Biofuels as Help or Hindrance: WorldChanging Digs Deep
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 03.13.08
Biofuels have been getting a rough ride in the media recently. Only last month we saw headlines from two studies arguing that land use changes may nix any environmental benefits of many biofuels, while they have also been singled out as a contributing factor in the looming food crisis. So what’s the deal? Are biofuels a complete red herring, a silver bullet, or simply a useful tool in our arsenal if used wisely? In a series entitled Growing Sustainable Biofuels over at WorldChanging, Patrick Mazza, Research Director of Climate Solutions, argues that while the recent studies do highlight areas for concern, they have also been subject to sensationalist reporting and selective quoting.
The first part of Mazza’s series looks at the Searchinger and Fargione studies in detail, laying out the major points and summarising some of the critiques of the research that are beginning to emerge. Among the pertinent points are that Searchinger’s study fails to account for likely increases in corn yields, and that his study low-balls the protein value of animal feed coproducts, thus underestimating their contribution to yields by 23%. Another critic argues that the studies fail to consider no-till cultivation of biofuel crops, which actually increase soil carbon storage, and that corn ethanol plants are converting to renewable energy, thus decreasing their emissions - meanwhile they are competing against fossil fuels like oil from tar sands that have an increased carbon footprint even compared to conventional gasoline. Mazza also points out that while the figures around land-use emissions may have made great headlines, for those in the biofuels community they came as no surprise, and that the new Renewable Fuel Standard includes greenhouse gas criteria, with life cycle studies mandated by law to include both direct and indirect emissions.
Whether or not the Searchinger and Fargione studies are accurate in their calculations regarding emissions of current biofuel technologies, Mazza points out that they do still envision a sustainable future for second generation biofuels. In the second part of his series, he explores how biofuels made from perennial grasses can store carbon in the soil to actually have a negative greenhouse gas impact, and even points to the possibility of creating charcoal as a biproduct of biofuel production and then burying it in the ground:
“ USDA Agricultural Research Service scientist David Laird calls this the “Charcoal Vision.” He envisions networks of small-scale pyrolyzers that employ heat to convert biomass into bio-oils, biogas and charcoal. The scale would reduce transportation costs and keep the charcoal product close to the biomass source. Bio-oils would be shipped to energy markets, while biogas would run the pyrolyzers. Charcoal buried in soils would retain at least half its carbon after 1,000 years. Other benefits include increased water retention and improved fertility.”
Mazza also addresses concerns around the food versus fuel debate, acknowledging that there is a very real concern when energy needs start to compete with the need of folks to eat, but he also points out that, contrary to recent headlines, fuels are hardly the only factor driving up the price of food:
“ The great bulk of grassland and tropical forest land conversions taking place today are for traditional needs of food, feed and fiber. Ironically, the palm oil boom that draws so much concern from biofuels critics is primarily driven by the demand for healthy food oils. This demand has even caused suspension of plans to build biodiesel refineries in Southeast Asia, in a case of food beating fuel in the marketplace.”
Nothing is ever simple in the quest for sustainability, and sifting through the claims made by various “green” technologies can be a mind-boggler in itself. Apparently the next installment of Mazza’s series will look at the development of sustainability standards for biofuels. We look forward to learning more.
::WorldChanging::via site visit::
Biofuels could be a good long-term option for airline flights, although I agree that they are not truly saving us energy yet. However, for typical road transportation they are a red herring taking our sights off the true solution. Electric is the way the market is going to need to go if we are all going to continue to drive automobiles in the USA.
I read through Mazza's two posts, and I'm a little disappointed. First, although it's right to criticize some of Searchinger et al.'s assumptions, it looks like people are just picking around the edge of the analysis and not criticizing the core of the argument - that indirectly driving up prices for land by using land for biofuels production causes carbon-absorbing land to be brought into production, releasing lots of GHG emissions. Mazza also commits the huge foul of pointing to future developments like more productive biofuels plants, commercial cellulosic biofuels, and the use of marginal lands for yet-unproven biofuels to justify our current biofuels boom. That sounds a lot like the clean coal arguments - trust us this will work eventually. Unfortunately the problems exist now.
Why don't we just skip the fuel debate entirely and go electric? The technology is really coming along, today's EV's are at least as good as any other car. Check out Zap World, they're making a 0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds EV!
Why don't we just skip the fuel debate entirely and go electric?
Because the majority of electricity in the US is produced by coal. Other production methods include nuclear fission, which produces toxic waste, and hydropower, which damages aquatic ecosystems.
The solutions to our current energy issues are reducing demand by educating consumers and increasing product efficiency and developing an array of power production, including solar, wind, and new technologies. No one method will solve the problem and the whole issue needs more funding for research and development.
I hate to state the obvious, PM, but electricity is fuel too.
emily - you are right that coal, etc is necessary to charge electric vehicles, but since the majority of our generated base load is wasted overnight, it would be far less polluting to take advantage of that wasted energy than to burn gas or diesel. I've seen figures of 1/3 to 2/3 of our vehicles could be converted to use up the overnight surpluss. Even if we completely switched to electric vehicles tomorrow and had to start using more coal, it would still be far less polluting than sticking with gas since the additional pollution can be scrubbed/sequestered (and we would be using up the wasted base load).
christina - actually electricity is an energy source but its not a fuel. All fuel comes from chemical reactions in one way or another, ultimately going all the way back to the fusion of hydrogen into helium on the sun. We capture the energy from those reactions and can convert it to electricity, as another form of energy.
Oh, and before you start thinking that I'm promoting the use of more coal, here's my position: Kill coal and nukes, erect all solar thermal, solar electric, wind, micro-hydro, and keep the existing mass-hydro.
And do all of this (except the mass-hydro of course), in your own backyard even as the local electric company opens its own solar/wind/hydro plants. I will be doing exactly that to my own home over the next few years.
ok, so i know that it is bad that biofuel use is helping to cause an increase in food prices....but lets say that the biofuel was cheaper than current petrol prices and had a modest decrease in CO2 levels.....counting ALL factors of production in. . but why not use crops for biofuels if they were good? and would increased food prices be that bad? look at all the fat americans..what is this from? too much food. and then you question well, what about africa and all these third world countries? well what about them? what if corn and soybeans are higher priced than ever before?.. oil is 111 dollars a barrel and we cant do anything about that price. who is to say that we need to "give" food away at a low cost so these countries can have an abundance of food and an increase in population. I.e. increased world population. why cant these countries grow their own food? and if they cant grow enough of their own food maybe 10 kids to a family is a bad idea.... maybe i got the wrong idea about all this. but i personally say that if the crops are even neutral carbon and cheaper or equal to oil...than use them. if the world wants to cry about high food prices than tough. maybe they need to get up and move to find a more arable piece of land.
We'll be debating which fuel is better until we're dead as a race. The only real solution is a sharp reduction in consumption of energy. Bike more, walk more, rideshare more, and just drive less.
Petition:
We, the undersigned, call on the Governments of the world to use some common sense when distributing Energy subsidies.
Why must the taxpayer subsidise the largest cause of man-made Global Warming(Fossil Fuel electricity generation) whilst alternative energy solutions such as Solar Thermal are forced to struggle?
Why must the consumer be asked to pay extra for "Green" Energy when his/her taxes are subsidising the very antithesis?
We, the undersigned, are not impressed with such hypocrisy.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/17583.html
*pass it on!*