Biofuels in perspective

[kristopher]

THE FALSE PROMISE OF BIOFUELS
C O N T E N T S

PREFACE: NO MAGIC ELIXIR
1. EIGHT BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT BIOFUELS

Introduction

1. Is Ethanol a Viable Substitute for Petroleum Based Gasoline?
Net Energy
Limits of Corn Production
Box 1: Calculating Net Energy
Box 2: The Historic Decline in Net Energy from Oil

2. What Impact Does Corn for Ethanol Have on Food Supply and Cost?
Box 3: Franken-Foods to Franken-Fuels: The Role of GM Corn

3. Is There Enough Fresh Water to Produce Ethanol?

4. What is the Impact of Ethanol on Soil Fertility?
Loss of Nutrients/Removing Crop Residues
Other Impacts

5. What is the Impact of Agrofuel Production on Forests?
Plantation Forests
Agrofuel Sustainability
Box 4: Unique Characteristics of Fossil Fuels

6. Does Ethanol Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Pollutants?

7. What is the Impact of Agrofuels on Poor and Indigenous Peoples?

8. Does Ethanol Production Make Economic Sense?

CONCLUSION: THE WAY FORWARD — How to Achieve Energy Security, Deal with Climate Change, Avoid Pollution and Help the Poor

http://ips-dc.org/reports/070915_biofuels_report.pdf

[GoesTo11]

1. But ethanol is great

for corn farmers.


Alternative: Didn't someone once say conservation is a nice lifestyle choice (if not an energy policy)?

[Fledermaus]

2. It's absurd to claim gasoline/oil has a positive energy balance.

Anybody that claims to have a energy system with a energy return greater than one has allot to explain.

Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system.

The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:
You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).


You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).


You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm

If you want a more scientific explanation you can google up "thermodynamic laws"

Biomass does not violate these laws. Free solar energy/photosynthesis gives biomass a positive energy balance.

[GliderGuider]

3. Say I were to agree with your argument,

on the basis that we must (for whatever reason) set the system boundaries wide enough to account for the stored solar energy in the fossil fuel.

What then? What does accepting your position buy us in functional terms?

We already know that fossil fuel is a finite resource, and that by using it we "burn" hundreds of years' worth of stored ancient sunlight every year. We know that it takes a certain flow of energy every year to keep civilization running, whether that flow is extracted from in-year stocks of fresh biomass or ancient multi-year stocks of "fossilized" biomass.

How would changing our net energy accounting practices as you suggest be more beneficial than simply accepting the facts in the previous paragraph?

This is a serious question, with no sarcasm intended at all. You're adamant about this position, and I'd like to know why.

[Fledermaus]

4. The GREET model is valid...noone was present a billion years ago

to claim the solar energy as part of todays energy system. From well to pump and on gasoline/oil has a negative energy balance. This is what any energy replacement must be measured against.

I would suggest that our relation to energy 50 years from now will be completely different than now. Energy consumption per person will have to change. What that may look like is just a guess. Current trends indicate: wind, solar, biomass with nuclear/fossil supplying base loads. Vehicle to grid vehicles ruining some sort of blend of bio fuel and gasoline. Mass-transit, busses, trains, subways, trolley cars will return to our cities.

Distributed power generation with co generation will become the norm.

I would also add that developing countries can jump strait to this type of model without developing our outdated energy systems or our preconceptions and ideas. Sunlabob gives a good idea as what that may look like. http://www.sunlabob.com/en/what-is-sunlabob.html

[GliderGuider]

5. Why do you say

"From well to pump and on gasoline/oil has a negative energy balance"

If you said "From sunlight through phytoplankton to well to pump" I'd agree. However, if you exclude the original solar energy, all that matters is what energy passes each way across the system boundary. If you don't include the original solar energy, then the energy balance of transfers across the boundary can indeed be positive, though only for a short time. When we talk about long term sustainability we must consider the primary solar energy source in both the renewable and fossil cases, and of course fossil energy loses because it's finite. If we talk about how much energy our civilization needs to operate over the short term, we end up comparing stocks and flows, with the stocks having a short lifespan and the flows having low concentration.

I still don't see how your accounting technique improves our understanding of this situation or our ability to cope or adapt. What am I missing here?

[kristopher]

8. Is this a response to the OP?

I'm assuming it is since you refer to post #2 in your question. I've already responded to the "facts in the previous paragraph", so I'll proceed from there. The accounting practices of Wang etal are only an issue because they are deceptive and because they are being used to deceive. Perhaps the best way to explain it is to draw a parallel at the personal level. If you were the leader of a group of hunter gatherers and the energy units we were discussing were calories, would you spend expend your energy taking your group to a region where the average caloric "take" per hunter was a meager 1.2X his daily expenditure of calories? Or would you seek a hunting ground that returned 35X-70X the daily expenditure?

Yes, fossil fuels need to be replaced. The question is, "what do we replace them with?" The decisions behind the massive funding of ethanol are bad policy decisions and the science behind the GREET analytic method is ambiguous to the point of being deliberately deceptive. It is nothing but a tool to serve special interests that benefit from the ethanol subsidies instead of a genuine analytic tool for scientists and policymakers. The challenge we are facing is huge, and this is another false path just like hydrogen.
In both cases, basic analysis showed early on that the public expenditures on these programs was a terrific waste of valuable (and finite) resources. Failures such as H and ethanol also damage the public's willingness to support programs that will work, as they tend to lump them all together in much the same way Marvin does.

We already KNOW that wind and solar (both thermal and PV) have a much greater ERoEI than biomass. So why are we talking about (and spending HUGE sums of $$ on) something with a 1.2X return when we have vast amounts of 50X+ just waiting to be developed?


Does that answer your question?

If you have read the attached document, you know the many reasons that biomass is not a suitable alternative for powering the transportation sector. If you'd like to discuss or question anything in it, I'd enjoy the discussion. I took no offense at your inquiry.


From "False Promise of Biofuels"

*"In practical terms, even the most comprehensive net energy analyses exclude many indirect ener-
gy inputs simply because they are too numerous to identify and measure. It is generally assumed
that these indirect effects are small. But in reality, the cumulative magnitude of these excluded
inputs is unknown. What is certain is that anynet energy calculation is an overestimate of the
actual energy return for energy invested because many indirect energy inputs are, for practical
purposes, excluded from the calculation. Therefore, the most complete picture is one which
includes as many legitimate energy inputs as possible. This is one reason why only fuels with a
high net energy ratio (e.g. greater than 10:1) should be seriously considered as worthy of support
by policy analysts.
However, the debate over whether the net energy from corn ethanol is negative or slightly posi-
tive misses the bigger picture. The studies that report a positive net energy ratio report that it is
less than 2:1, or at the very most, 4 to 1. While the higher figure of 4 to 1 for ethanol may appear
somewhat attractive, its reliability is questionable as it is based on assumptions that are not sup-
ported by most researchers. But what is more critical is that even a 4 to 1 net energy return is far
lower than the 100 to 1 ratio that existed for oil at the beginning of the last century, or the current
net energy for global oil which is about 20 to 113 (See Box 4). Replacing oil that has a 20 to 1 net
energy with ethanol that has a 4 to 1 ratio is a bad bargain. It could bring a major crisis for the
entire industrial system.
Even if ethanol has a net energy return of 4 to 1 (ignoring for the moment the methodological
weaknesses of the calculation), relying on a fuel with such a low energy return would have a dra-
matic impact on our economy. If the entire U.S. vehicle fleet were to be run on ethanol we would
have to invest 5 times as much energy (and finances) to obtain the same amount of energy we
are currently getting with a 20 to 1 net energy return from oil. If the energy cost of corn ethanol
is only 2:1 or less, then we would have to invest 20 times as much energy and finances to keep
the current fleet moving. The most comprehensive energy accounting indicates that the net ener-
gy from corn to ethanol is actually less than 2:1, and may even be negative; that is, it may actual-
ly take more energy to produce the ethanol than is contained in the ethanol. This single point
makes corn to ethanol an absurd proposition as a replacement for oil."

[kristopher]

6. You appear to be confused

No one is suggesting anything that would be considered a violation of the laws of physics. The fact that you think it is being suggested is therefore a statement that you either don't understand the what is being discussed or you are employing a red herring. I'm not surprised if it is confusion, since that seems to be the entire point of Wang's work on ethanol. It is, in my view, as deliberate an attempt at creating confusion as anything produced by Exxon or the tobacco companies.

If you have a more specific criticism, I'd love to discuss it with you, but so far, all you've done is throw some crap against the wall to see what sticks.

From the referenced paper:

"It takes energy to produce energy, and it is obvious that a desirable fuel should provide considerably more energy than it takes to produce it. The amount of energy that is left after the input energy is subtracted from the output energy is referred to as net energy. Input energy for oil production, for example, includes items like the energy costs of the drilling process, the construction and transport of the drilling rigs, the manufacture of all materials used in these processes, and so on. The net energy is the amount of surplus energy available beyond the energy used to produce it."

[GliderGuider]

7. As far as I can tell,

I think Fledermaus's objection is to the placement of the system boundaries for the net energy analysis of fossil fuels. I think he's saying we have to consider the ancient sunshine embedded in those fuels in the net energy calculations. On the other hand, his argument is constructed and communicated poorly, so I may have completely misunderstood the point. If my understanding is correct, I'm back to wondering, "So what"?

[kristopher]

9. I think Fledermaus is responding as it is hoped people would

You've phrased it very well but I think the point of the discussion is what we are talking about generally rather than the details of GREET. It is like climate change, if we are talking about whether it is real or not, natural or not, then we aren't talking about what we have to do to address it.
If, regarding renewable energy policy, we are talking about a confusing analysis that generally supports what people want to believe, then we are not talking about whether or not the ICE is 12% efficient, or whether ethanol can actually support a technological society etc.

[Fledermaus]

10. Outrageous claims need to be proven.

Via your reference, you claim that gasoline/oil has a positive energy balance. It is up to you to prove it.

No energy system has positive energy balance. Perhaps someone should explain to the Reverend Malthus/Dr Who how biomass arrives at a positive energy balance, before he travels back in time and starts killing dinosaurs.

The GREET model is pier reviewed and is used by various governments and universities across the world.

[kristopher]

11. Yes it is peer reviewed. Did you bother to read the reviews? They pan it.

I've posted, with link, the ones from Science several times. Did you bother to read them? They say the same thing I'm saying.

I'm not going to waste my time butting heads with a person who can't even articulate a specific question to be answered. You are making unfounded claims about what I've supposedly said, so, please provide a quote and a specific objection and we can discuss it.
However, I'll tell you up front, I'm not going to go round and round with someone that acts like a dick and is intent on arguing through the use of tactics such as red herrings and false appeals to authority.

[Fledermaus]

12. Are we to believe that there is some sort of vast conspiracy?

Involving the Federal Government, various state governments, European and Asian governments, along with numerous universities from around the world?

The only evidence you can provide us with is your BS blog.

Can you provide us with one government or university that supports your claims that the GREET model is BS?

[kristopher]

13. Actually, you're right.

I've been criticizing the GREET model when it is actually the product of that model published by Wang, and the manner some of those findings have been mischaracterized that I object to. The model itself is a very comprehensive (if bulky) instrument, and it isn't to be blamed for its misuse.

The attempt to make ethanol sound attractive by portraying it as an economically viable alternative to fossil fuels is, however, a vast effort at serving selfish interests (if you want to call that a loose conspiracy, I'd probably agree) by the Federal Government, various state governments,...(and) numerous universities.
Yes, it is.

[Fledermaus]

19. Oh!, Please do go on.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/bigsas.htm

[gear_head]

16. everything depends where you draw the system boundry

if the ethanol system includes the
natural gas field,
energy gain is huge

[wtmusic]

14. Why is the discussion limited to corn?

Cane sugar produces 7x as much ethanol as corn. Brazil needs to expand it's sugar production by 1/3 by 2010 to keep up with demand.

If there's a lousy EROEI in biofuel someone forgot to fill them in.

[losthills]

15. How are they going to do that?

Oh yeah, burn down more of their rainforest.

[wtmusic]

17. Exactly

But the US is in the driver's seat. If we substituted strict environmental demands on equatorial countries for bogus self-defeating import tariffs, we could have our cake and eat it too.

As OP has shown, subsidizing an ethanol industry based on a 1.2x EROEI is a waste. Why not subsidize the US sugar industry directly, and put corn back on the dinner table?

Seems the problem is not technological but the result of too much favoritism and not enough vision.

[kristopher]

18. Brazilian ethonol is human labor intensive, not fossil fuel intensive

I've seen an analysis that pointed out that most of the difference in reported EROI between US corn ethanol and Brazilian sugar ethanol is to be found in the uncounted energy costs of human labor which they figured at 3000 calories/day/laborer. Adding that to the energy input basically equalized US - Brazil's production.

[wtmusic]

20. Do you have a link?

TIA.

[kristopher]

21. Well, not exactly.

I'm not having luck with Google Scholar. I don't recall where I saw it, so it was probably a reference from a blog somewhere. I recall it referred to HT Odum. And I have a paper on that for you titled
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBS-4CBV3D4-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F15%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5934&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2633839f4737e669f4e5a7851df7df7e
"Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s contributions to quantifying and understanding systems"
by Mark T Brown Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Sergio Ulgiatib Department of Chemistry, University of Siena, Italy
Abstract

We present in this article, a brief historical overview of the development of the concepts and theories of energy quality, and net energy that were the precursors to emergy. The concepts evolved over decades, beginning in the 1950s with Odum’s work on tracing energy flows in ecosystems. During the 1970s, Odum’s attention was drawn to larger scale systems that included the economies of humans and the concept of net energy. In the 1980s, Odum quantified energy quality and defined it as a “donor-based” evaluation technique. In the 1990s, energy quality was further refined and rigorous definitions for “emergy” and “transformity” were given. The units of emergy were defined as solar emjoules (abbreviated seJ) and the units of transformity were seJ/J. In addition, we provide some insights into the types of processes and systems that have been evaluated using emergy methods.


I also recall the basic claim of what I read, 3000 calories/laborer/day and another 20,000or so for transportation, housing etc.

The article below reveals the size of the workforce, and from another source I gathered that currently works out to about 8 laborers/hectare.

Since I can't find such a study, I'm either not looking in the right database (it a little restricted when I research from home) or it hasn't been done yet and the blog entry author had done a back of the envelope effort based on Odum.
I don't see labor accounted for in any of the several papers i scanned, so I think the assertion that it is missing is legitimate. Can't vouch for the numbers except to say that they seem like reasonable inputs to consider.

Luiz Fernando Furlan
"Ethanol and Renewable Fuels:
The Brazilian Experience"

April 20, 2005

Minister Luiz Fernando Furlan speaking in the Lounge of the Women's Faculty Club on April 20.

Ethanol and Renewable Fuels: The Brazilian Experience
By Lavinia Barros de Castro
<snip>

I can't locate the original, and I'm not sure of the

Ethanol Consumption in Brazil

Brazil is the biggest consumer of ethanol in the world. Currently, Brazil has six million hectares devoted to ethanol production from sugar cane. However, according to research by Embrapa (The Brazilian state’s Agricultural Research Corporation), there is the potential for up to 90 million hectares of sugar cane to be planted across a much broader geographical area, southern Brazil being the only region unsuitable for ethanol production. Meanwhile, the price of ethanol is currently lower than oil, and it is a cleaner burning fuel.

As a labor-intensive activity, ethanol production can also create jobs and therefore encourage development, particularly in Brazil’s poorest areas. Today, one million people are employed as a result of the sugar cane industry’s activities in Brazil. But the sector, if expanded, could create an additional one million jobs directly and 1.5 million indirectly.

The average size of a sugar cane plantation is 20 thousand hectares, producing around 1.5 million tons of sugar cane per annum. The organization of the firm can vary, from a single large plantation to a farmers’ cooperative. In Brazil, there are about 100,000 independent producers of sugar cane whose crops are used to produce not only ethanol but also Cachaça, Brazil’s national drink, a type of rum. As the Brazilians say: “The best we drink, the rest we burn.”

[wtmusic]

22. Was the energy required for transportation and housing of American workers

factored in as well? What about American machinery -- maintenance costs, the well-to-pump costs for the fuel, the manufacturing costs?

If not, why not?

[kristopher]

23. I think most analysis

Any analysis is going to underestimate the full costs precisely because it is simply not possible to account for all the inputs that are actually part of the process - a point your question makes so well. I think most biofuels analysis are limited to the fuel for farming equipment and fertilizer. It would also include fuel for the transportation of the raw materials from field to processing plant to pump.

As to the American workers, I don't think they are accounted for either. However, at the farm level in the US, I'd consider that a minor point. In Brazil, it sounds like 8 workers/hectare may be about right, here you probably have one direct worker for several thousand hectares. To me, this means that the Brazilian workers are commensurate with the US machinery and that to be valid, a comparison must include them as an offset to the costs of the fossil for machinery. Since the upstream costs of the fossils are a relatively low percentage of the total at the ethanol plant, it would seem safe to ignore them unless there is a compelling reason to take the analysis to that point. Food and transportation for the workers however, would seem to be a large part of their costs.

An easy way to possibly figure it out would be to find the stats on US sugar cane ethanol and compare them with Brazilian ethanol. I would presume that if the premise of labor being important were true, sugar ethanol stats in the US would be X less efficient than sugar ethanol in Brazil. The X is probably the labor value.