Biofuels revisited

[Ciro Pabón]

Science, February 8th, 2008:

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially. Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases, Timothy Searchinger et al.

"The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land.... So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Joseph Fargione et al.--

NYT: "In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. `We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,´ the letter said."

BTW, I cannot avoid to mention another article in the same Science number: "Calming Traffic on Bogotá's Killing Streets" by Jon Cohen: "with humor, education, and tough laws, this Colombian city has dramatically reduced traffic injuries and deaths." So glad to hear that...

[Belatti]

Clearance of grassland is made with huge diesel engines.
To sow and harvest you have to use huge diesel engines.
To transport the grains to the biofuel production plants you need more diesel.

How much "Biodiesel" does those engines consume per hectare comparing with what that hectare produces?

How many species are being expelled from their natural habitats cause of clearance of grassland?

Just wondering...

[checkered]

I'm surprised as to

how much confusion there is about closed carbon cycles derived from organic sources. I take it that this must be because there are people out there with the capability to lobby for and invest in "quick fixes" as if any agricultural product would be suitable. This really is mindboggling. With the World's population projections it is abundantly clear that the priority in land use must be in foods and food only; not only that, we must ensure that agriculture receives the maximum amount of finite geological hydrocarbons to produce high enegy content fertilisers for as long as possible.

Land clearance, be it grassland, forest etc. for additional fuel production and the monocultures is also unthinkable as a complete mobility energy solution. As the studies state, while the carbon balance will theoretically eventually become positive, the timescales are unacceptable when contrasted to the demands of steering clear from the worst climate change has in store for us (climate change will also affect our ability to produce biofuels with dedicated flora effectively). While the scientists sounding the alarm are correct to do so, do not forget the solutions they're also pointing out for us.

Food industries produce an abundance of inedible biomass, much of which could be converted into biofuels. Industrial forestry also produces incredible amounts of potential energy content that goes to absolute waste. Consumed food derived biowaste (yes, our poo included) is also rich in energy content and we've got armies of microbes aching to do the job of accessing the energy for us. The tragedy of polluted or salinised farmland can be turned on its head by harnessing those in biofuel production. There's also research going into algae and such, many of which are high in usable oil content.

Ciro, a couple of essential quotes from the very same studies you referred to:

This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

[Ray]

When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially. Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases, Timothy Searchinger et al.

"The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land.... So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Joseph Fargione et al.--

NYT: "In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. `We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,´ the letter said."

BTW, I cannot avoid to mention another article in the same Science number: "Calming Traffic on Bogotá's Killing Streets" by Jon Cohen: "with humor, education, and tough laws, this Colombian city has dramatically reduced traffic injuries and deaths." So glad to hear that...

Yet your lowly weatherman can't tell me exactly what the weather will be like tomorrow. What a crock, man made global warming. I love the carbon tax that is on it's way here in the US. Another money making scheme. How much money does one corrupt government need anyway? Nevertheless, a very interesting read. Thanks for the links Ciro.

[Ian P.]

Not to worry about grassland clearing for Bio-Fuels, it is more likely to accelerate the clearing of the Brazilian rain forrest.
As a Canadian we have one of the prime ingredients for bio-fuels in abundance.....water.
It is not likely that there will be enough water to cultivate a meaningful quantity of dedicated bio-fuel feed stock in the US or other temperate climates.
The best future for bio derived fuels (and chemicals) is waste material, whether this be food waste, forest product waste or industrial effluent. As a long term oil replacement .....not a chance.
Ian P.

[Ray]

The grain they make methanol out of is still full of nutrients for livestock, as far as I've heard anyway. Which won't drive up grain costs like everyone counters. So it seems that's not too bad a way to go. Plus, again as far as I know, the majority of waste gas coming out the pipe is CO2 which is great for plants.

Besides, the devil in me always asks who the authority on how much crude oil is underground and if it's somehow produced by the churning of the Earths guts. I've never seen proof the crude oil is running out, and I've never seen anyone even entertain that it's possible that crude is a natural resource. The oil companies will deny this all day long so they can rape us more as time goes along.

[checkered]

Yet your lowly weatherman can't tell me exactly what the weather will be like tomorrow. What a crock, man made global warming. I love the carbon tax that is on it's way here in the US. Another money making scheme. How much money does one corrupt government need anyway? Nevertheless, a very interesting read. Thanks for the links Ciro.

A couple of points

to consider. The amount of human released CO2 from geo/fossil sources can be estimated and the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined. A historical reference of CO2 in the atmosphere can be acquired from polar ice, conserving literally thousands of years' worth of data. A correlation between CO2 and the total solar heat energy captured from sunlight into the oceans, air and ground can be established. There are unknowables and a margin of error, yes, but if everything within those, too, points to one direction and one direction only are we still happy, then, to spew additional CO2 into the air? At least I'm not.

You're right in questioning "carbon taxes", "carbon trading" and other such schemes though, something the examples given by Ciro also highlights. IMO "green energy" tax breaks could provide far better incentives in many instances. Meaningless "feel good exchanges" of money are a real emerging risk. Governmental (i.e. tax payer) money can also seriously impair or even shoot down viable alternatives of reducing unnecessary human related CO2 emissions.

Shrewd power players may lobby very centralised energy solutions over decentralised ones. The temptations for politicians to comply, even against reason, will be great since it will reduce the number of interests and people they will really have to appease to retain their own positions and convenient social structures. It's a game for pretty hard nosed operators and leaves little room for complacency or naïvete for people making the case for solutions that (seemingly) threaten more established interests.

This is not to say that any advances couldn't be aligned with other interests, so it's also unproductive to take an adversarial standpoint by default. Just keep your eyes open and make the very best judgement of the motivations of different people you can. In the end, this is still about growth and common interest, even if it is in a competitive environment.

The grain they make methanol out of is still full of nutrients for livestock, as far as I've heard anyway. Which won't drive up grain costs like everyone counters. So it seems that's not too bad a way to go. Plus, again as far as I know, the majority of waste gas coming out the pipe is CO2 which is great for plants.

Besides, the devil in me always asks who the authority on how much crude oil is underground and if it's somehow produced by the churning of the Earths guts. I've never seen proof the crude oil is running out, and I've never seen anyone even entertain that it's possible that crude is a natural resource. The oil companies will deny this all day long so they can rape us more as time goes along.

I read about the "case for grain methanol/ethanol" recently when studying the admirable efforts taking place in ALMS. I have to say I've yet to convince myself either way ... my instinct is that the "truth (out there, he he)" is somewhere in between. The process of making methanol/ethanol inevitably removes something from the grain mass that also an animal's metabolism could make use of. But we've got to think the whole cycle through since the animal produces something also etc. The key, really, is nothing being considered waste. And yes, CO2 is great for plants - if only we had enough room for them to keep the balance going.

As to the theories abiogenic (mineral/geological) oil vs. the established explanations of oil's fossil origins matters very little to me if using the stuff upsets the atmospheric balance no matter how it came to be. The best projections about the abundance of oil go along a bell curve (so it's not going to run out as such, but wither away) and thus far exploration and production trends support the projections. In mere economical terms, the bell curve is very problematic simply because the huge oil based growth is (much of the population growth has also been based on oil) succumbing to supply and demand.

That's not to say that $100/barrel is in any way justified with current knowhow and technologies - not at this point. And here's where the "good ole'" oil companies actually redeem themselves somewhat. The latest trend in the control of supply has been that oil has become nationally, not privately, controlled. The absolute majority of the wells are now actually in more or less direct national control. This breeds corruption and especially the massive inefficiencies and ridiculous supply structures we see today. Oil fuelled conflicts help none but a select few, but that's where unscupulous dictatorial regimes and "religiously/ideologically inspired insurgent/terrorists" waging "asymmetric conflicts" get to play their insidious part.

Some of the results? As I understand it, the daily income transfer from oil consumers to oil producers is around $5 billion greater than a mere half a decade or so ago. Oil producers would see their annual profits rise at a mere $30/barrel, so the discrepancy is alarmingly irrational and large. It's my humble opinion that this mess has to be sorted out; by this I don't mean that oil producers should be summarily scr***d over, and certainly not the numerous citizens of nations that are oil producers. But this has to be solved because until we do, there's a good chance it will only get worse.

[Ciro Pabón]

... I've never seen anyone even entertain that it's possible that crude is a natural resource...

Good point, Ray, but it has been proposed already. I think the first person to postulate an "abiogenic" source for oil was Mendeleiev, the same guy that worked the periodic table, and a french whose name I don't remember, back in the XIXth century.

At least for me, those theories became famous recently (10-15 years ago) when Thomas Gold wrote "The Deep Hot Biosphere", claiming that termophile bacteria lived in the crust and they produced oil. You can check the abstract here: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The Deep Hot Biosphere.

There are conflicting studies on this issue: Evidence Against Hydrogen-Based Microbial Ecosystems in Basalt Aquifers, but you never know. Anyway, most people I know that works in oil thinks it comes from kerogen, which seems a biological byproduct. Perhaps Mikey_s can tell us something about it.

[Carlos]

Burning Ice -- Methane Hydrates

Below the ocean floors around the world are vast deposits of frozen methane. This is a possible energy source. A lot of research and actual drilling projects are already underway. It has been suggested 'hydrocarbon ice' could be a fuel source for hundreds of generations.

Carbon Neutral Methane Energy Production From Hydrate Deposits Pilot Research
http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-pr ... index.html

India & China Exploit Icy Energy Reserves
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 78,00.html

[mx_tifoso]

I recently found out about a 'biodiesel' producer from the southwestern portion of the U.S., more specificaly from Chandler, Arizona. This company, which is simply called 'AZBioDiesel' produces 'biodiesel' from "animal fat, vegetable oil or used cooking oil" (which are renewable sources of energy).

AZ BioDiesel

What is B99:

B99 is a diesel blend that contains 99% biodiesel and 1% petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning, renewable fuel for diesel engines made from oilseed crops (like canola or soybean) or from used cooking oil and other fats. Biodiesel has many benefits. It’s simple to use, biodegradable and nontoxic. Biodiesel is registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use as a fuel and as a fuel additive.

B99 has physical and chemical properties similar to petroleum diesel and can be used in most diesel applications with little or no modification to the engine or fueling system. However, there are important differences between B99 and conventional diesel fuels that must be taken into consideration when handling or using B99.

Benefits of BioDiesel

The Environment: B99 delivers the highest health and air quality benefits of any fuel. Although biodiesel can be blended with petroleum diesel at any ratio, B99 delivers the maximum biodiesel benefits of any blend. B99 meets the rigorous quality standards of ASTM D 6751.

Biodiesel is a cleaner fuel than petroleum diesel. Diesel pollution is a serious health threat that has been linked to lung cancer, upper respiratory illnesses, allergies, asthma attacks and death from heart and respiratory disorders. Emissions from diesel-fueled engines include more than 40 air toxics. B99 burns significantly cleaner than regular petroleum diesel and reduces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic carcinogenic compounds found in diesel exhaust. When using B99, you substantially reduce the amount of harmful emissions released into the air.
Emission reductions achieved by using B99:

*Carbon dioxide -78% (lifecycle)
*Carbon monoxide -48%
*Hydrocarbons -67%
*Particulates -47%
*Air toxics -60 to 90%
*Sulfates -99%
*Mutagens -89%

After reading descriptions and other information from their website, 'AZBioDiesel' seems to have a legitimate product which will be a better alternative to "normal" fuels, from both petroleum based gasoline and diesel.

'BioDiesel" does not offer a solution to all of the worlds fuel problems, but it definately seems like a contribution in reducing dependancy on petroleum based fuels, which in most cases are foreign.

Please take the time to navigate through the site for the best descriptions and information about this company.

[Carlos]

There's also a a Do It Yourself homemade brew method for making your own biofuel turning locally collected fryer fat from restaurants into biodiesel. One of my neigbours inherited a massive early 1990's diesel Mercedes limousine and is planning a processing setup from available manuals, hardware materials, a couple 100 gallon metal barrels and a used water heater. Here is a link to an article all about it with a walkthrough including pictures and lightweight descriptors followed by a detailed list of readily available manuals. Basically it's the same process as industry on a smaller scale, it should cost about $500 and have a footprint in his garage of about 48 square feet. Not sure when he will get it built, he seems more interested, and spends more time, trying to get me to do it all instead of doing it himself. That of course is why I call him a neighbour and not a friend. I don't lend tools around the neighbourhood either. I learned the lesson that it takes months to get them back and they are always beat up, electric cords cut, always something, just a word from the wise.

http://www.pathtofreedom.com/pathprojec ... esel.shtml

[coaster]

Ok, I will give this a 16 year bump since my brainfart does not warrant a thread of its own.
What about citrus oil diesel racing?
Each orange can yeild a teaspoon from is skin.
The flesh is unaffected, you still get juice.
Its a little sooty and it smells like caramel after combustion, but it burns well.



Puritans be damned, why would they even bother being interested in motorsport?

[Tommy Cookers]

well ....
citrus oil aromas have been associated via F1 with iirc synthetic mercaptans and diterpenes etc .....
as ingredients of high-energy/high octane fuels for SI engines (so might be poor for CI engine use ?)
cottonseed oil has similar properties

another matter fwiw ....

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol31 ... vermed.gif
Science, February 8th, 2008:
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially. Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases, Timothy Searchinger et al.
"The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land.... So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Joseph Fargione et al.--
NYT: "In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. `We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,´ the letter said."

as above, ethanol from maize (corn) will always be poor value (or worse) GHGwise - sugarcane ethanol isn't as bad
seemingly the UK imports from the USA its 10% bio-ethanol for petrol (gasoline) ....
indigenous production of low grade wheat-derived combined cattle-feed+bio-ethanol not having take off

palm oil (a big ingredient of HVO diesel fuel) apparently often gives a perpetual GHG increase (not a GHG reduction)
but the laws don't recognise this
(and ironically the associated soil bacteria also produce much NOx)
palm oil is o/c wildly popular as a food ingredient - because product-labeling law favours it as a 'vegetable' product
though its chemistry is that associated in said law with classification as an 'animal' product

[Hoffman900]

The carbon footprint on these is not zero and is a game of whack a mole.

Depleting aquifers, dead zone runoff from fertilizer, clear cutting forests, mono-culture is not an answer.

[Tommy Cookers]

Burning Ice -- Methane Hydrates
Below the ocean floors around the world are vast deposits of frozen methane. This is a possible energy source. A lot of research and actual drilling projects are already underway. It has been suggested 'hydrocarbon ice' could be a fuel source for hundreds of generations.
Carbon Neutral Methane Energy Production From Hydrate Deposits Pilot Research
http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-pr ... index.html
India & China Exploit Icy Energy Reserves
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 78,00.html

of course 15 years ago we were allowed to think that methane was good stuff ...
afaik we have since been told that said 'methane ice' is far less abundant than was hoped ....
handily for our belief managers

our UK has quite a lot of electricity made by wood burning ....
increasingly used as EV fuel