Stanford Study - More Than 80% Of Cropland Increases Since 1980 Came At Expense Of Forests

[hatrack]

More than half of cropland expansion between 1980 and 2000 occurred at the expense of natural forests, while another 30 percent of occurred in disturbed forests, reported a Stanford University researcher presenting Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

Holly Gibbs, formerly of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, reached her conclusion after analyzing more than 600 satellite images from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other organizations.

"What we found was that indeed forests were the primary source for new croplands as they expanded across the tropics during the 1980s and 1990s," Gibbs explained. "Cropland expansion, whether it's for fuel, feed or food, has undoubtedly led to more deforestation, and evidence is mounting that this trend will continue."

"This is a major concern for the global environment," she continued. "As we look toward biofuels to help reduce climate change we must consider the rainforests and savannas that may lie in the pathway of expanding biofuel cropland."

EDIT

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0215-gibbs_forest_loss.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. No great surprise there… it's a fair bet that not much came from parking lots.

(Sigh)

[Lorien]

2. "we must consider the rainforests and savannas that may lie in the

pathway of expanding biofuel cropland"

Er, we kinda need those rainforests to, well, BREATHE. Biofuels are NOT the answer.

[kristopher]

3. Not allbiofuels impinge on cropland

Algae for example, is highly productive when grown in greenhouse environments. Given higher fossil fuel prices, it looks to be a very probable solution to our need for an energy carrier that has high energy density and is carbon neutral.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Of course, you'll need to make large algae-growing facilities, which will take room

One of my other concerns about algae is the water required. Assuming that you build large facilities out in the desert, where there's plenty of sun, and space, you'll need a lot of water.
http://www.unr.edu/nevadanews/templates/details.aspx?articleid=4810&zoneid=40

However, on the whole, from what I've seen, I think algae is one of the most promising biofuel sources.

[kristopher]

5. ???

Your "concerns"?

Do you have the capacity to maintain focus for just a couple of minutes? The point is that the use of biofuels isn't contingent upon the conversion of forest space to farmland. Your "concerns" have absolutely no bearing on that issue.

Do you really think that your link is informative relative to either your "concerns" or the original topic? It doesn't appear to be very relevant as it doesn't even begin to touch on the resource and space requirements of algae in comparison to other high energy density options.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Could you possibly tone down your antagonism just a touch? (It does get tiresome.)

I did say I thought algae was one of the most promising sources of biofuel.

However, regarding the relevance of the article, check the picture:


A pond (taking up space) and evaporating water, which last I knew was in short supply in the desert.

http://www.unr.edu/nevadanews/templates/details.aspx?articleid=4810&zoneid=40

…

The project, using one of two 5,000-gallon ponds at the University’s greenhouse complex on Valley Road in Reno, produced several hundred gallons of concentrated algal slurry. …

I don't know how much water was lost in the process of making those "several hundred gallons" of slurry. I don't know the surface area of the pond, or how long it took to grow enough algae.

Here are some figures of interest (I don't know how current they are.):
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

…

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. …

OK, so here's a different use of desert land:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

…

(I don't need to tell you about the efficiency of current PV technology. Let's call this a low-ball figure, which makes up for the biodiesel figures above.)

(15,000 square miles for transportation sector vs 10,000 square miles for electricity. Hmmm… apples and oranges…)

We need some basic data for comparison. Here we go!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html


So, let's say we use 3/4's as much energy in the transportation sector as we do in the form of electricity. But to provide that electricity using solar panels requires 2/3's as much space as for the ponds to grow the algae for transportation fuel. (Do you agree?)

Based on these estimates, and they are just estimates, it looks to me like in square footage terms at least, solar is a lot more efficient than growing algae.

This is why—although I think algae seems to be the most promising source of biofuel—I prefer solar.

If you want to produce fuel—although I know you disagree—I think you're better off going with solar hydrogen, especially if it can be produced at "http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956">almost 100-percent efficiency." (Mind you, once again, water is a concern for me. First, you need to split a fair deal of it, second, you're producing the same amount of water vapor at the other end… I dunno, it's just a "concern" I have.)

[kristopher]

7. You're still off target.

That is a pretty flaccid analysis. It is difficult to know where to start; but let's go with the remark about producing hydrogen at almost 100% efficiency. While an increase in production efficiency such as you're talking about is noteworthy, it isn't even close to bring system efficiency to a competitive level.

Perhaps you missed the part of my original post that spoke of "greenhouse environments", but that was specified. That is a controlled process where the water is readily recycled if it is an issue. It is also worth pointing out that the most productive strains of algae (oil content varies greatly) thrive in brackish water that has few competing uses.

Using open ponds may be appropriate for some portion of the production of algae but my reading leads me to believe that the higher yields of indoor cultivation across a broader range of climates will probably be the preferred approach to DISTRIBUTED production of biodiesel.

Your attempt to compare biodiesel and electric PV is beyond absurd as it totally ignores the differing characteristics of liquid energy carriers and electric current. It is the divorce from reality that is demonstrated by this omission that is prompting the frustration you are reading as hostility.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Last I knew, you were a great advocate of electric vehicles

Naturally, they will run better on the output of a PV field, than an algae farm. That's where my comparison comes in. It also comes in as a rough comparison of efficiency.

An algae farm will not produce diesel, ready to pump into a tank. It will produce algae, which will then need to be processed to produce diesel. (This is one of the advantages of using http://www.google.com/search?q=bacteria+excrete+hydrocarbons">bacteria instead of algae.)

The output from a PV farm will be DC, ready to "pump" into LA to run all of their (theoretical) electric vehicles.


A tank of algae produced biodiesel which is 100% water efficient, will contain enough water to make the hydrocarbons. There's just no way to get around that. That water will need to be supplied somehow.


Our current primarily gasoline-powered transportation fleet can relatively easily be converted to burn hydrogen, compared to biodiesel. (The same engine can be used to burn hydrogen with minor modifications. A different storage tank is required.)

Our natural gas infrastructure can be supplied with artificially produced methane (using hydrogen and carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide.)

[kristopher]

9. EVs are the solution

EVs are the solution to the needs of the personal transportation sector, I've never indicated anything else. However a significant portion of our fossil fuel consumption is in the heavy transport and heavy equipment sector. The energy requirement for that sector cannot be fulfilled by the energy density available in batteries and ALREADY runs on diesel, no conversion is required.
As to using bacteria to extract the oils in the algae, how in the hell is that relevant to the amount of water and space used to GROW the algae? We are looking to algae as the best option for feedstock because it has a high oil content and it GROWS VERY FAST. Extraction and processing are already simple procedures that end up with a positive system energy balance of between 1:3 and 1:9. While this is nowhere near the performance of wind or solar, it is hands down better than using hydrogen as a storage medium with an energy system balance of closer to 2:1.

Your comment about water isn't even worth a further response. You got it wrong (again), just admit it instead of arguing nits. Perhaps if you understood the systems at work a little more as SYSTEMS...

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Your style of argument needs work

You tend to simply say "you're wrong" repeatedly.

When you are proven wrong, you never acknowledge it, you simply fall silent.


I believe I understand systems quite well thank-you. Algae production may work just fine in theory and in small demonstrations. One of my most basic questions is, "How well does it scale?"

The DoE, after putting a lot of work into this line of research, dropped it. They pretty much ruled out your suggestion of using greenhouses.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

…

The cost analyses for large-scale microalgae production for fuels reviewed earlier evolved from the rather superficial analysis of the 1970s to the much more detailed and sophisticated studies during the 1980s, with some updates and advances during the present decade. The basic process did not change significantly from the conceptual designs first suggested by Oswald and Golueke (1960): very large open, shallow, unlined, mixed, raceway ponds. However, the design details have evolved significantly, and current engineering and cost analyses are much more realistic.

…

Although no single design component or unit process in these engineering analyses has an overwhelming effect on costs, the cost projections are optimistic; therefore, there is relatively little scope for any further cost reductions. In most cases, engineering designs and specifications were based on the cheapest possible design and likely lowest costs. Also, the engineering design and system construction approaches were based on agricultural engineering practices, rather than those of chemical engineering, as agricultural materials and construction methods are more applicable, in addition to being of lower cost.

A major conclusion from the cost analyses is that there is little prospect for any alternative designs for microalgae production systems that would be able to meet the requirements of microalgae production for fuels. This is particularly true of closed photobioreactors, in which the culture is entirely enclosed, in greenhouses, plastic tubes or bags, or other transparent enclosures.

The costs of even the simplest such system would likely be well above what is affordable for fuel production processes. Even the simplest plastic sheeting cover over the ponds would much more than double total systems capital and operating costs. The simplest tubular photobioreactors are projected to have capital costs some ten times higher (e.g., $50/m²) than open pond designs (Benemann 1998). And, despite many proponents of such closed photobioreactors, current commercial microalgae production systems use exclusively open pond cultures, even for very high-value microalgae products. The few attempts at large-scale (>1 t/yr) production of microalgae in closed systems have failed.

…

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

…

This report cannot do justice to the extensive and long-term R&D effort in applied microalgae mass culture carried out by DOE and the ASP over a 20-year period. Here only a very brief summary of the major conclusions is provided to put into context the recommendations for future R&D, which follow.

Two major conclusions can be derived from the outdoor cultivation projects and engineering/economic analyses under the ASP, and can be briefly summarized:

1. There appear to be no fundamental engineering and economic issues that would limit the technical feasibility of microalgae culture, either in terms of net energy inputs, nutrient (e.g., CO₂) utilization, water requirements, harvesting technologies, or general system designs.


2. Productivities, in terms of total biomass and algal lipids (oils) currently achieved during the ASP are substantially higher than those reported and even projected before the ASP, but still well below the theoretical potential, and the requirements for economical viability.

The first conclusion should not imply that all these issues and problems have been solved. It does, however, suggest that the immediate R&D needs are not for engineering designs or cost analysis, or even in the operation of large, outdoor algal mass culture systems. Rather, from the second conclusion, the emphasis of any R&D effort must be on more fundamental and early-stage applied research issues faced in developing very high productivity algal strains. Ideal strains would dominate the pond cultures, achieve near-maximal productivities, efficiently biosynthesize large amounts of lipids, and be easy to harvest.

Another conclusion from the DOE-ASP program is that the only plausible near- to mid-term application of microalgae biofuels production is integrated with wastewater treatment. In such cases the economic and resource constraints are relaxed, allowing for such processes to be considered with well below maximal productivities.

…

More reading:
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/benemann.pdf">Overview: Algae Oil to Biofuels

“The advantage of biofuels and other renewable energy sources is that they will be so scarce and expensive that we will need to use them very frugally instead of wasting them wantonly as we do now with fossil fuels, and would with nuclear energy” (John Benemann).

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/lundquist.pdf">Production of Algae in Conjunction with Wastwater Treatment


With the increased cost of oil, economic feasibility should be better now. However, I haven't seen DoE rushing back into this line of research. (Maybe you know better.)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=185089&mesg_id=185089">Yeast show some promise.

…

But as Newman and his colleagues continued to brainstorm, they saw a major hurdle. Evolution hasn't achieved ultimate photosynthetic efficiency in plants and algae - only a small percentage of solar energy is converted to biomass - so human efforts to do so would be quixotic. "Nature's been trying to do that for billions of years," Newman says. "Wow, that's really hard."

…

EV's may indeed eventually prove to be a fine solution for personal transport. You have proven to your own satisfaction that they are. However, our current fleet of gasoline-powered vehicles will not be disposed of overnight. Some transition path is in order.

[kristopher]

11. I'm familiar with that information

I'm also aware that the DOE monitoring program you are referring to was closed down upon Bush taking office. Is that a surprise? If not, then perhaps it would surprise you to learn this:
Montana State researchers receive grant to study algae as a source of biofuel
$915,000 Department of Energy grant will study oils produced by algae, which could be a source of biodiesel
13 November 2008

BOZEMAN -- Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Montana State University and Utah State University a three-year, $900,000 grant to study the oil produced by algae, which could be a renewable source of biodiesel.

The two universities will split the money more or less down the middle, said Brent Peyton, a professor of chemical and biological engineering at MSU and the principal investigator of the grant.

"It's been known for 20 years that algae could produce lipids, but it really took the most recent spike in fuel prices to make getting fuel from algae an option," Peyton said.

Almost all algae contain some oil, but the algae that Peyton and his fellow researchers are interested in are 30 to 50 percent oil by weight. This oil can be harvested and converted into biofuels in much the same way oil is harvested from crops like camelina and canola.

The MSU and Utah State project will screen different kinds of algae to learn which species produce the most oil and which can produce those oils most efficiently. The test algae will come from existing stocks at labs across the country and from field sampling, Peyton said.

Once the researchers find a candidate species, they will grow large numbers of the algae in a "raceway" bioreactor at Utah State. This 10,000-gallon, climate-controlled water tank has machinery that keeps the algae gently moving so that they can grow more efficiently.

One of Peyton's collaborators, retired MSU microbiologist Keith Cooksey, was a pioneer in algal oil biofuel research in the early 1980s. However, funding for the research dried up by the end of the decade, halting algal biofuel work until the recent spike in oil prices caused interest to pick up again last year...."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/msu-msr111308.php

That doesn't surprise you? Well let's try this: in 1999 there was only about 500,000 gallons of biodiesel from all sources made in the US. By 2008, that number had risen to 7,000,000 gallons. While that is a drop in the bucket related to our total petroleum consumption, a 1300% increase in production over 10 years (most of it occurring since 2005) is a very strong indicator that your assessment pooh-poohing the technology may lack depth.

As to a style of argumentation needing work, I'd suggest that criticism could apply very aptly to people who routinely make half-baked, inaccurate statements of fact based on the first 4 hits from a google search. The algal oil issue is a perfect (but by no means unique) example of the way you reach your conclusions before your do your research.

While your stated goal is a transition to renewables, IMO your information management efforts do little but work to preserve the status quo.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Actually, it was shut down by Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Species_Program

(At least I do a little basic research before making my "…half-baked, inaccurate statements of fact…")

[kristopher]

13. I stand corrected on that point.

My recollection was that the program was ended in 2001, obviously incorrect. That changes the basic argument not at all however. The viability of the technology is directly related to the price of petroleum, not to the limitations of the technology to meet the needs of our heavy transport sector.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. It may not just be the price of petroleum

You may want to read more of the report, or some of the DoE presentations I linked to above. In short, barring some dramatic breakthroughs, it doesn't look promising.

[kristopher]

15. Bullshit.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Ah! Now, there's a well-reasoned retort!

How can I hope to overcome such logic!?


Seriously, check out the presentations. Algae looks good for wastewater treatment, and perhaps for flue gas CO₂ sequestration.

NREL is doing some research, but they're looking for a fundamental breakthrough (here's the disclaimer from a sample press release.)
http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/2007/innovation_chevron.html

This technology is in the Innovation phase of the R&D process. Learn more in "http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/2007/research_market.html">From Research Discoveries to Market: Five Steps to Commercialization."

…
Let's take a closer look at those five steps, beginning with innovation. At NREL, innovations often spring from our research, which is our primary mission. An innovation could be a scientific finding that suggests the possibility of a commercial product, with no clear path to getting there, or it could be just a good new idea with commercial potential. So innovation can be the result of years of painstaking research or a single moment of brilliance.
…

They're not talking about going into production any time soon.


Here're some points from one of the presentations I pointed you to.

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/benemann.pdf

NREL-AFOSR Workshop, Algal Oil for Jet Fuel Production,
Arlington, VA February 19th , 2008

…

SOME CONCLUSIONS

1. The problem is not making oil from algae, it is making algae with oil, actually it’s just making algae
2. Need to improve current best commercial practice and technology by over a factor of ten
3. There are many problems, and many, many claims to solutions. No universal, only specific, solutions
4. Example: harvesting is species specific, not generic
5. We MUST develop high productivity strains
6. Photobioreactors limited to inoculum production
7. Wastewater treatment is the near-term application

…

FINAL THOUGHTS

“The successful growth of algae is more or less an art and a daily tightrope act with the aim of keeping the necessary prerequisites and various unpredictable events involved in algal mass cultivation in a sort of balance”
(Wolfgang Becker, posted at commercial production plant)

“The advantage of biofuels and other renewable energy sources is that they will be so scarce and expensive that we will need to use them very frugally instead of wasting them wantonly as we do now with fossil fuels, and would with nuclear energy” (John Benemann).

[kristopher]

17. That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

The definition of innovation they are using is based on whether there are challenges facing the technology, not on the nature of those challenges. Commercialization is based largely on meeting the goal of being price viable in the marketplace. The path to such viability is a combination of factors including not only the price and productive capacity of the new technology, but also the price of existing and competing technologies. For the longest time the claim has been made that wind and solar need 'innovation' to make them viable in the marketplace. As it turns out, the key to market success wasn't so much overcoming technological hurdles as it was an increase/anticipated increase in the cost of carbon and higher demand for energy worldwide. There is nothing in the nature of algal diesel that makes it less susceptible to those same market forces than wind or solar.

As far as you are concerned, the only path any technology that might move us away from fossil fuels should follow is more study and delayed deployment. With a higher price for the petroleum comes the kind 1300% increase in production capacity I pointed to earlier; with that sort of channeling of funds comes the kind of product development research that is a stage beyond what NREL typically engages in.

A few post back you were pointing to the DoE end of monitoring studies as proof that algal diesel was a dead end; now you are pointing to renewed DoE interest as evidence that it isn't a means of meeting energy needs. In short, you really don't understand the issue and you are making it up with each document you feverishly scan as you doggedly attempt to cover up your earlier (and ongoing) litany of fallacious conclusions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Setting the record straight

Quoting myself:

With the increased cost of oil, economic feasibility should be better now. However, I haven't seen DoE rushing back into this line of research. (Maybe you know better.)

I really haven't changed my position. They're not "rushing back into this line of research." The presentation I quoted is more recent than the press release. I think it's fair to call it "discouraging."

Quoting you:

As far as you are concerned, the only path any technology that might move us away from fossil fuels should follow is more study and delayed deployment. …

Quoting you again:

Bullshit.

Please, don't tell me what I think.

I think we should implement what we know works today (i.e. solar, wind.) For example, I'm all in favor of pursuing Scientific American's "http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan">A Solar Grand Plan." Solar technologies work well enough for us to start putting them in place "with all deliberate haste." While we're at it, let's research improving efficiency, and energy storage technologies. As we continue to build, we will build with better and better technologies.

Biodiesel derived from algae is worth pursuing as a line of research, it has potential for producing much more biodiesel per acre than any of the food crops currently being used. However, let's not pretend it's ready to put in place today. That (in my opinion) would be a waste of effort.

I personally hope to see fruit from EMC2's labors. I think we should be funding them and ITER with an eye to the future. Viable fusion seems tantalizingly close (then again, it too seems to always be 5 years away.)

I do not suggest pulling all funding from solar and wind implementation to support research (as you accuse me of.) However, I do think we should concentrate our research efforts where they have the greatest potential. For me, that's solar, followed by energy storage and fusion, with biodiesel derived from algae somewhere down the line. (It appears to me that NREL has at least http://www.nrel.gov/">similar priorities.)