Three perspectives on the biofuels debate

08 Dec 2006

Imagine how amazing petroleum must have seemed back when it was an emerging alternative fuel in the U.S. Drill a hole in the ground in some parts of Texas and Pennsylvania, and rich black stuff would come gushing up, loaded with energy. What could possibly be the problem with such bounty?

In some quarters, biofuels inspire similar wide-eyed wonder today. They are, after all, renewable and carbon-neutral ... right?

An introduction to Grist's special series on biofuels.

Can My Car Do That? Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel.

The Big Three. The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S.

What About the Land? A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world.

Give Green, Go Yellow. How cash and corporate pressure pushed ethanol to the fore.

More articles on biofuels.

By now, most environmentalists are aware that biofuel production as currently practiced generates serious ecological problems. Moreover, it's dominated by a few corporations that, despite billions in public subsidies, clearly place profit over ecological and social concerns.

As we wrap up the first week of our biofuels series, we're offering three views on the country's fuelish future. Ana Unruh Cohen, director for environmental policy at the Center for American Progress, argues that current federal policy, for all its encouragement of biofuel production, offers few incentives for sustainable practices on the farm or at the refinery. With just a few tweaks, she writes, that could change. David Morris of the Institute for Local Reliance offers his own set of tweaks for how federal policy could wrest production from corporate dominance and put it in the hands of farmers and small community investors. "Ownership matters," he writes.

Finally, Grist interviews the biofuel movement's No. 1 scourge, David Pimentel. The curmudgeonly Cornell professor claims that biofuels represent a fundamentally flawed strategy: vegetation simply doesn't store enough of the sun's energy to make an efficient fuel, no matter what the process. That view has moved him increasingly out of the mainstream, but he remains worth listening to as government investment in biofuels ramp up. "We're using too goddamned much oil," he says. His answer? "Conserve!"

Keep It Green, by Ana Unruh Cohen
By the People, For the People, by David Morris
Biofuel Skeptic Extraordinaire: An interview with David Pimentel, by Tom Philpott

Grist contributing writer Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

Comments: (16 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

As much as I like to disagree with more ethanol...

Pimental is wrong in his analysis because he does not apply it equally when he evaluates the petroleum industry. The energy to make tankers, pipelines, drilling rigs, trucks to explore new regions for oil, clean up costs, etc. etc. The reason you leave out the energy to make the combines, vehicles and other equipement in ethanol production because they are preexisting structures that would be utilized to produce other crops and are not single use items. For example if a corn/bean farmer were not producing corn for ethanol he would still own all the same equipment so that he would produce soybeans and another crop such as wheat for food/feed consumption. The energy would be used whether corn was produced or not. I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage that pimental applies to the ethanol industry if the energy were tallied up to get a gallon of gas to the pumps.

by ethanoloverload at 3:02 PM on 08 Dec 2006

Pimentel Parsed

I would just like to re-refer folks to an excellent ethanol analysis performed by Robert McElroy, an environmental studies professor at Harvard University (it's a chapter in an upcoming book but is available online at his faculty homepage). In this chapter, McElroy compares the assumptions of Pimentel & Patzek to those of Shapouri & McAloon (with props to an earlier study this year published by Farrell et al. at Berkeley). He disagrees with Pimentel/Patzek's high inputs for farm labor. Farmers must eat, for instance whether they are cultivating crops for corn ethanol or for cornbread, and yet P&P insist on counting farmers' caloric intake as an energy input.
On the other hand, he sides with P&P on their criticism of the high credits many research teams assign to the co-products. Instead, he adopts the more modest "displacement method," which only gives co-products an energy savings equivalent to the most efficient conventional method of feed production.
All told, McElroy's analysis still finds corn ethanol to be energy positive by "about 20 to 30 percent."

by Maywa Montenegro at 9:15 PM on 08 Dec 2006

Loved that interview, Tom

It's telling us we're using too goddamn much fossil energy!

Where would this world be without curmudgeons?

Ethanolloverload,

"I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage"

Not to defend fossil fuel, but no biofuel can possibly hope to match the energy efficiency of pumping a highly energy dense liquid out of holes in the ground, cracking it into various forms and transporting it. The argument over energy used to make ethanol is moot in any case. It has enough environmental and economic negatives to bury it without that argument.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:18 PM on 08 Dec 2006

I love pimentel's work too...

and a massive push for biofuels will have devastating environmental consequences- it is another case of a poor reasoning, the search for a quick fix, and so many layers of government subsidies that it's dizzying- let me repeat again- remove ALL NATURAL RESORUCE SUSIDIZES- price carbon, and let the market work!!!

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

by Jason D Scorse at 11:55 AM on 10 Dec 2006

Grist Gets It Right

This guy makes sense!

by jabailo at 3:23 PM on 11 Dec 2006

moot points

The argument about the detailed EROEI of corn ethanol is pretty much irrelevant. Whether it's 0.8:1 or 1.5:1, it is not even close to being high enough to displace oil in any significant way. In order to take the place of gasoline, in a functional sense, it would need to have an EROEI of at least the same order of magnitude as gasoline production, which is 10-20:1, depending on whose numbers you use. Add in the environmental degredation of expanding monocrop corn production, and it's a clear loser for everyone who isn't ADM.

by GreenEngineer at 4:30 PM on 11 Dec 2006

Making Biofuels Work

My problem with Pimental is that he takes the present and says why it doesn't work rather than look at it as a challenge and say how can we make it work. Giving in to the status quo is no answer and conservation isn't enough.

I lived in Ithaca, too, for 6 years and I understand the Luddite mentality of the place but that is no excuse for an Ag School scientist to put the skids to every attempt at progress to an industry that, up to now, has been a godsend to so many farmers.

According to renown business and national security advocate James Woolsey switching to biofuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel represent the fastest way out of the fossil fuel paradigm. Because our national security and environmental health is depending on successful deployment, how can we make it work?

Cellulosic ethanol can be made from (negative cost) waste using syngas fermentation. Using gasification to break the lignin bonds is much more efficient than enzymatic hydrolysis Pimental talks about and uses very little water. BRI has a good description of the syngas process. It has been proven in the lab and plans for commercial-scale development should be finalized soon. It would be interesting to hear how the esteemed insect doctor from Cornell would argue the results of the work of the biotechnology chemical engineer from the U. of Arkansas.

I lament the absence of a national conservation campaign as much as Pimental. But the campaign would have to be global to have much meaning - and Asia has too much invested in industrialization to make conservation here worth anything.

-- C. Scott Miller BIOconversion Blog

by millercs at 9:10 PM on 11 Dec 2006

We Are Drowning In Oil! And We Don't Know It

Recent news from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields highlights once again the United States reliance on importing oil, in this case from Alaska. Together with insecure sources such as Iran, Venezuela, Senegal and volatile Middle Eastern countries, the imperative for a safe secure and absolutely reliable source of this commodity for our economy becomes of the highest priority. It is long since past time for the United States to stop ignoring a homegrown solution which can provide the nation with sufficient oil to satisfy virtually all of its needs without ever importing another barrel of oil or having to waste literally hundreds of billions of dollars extracting oil from the earth. Within the boundaries of the United States we are literally and figuratively drowning in oil and don't know it.

Each and every year the sun shines on the earth and transfers its energy to all growing things. We humans plant and grow vegetation to feed both ourselves and the animals we husband and subsequently consume. The result is an enormous quantity of waste, both animal and vegetable which becomes increasingly difficult to dispose of, but which is potentially a never ending source for the production of oil.

The stated purpose of the government's search for alternative energy sources is to reduce or eliminate the need for importing oil. Time and time again the President has stated that "technological innovation" will hopefully produce a solution to the energy "crisis". Were it not for the obstinate refusal of the administration to recognize the existence of a currently readily available, technological innovative system, the nation could be three years down the road to real oil independence.

"Oil", as we all know has become a three letter dirty word in America's lexicon. However we view it, good, bad or indifferent, oil will be with us for many years to come, for it is not untrue that America's economy is literally lubricated by oil. Insofar as the future is concerned consider that the current population of the United States is roughly 300 million. Demographers estimate that by 2040, the U. S. population will exceed 400 million souls. That is a 33% increase in but 34 years. Where in the name of all that's holy, will the necessary energy come from? Other energy sources, hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear and others have unique properties and will obviously fill certain energy requirements but they do not compare to the manifold uses we have found for oil Oil will have a future for as long as we can see down the road for there is nothing else which can manifest itself in so many forms in our daily lives. Given that oil is a necessary "evil", and given the generally accepted postulation that oil is finite, where will it come from?

About a decade ago a patent was issued by the United States Patent Office for a process then called thermal depolymerization process (since changed for obvious reasons to thermal conversion process or (TCP) which can take any non-nuclear material containing carbon, which is anything which has ever grown, including you and me, and produce a diesel fuel quality oil in two short hours! Additionally, the system produces a number of useful and viable byproducts and ultimately discharges potable water. Everything emanating from this system is completely benign to the environment, and in fact, rather than creating environmental problems, resolves them. In this scenario "waste" becomes an oxymoron. As one small example, the city of Philadelphia is producing oil from its sewage. The oil thus produced may be additionally refined into gasoline or other useful byproducts used to manufacture plastics, and as a feedstock is useful for many other products. There currently exists in Carthage, MO, a pilot facility producing 500 barrels of oil per day from about 200 tons of turkey effluvia from a nearby Butterball turkey processing plant and the oil thus produced is sold as a heat producing fuel, demonstrating the viability of the concept. The efficiency of the TCP system runs in the range of 85%, meaning that 15% of the energy introduced is utilized to extract 85%. These are extraordinary numbers.

You might well ask why, if this system is so good, you have not heard of it and why it is producing a mere 500 barrels per day in this vast country with so much waste being produced. There are good and sufficient reasons.

First of all, as a fledgling industry, TCP encountered start up problems usually associated with any new development, and being relatively new, may still endure problems with different feedstocks. Given time these will be overcome. Feedstocks may vary from slaughterhouse effluvia to tires to discarded plastics, and each different feedstock requires a different processing modality, and the development of those methods takes time.

Secondly, and more importantly, as a new industry, subsidies in the form of tax credits have not been forthcoming from the federal government to enable this industry to become established. As an example of what is missing, ethanol, currently the darling of the energy and environmental policy wonks, has been granted subsidies (tax credits) running through 2012 resulting in a rush to construct new facilities which effectively guarantee profits. Ethanol is however a guaranteed loser in the long run, since its prohibitive cost together with less energy output than gasoline is actually counterproductive to its stated goals. (See www.taxpayer.net/energy/raceforsubsidies.html) If similar support were extended to TCP, entrepreneurs would correspondingly react, and TCP plants would spring up all over the country where source material was most accessible.

As examples of such conditions, a small town, Hereford, TX, has one of the largest stockyards in the country. They are faced with the monumental task of disposing of some 6200 tons of manure each day. If it can happen in Philadelphia, it can happen in Hereford.

A recent television program was devoted to the garbage disposal problem of Los Angeles. One of their dumps receives 2000 tons of garbage per hour to be deposited on a dump that is already deeper than the Statue of Liberty is high!

These are but two isolated illustrations of what is happening across the entire nation in cities, towns and hamlets facing problems of disposal of their agricultural waste, industrial waste, their garbage and their sewage. In many instances, dumps leak effluent such as PCP's and dioxin, into the groundwater contaminating it and endangering public health. When one becomes aware of the possibilities of TCP to resolve not only the oil crisis but concomitantly also resolve environmental problems one wonders why the federal government continues to support an expensive ethanol boondoggle (scam is a better word) while ignoring a system which more quickly than any other can substantially reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil, which is, after all, the purported goal. The deeper one looks onto the advantageous attending to this invention the more one uncovers.

Following is an incomplete list of benefits to be derived from the introduction of the TCP system into our economy. When reviewing his list, picture in your mind's eye these benefits working on behalf of the government and its citizens.
.
1.    All manner of cultivated agricultural waste can be processed into oil and other valuable byproducts.
2.    Recapturable animal wastes can be processed into oil and byproducts.
3.    Slaughterhouse waste from all animal types can be similarly processed into oil, as is currently being demonstrated by the Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, MO.
4.    Bio-hazardous hospital waste can be safely processed for oil with the TCP system, with no hazardous output.
5.    Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) (mad cow disease) material may be safely processed as with all other types of animal byproducts, with no harmful output. All prions are destroyed.
6. Unsightly landgrabbing garbage dumps are eliminated as all garbage is choice feedstock.
7. Tire dumps are eliminated because they already contain both oil and carbon.
8.    Any community producing waste, including sewage, can produce its own oil and gas for use or sale as they see fit, therefore their waste becomes a source of income to the community.
9. Because the efficiency of the system is so high, (85%) the cost of production will
drop to competitive rates when large scale production is reached.
10.    With reduced oil costs, all industries dependent upon oil for their source material could produce and sell for less. This could have enormous impact across the entire spectrum of the economy.
11. A whole new industry would be born with consequent creation of jobs and a whole
new tax base and revenue source for government.
12.    Within ten years the U. S. could be independent of foreign (read Saudi) oil.
13.    With all oil production entirely confined within the U. S., container ships could be virtually obsolete, and thus remove future oil spills. This has tremendous environmental impact.
14.    Totally reliable, steady oil prices. This could become the bedrock for a more stable economy.
15.    The beneficial impact of this development on the environment, including possible (probable?) reduction on carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and consequent global warning.
16.    The creation of means to assist poorer nations to develop and sustain their own never-ending source of energy. For each nation, large or small, which utilizes this system to create its own source of oil, the pressure on the international oil market would be diminished to the point where oil could become one of the least expensive commodities on the international market.
17.    The elimination of international charges that the United States' efforts in the Middle East and other regions is dictated by their need for oil.
18.    Should the President announce that the Administration is supporting this new development, OPEC could respond by immediately dropping the price of its oil to protect market share.
19. Given a reliable never ending source of oil, the U. S. might well find the Strategic Petroleum Reserve an unnecessary luxury.
20. Since a facility may be rapidly constructed with off the shelf equipment currently employed in the
oil refinery field, new facilities may be rapidly constructed and the ten year dream of freedom from
imported oil becomes a reality not a pipe dream.
21.An entire new industry will supply the Treasury with a huge new source of revenue, as will the
thousands of new workers employed in the field.
22. Manufacturing oil within the U. S. will deny Iran, Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern oil rich
countries the petro dollars they use to support anti-American terrorist groups
23. Last, but far from least, the reduction of oil imports will have an enormous effect on reducing the
trade deficit.

Further information concerning the process may be found at: www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/
And
www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/anything-oil
And at
CWT's web site at Changing World Technologies, Inc.and from Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES).

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocos...

Public ignorance of this remarkable development is an overriding reason why Congress and the administration give it such short shrift. Most assuredly if the general public knew of this system and the potential it contains to alleviate the reliance on imported oil and the resultant ultimate reduction in the price of all things dependent on oil, there would develop a huge hue and cry for the government to get off its duff and support this concept. Without the dissemination of that knowledge, the country will continue to rely on unreliable, insecure sources resulting in ever escalating oil prices.

If, after reviewing the above sources you are convinced that this system is worthy of implementation into our economy, pass the word to friends, family, colleagues, whomever, to join with us in not only spreading the word, but inundating Congress with the requirement that if they wish you to vote for them, they must support this invention. As Jack Kennedy once so famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

ADDENDUM

With the current cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, Hezbollah has reclaimed the streets of Behrut and proclaimed victory. They have informed the public not to accept aid for rebuilding from any organization but Hezbollah. Given the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars required for such an effort, where does the money come from if not from Iran? And where does Iran get its riches? From oil!
It requires no great leap of imagination to recognize that if petro dollars were denied Iran, their enormous expenditures for terrorist support and nuclear experimentation would require some rethinking of their priorities. The rapid development of this system into our economy is one type of "sanction", if one wishes to call it that, which can be benign, peaceful, far reaching and very effective.

The announcement by the United States government that one of their highest priorities would be the rapid implementation of the TCP system into our economy, would have not only national, but global significance as well..

J. W. Hoechst

by jhoechst at 12:21 PM on 21 Dec 2006

Shattering the 'Royal Deception'

As one of the "well-intentioned" or not so "well-intentioned commentators" piling on the scorn, you decide which, here is yet another steaming shovel-full.

Though the crux of Morris' well-intentioned piece is to celebrate the viability of an autonomous biofuel industry free from the serfdom of corporate globalization, as he points out, you may in fact be able to get there from here, but where exactly do you think you are going, and is there anyway to come back home?

An initiative based on government subsidies will get us nowhere fast. Off the top of my head, keep it much more local at the start if that is where you want to end up. State initiatives that fund locally owned production and distribution facilities from coffers filled by conservation and reduction efforts across the state cutting financial inputs into the energy grid as it operates currently. Citizens that want to see the potential benefit of a local, directly democratic biofuel 'industry,' will have to rise to the occasion, cutting need and overall use thus generating excess state and local funds to then 'subsidize' state and local alternative energy projects.

The last thing we need is the feds pulling more money out of health care and such for research and development into biotechfuels and deforestation, padding the same dirty lobbyist and industry accounts already getting rich in the agribusiness, biotech and energy sectors.

Please read my recent article, "Shattering the 'Royal Decption,' online at http://www.gefreemaine.org/article.php?story=200609261613 ... or in print in the January 2007 issue of Acres USA magazine, for more well-intentioned grease lightning.

by Feiner at 11:45 AM on 06 Feb 2007

Bioenergy

for daily updated news on bioenergy, ethanol and climate issues, please visit:
http://www.ethanol-news.de

http://www.ethanol-news.de

by kgpc at 2:20 AM on 31 May 2007

Good

Good reply!

飞机票

by peter lauce at 8:17 PM on 30 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

dying of pollution

Good news! At last the symptoms- pollution- are taking care of the problem-OVERPOPULATION.

by bailsout at 10:58 AM on 20 Aug 2007

Loved that interview.

I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage.

減肥, 成立公司, 鋼琴搬運, 搬屋公司, 運輸公司, 物流公司

by vismart at 7:21 AM on 05 Jun 2008

Loved that interview.

網頁設計公司 - 面膜 - C.L面膜紙 - MaybleSally面膜紙 - Ki Kycehuaugn iackuen面膜紙 - Joseristine面膜紙 - Beauty Life面膜紙 - paper mask - 泰拳 - Thai Boxing

by chow80715 at 11:03 AM on 26 Jun 2008

kk

網頁設計公司-
網頁設計-
C.L 面膜紙-
MaybleSally 面膜紙-
Ki Kycehuaugn iackuen 面膜紙-
Joseristine 面膜紙-
Beauty Life 面膜紙-
面膜-
paper mask-
保濕 mask
美白面膜紙
泰拳-
Thai Boxing

by chow80715 at 7:38 AM on 30 Jun 2008

kk

網頁製作-
互聯網網頁製作-
網上商店-
網站設計-
網頁設計-
web design

by chow80715 at 11:35 AM on 30 Jun 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Choose Your Own Bio-Adventure

Three perspectives on the biofuels debate