within the LCA, (life cycle assessment) one taking the cassava from the farms to the conversion plant, while the other took the denatured ethanol to the blending station, represented negligible environmental impacts compared to the actual growing and conversion stages. Furthermore, the transport used could always run on ethanol (E10) to offset their emmisions.
Also, in the case study we looked at, the cassava haulm (the part of the plant left in the ground after it's been harvested) was burnt off, which produced big emissions of CO, NOx, N20 and CH4. One way around this is to plough them up for compost, which can then be spread on the ground in place of energy intensive fertilisers, it's just that burning is a much quicker way of doing it.
As for using more land to grow crops for biofuel, forgetting for the moment all the other environmental considerations, you have to remember that biofuel crops take CO2 out of the atmosphere, more so than land set aside for agricultural pasture.
@ 4 Months Left
Sorry, but I'm not some authority on biofuels, especially in respect of their performance on the worlds stock markets. However, if I were thinking of investing in biocrops then I'd begin my research by taking a look at the big energy producers in Brazil as (I think) about 95% of the cars on Brazilian roads run on ethanol. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Well, the trucks would presumably be returning to the farms to collect more corn material anyway so having the trucks full both going to and from the farms makes more economical sense. |
A very good point that I didn't consider. As long as the timing is right I guess.
Quote: |
As for using more land to grow crops for biofuel, forgetting for the moment all the other environmental considerations, you have to remember that biofuel crops take CO2 out of the atmosphere, more so than land set aside for agricultural pasture. |
That makes sense too, given that a field of 6' high corn plants would capture more carbon than foot-high grasses. Once the biofuel crops are harvested and processed however I'm assuming they could release a lot of ghgs, but even then a processing plant may be able to capture and reuse those gases. Whereas a field full of farting cows and sheep produces loads of methane, the most potent greenhouse gas.
50% of New Zealand's greenhouse gases come from agricultural. Bad cows.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|