Biofuel Comparison Chart: The "Good," the Bad and the (Really) Ugly
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 05.10.08
Chart courtesy of Seattle P.-I.
Courtesy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer comes this nifty side-by-side comparison chart (see here for a blown-up version). The article does a nice job of running through the (many) problems associated with biofuels, citing two studies by The Nature Conservancy and a team of U.S. scientists.
As the article implies, biofuels can be part of the solution if -- and that's a big "if" -- their production is cost/energy-efficient and doesn't displace food crops or native habitats (easier said than done). In light of the current international food crisis, it should go without saying that producing biofuels from corn and soybeans is a big no-no -- one that, unfortunately, the U.S. and EU are only aggravating through their idiotic subsidy programs.
There are some hopeful signs that the EU, facing overwhelming criticism from scientists and international NGOs, may begin to reign in some of its support for the bloc's overly generous biofuel rules. It could yet take a while, but here's hoping good science and common sense eventually prevail.
See also: ::Biofuels: When Subsidies and Special Interests Collide, ::American Taxpayers Pay in Biofuel "Splash and Dash" Scam
i love how this doesn't include hemp seed oil. what a joke.
I am watching and waiting as this whole thing unfolds. I think it is WAAAAY too early to even be considering what will come out on top. Sure algae looks impressive on paper, but the same can be said of most anything. With real world performance numbers absent, I will continue to walk, bike, and drive sparingly.
Switchgrass would use 60-108% of US Cropland? Wouldn't it be grown on land other than cropland.
Two myths that must be dispelled:
1. Soybeans used for biodiesel production DO NOT detract from the food supply. In fact, increased soy production for soybean oil will lead to more protein meal on the market which will result in MORE food and LOWER prices. Only ethanol crops use the nutritious portion of the plant for fuel.
2. Switch grass WILL compete with the food supply. If you are growing switch grass, you aren't growing wheat or corn on that same acreage. It may not compete directly, but it competes through displacement.
I don't really understand why people keep blindly citing these fallacies.
Luc
Two myths that must be dispelled:
1. Soybeans used for biodiesel production DO NOT detract from the food supply. In fact, increased soy production for soybean oil will lead to more protein meal on the market which will result in MORE food and LOWER prices. Only ethanol crops use the nutritious portion of the plant for fuel.
2. Switch grass WILL compete with the food supply. If you are growing switch grass, you aren't growing wheat or corn on that same acreage. It may not compete directly, but it competes through displacement.
I don't really understand why people keep blindly citing these fallacies.
Luc
everybody needs to wake UP there is , in place, a person who has figured out how to burn salt water with sound waves. the heat from the salt water reaches approx. 1500 degrees f. can some one tell me why in the he-- the government isn't all over this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@JR: We are awake. The sound wave generation necessary to break the bonds of sodium (burning salt water) requires a heck of a lot more energy than produced by the results. It may work at some point and be feasible, but the laws of physics are what they are.
how about crediting the university of washington for providing the study rather than the seattle pi for siple printing it?
Where's the hemp?
I'd like to see that included too.
Where's the hemp? We're smoking it. Want some?
you're smoking hemp? that's pointless. no thanks, i prefer to stick to marijuana, which actually has THC in it.
Some of the crops in the table have a negative gas emission?
Since that figure is supposed to include burning of the fuel, I don't see how that is possible.
Where does the carbon go?
Negative gas emission? I've got that too... kind of like an imploding fart. It must be from smoking my pointless hemp.
They don't technically have a negative carbon emission. During the combustion process the fuel (whatever it may be switchgrass, corn, etc.) releases less carbon than what is sequestered by it during it's growth process.
Funny, how corn is mentioned as relatively cheap in the remarks column (in fact it is the amongst the most expensive) and
no mention in sugarcane as being the cheapest and most carbon postive. Besides, with removal of subsidies/taxes, Brazil/Africa/Asia can produce suficient sugarcane to meet a major protion of the worlds total ethanol demand in a relatively short period and with least investments as compared to those being spent on new research....and still with limited success
Wrong wrong wrong.
When you make ethanol you don't loose the protein, it's called DDGS. When you make biodiesel you don't loose the protein it's soy and rape flour. Someone's or someone's animals eating the stuff or has the western world somehow lost 100 million tons of protein!
These fuel crops are not irrigated anywhere. The study does not take into account that a growing percentage of the corps can be organically grown and that tractors can run on biofuels or even solar electricity. That eliminates the inputs except rain.
We are in transition to the biofuels and renewable era. It's only the first year! It will take time to get it all sustainable but as oil prices rise the sustainable biofuels will be more profitable than the chemical fertiliser based systems.
If you want sustainable biofuel grow food fuel crops like corn, soy and sugar cane because we can eat the by-products. The world has a shortage of protein but not even the developing world is short of carbohydrates. Even the third world has medical problems from high carbohydrate diets: Kwashiorkor, obesity, aging effects.
Waste Vegetable Oil is a missing option as well. It's the ultimate in recycling - the pros. The cons, not enough of it - if used in it's entirety, could only account for fueling 1% of drivers. Even so, it's obvious that the only way to fuel cars sustainably is to do so using many different sources of fuel.
In Australia, BioMax, a leading producer of quality biodiesel that meets all local diesel standard, has it's major input as Used Cooking Oil (UCO). In fact, UCO represents around 80% of the input. This isn't taking food off anyone's plate, nor using any additional farming resources.
To all those questioning the negative emissions... Algae does in fact create "negative" emissions. The process of using algae for fuel starts with clear tubes filled with algae exposed to sunlight while excess CO2 from companies is pumped in. This proceeds to photosynthesis where the algae multiplies and the CO2 is converted into O2. The algae is then pressed for oil and the remaining "waste" is used for insulation (or at least it can be). I watched a video on the algae farm and I've written an essay on it. It is definitely the best solution.
Please excuse me while I add politics into this thread and rant about how the devil is in the details. People and politicians often can't handle more than a sound-bite, a summary chart, or a catch phrase. Unfortunately the issues and opportunities around biofuels require much deeper understanding. The detailed, complex policy, market and science issues for biofuels are inextricably entwined. Politicians need to see past the pork handouts to their constituents in order to craft the more complex policy necessary to achieve the national and global goals of protecting food supply/pricing and creating scalable, low carbon, low cost biofuel alternatives to oil.
For example, switch grass "can" be grown on marginal land that's not suitable for typical farm crops, but might it replace corn-planted fields? If cellulosic refining continues to improve and major ethanol subsidies are simply re-directed from corn to switch grass, you bet corn farmers will become switch grass farmers. When BP and Chevron start growing switch grass, do you really think they will want to grow it on little strips of marginal farm land here and there? No, they'll want to do it where large scale farming and transportation infrastructure exists today. The current debate needs to become richer, reflecting the ability of policy to shape outcomes - good and bad alike.
Well intentioned biofuel policies have partly resulted in the conversion of natural areas (e.g., rain forests, peat lands) to plant biofuels and crops. Overall land-use change results in 25% of global carbon emissions. The full carbon "debt" created by natural land conversion is rarely incorporated into charts like the one above. It can take 10, 50, or in some cases, hundreds of years for a biofuel to repay the carbon debt lost in some of these conversions. This is not as much an issue within the U.S. where we've already raped and plundered the land, but our domestic policy has global implications on the developing world which is rapidly repeating our mistake of exploiting their land for maximum short-term profit. Despite all the nationalism talk around biofuels, we're likely to one day replace our expensive oil imports from the mideast with much lower cost biofuel imports from the developing world. When we import it, will we care when and how it was converted to biofuel production? We should.
Algae does indeed hold tremendous potential, but the big question is whether it can cost-effectively scale. Recent medium scale projects have been only modestly successful, and in many cases extremely disappointing. If interested track these 15 efforts: http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/27/15-algae-startups-bringing-pond-scum-to-fuel-tanks/
While I personally love algae as part of a long-tern solution, the reality is that we need a second generation u.s. biofuel policy that encourages rapid innovation and adoption of multiple biofuel sources.
Further, this chart is neither localized to the U.S., nor is it truly global, reducing it's usefulness; it includes sugar cane (in recognition of Brazil's ethanol program) and switch grass (thanks to Bush's mention of it, is symbolic of innovation around cellulosic research on North American native plants), but doesn't include Jatropha Curcas, the preferred biofuel source in Africa and India, or the up and coming Castor Bean in Brazil. Quickly, we need a thoughtful, accurate localized U.S. science/market/policy biofuel debate -- with the public, with our politicians, and with an eye toward global implications.
Come on Congress, let's be more strategic about spreading more of that corn ethanol subsidy-love in all the right places for all the right reasons....
Nice intro chart to the biodiesel world. As the comments here prove, it's a really complex issue. As an eco-travel blogger, I'm following the debate and hoping for a day when car trips can be universally carbon-guilt free. Until then, I'm planning bike trips, offsetting necessary flights, and plotting to convert one of our vehicles to run on waste vegetable oil this fall. (Good personal solution, but as Wesley says above, not a global one.) Anyone know if any of the candidates have weighed in on individual biofuels? I've been impressed with Barack's environmental plan in general, but I'm wondering if he, HRC or McC has really dug deep into this discussion.
Linked to this post on my blog here
I would like to say we need all of the aforementioned solutions. The increased use of solar and wind electricity will be necessary to power the daily driver while we use bio fuels to power whatever can't be converted to electricity in the near future like jets. The reason Cellulosic ethanol (also called lignocellulosic ethanol) is a step in the right direction is it produces many more gallons per acer and the energy return is much higher.
If we would have spent the money on these projects instead of Iraq we wouldn't need imported oil by now. Just think of how many wind or solor generators and Cellulosic ethanol plants 600 billion would have bought. Throw in a bunch of alge farms, biofuel plants and geothermal electric plants for good measure.