A Sea of Petroleum, A Pond of Biofuels
By tomstrong | Related entries in Economy, EnvironmentI missed this story when it first appeared a few days ago, amidst all the winds and fogs of war, so maybe you did too:
Producing biofuels such as ethanol from food crops isn’t worth the effort. That’s the conclusion of a new and painstaking study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers should instead concentrate either on producing ethanol from indigestible plant material such as cellulose, or on synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.
The comprehensive study finds that if all the corn (maize) produced in the United States last year were removed from food supplies and turned into ethanol, just 12% of US gasoline demand would be offset. Turning soybeans into diesel would account for only 6% of US diesel demand.
I can’t say I’m surprised. While the tiny ethanol and biodiesel industries have seen a mini-boom last year, the market took a sharp hit this past spring. Future growth may speed up again, but there’s a very real limit to how much biodiesel and ethanol we can produce without cutting into our food supply. What’s more, both biodiesel and ethanol are currently subsidized by the federal government – and that’s on top of the subsidies paid for corn and soy, our top two commodity crops.
According to this NY Times take on the report, both ethanol and soy biodiesel are already subsidized by the federal government. I believe those subsidies are in addition to the already-impressive subsidies directed towards corn and soybean production.
Producing ethanol from the cellulose of prarie grasses may be more promising. They are a nonfood item (at least for humans), are ecologically quite stable, and don’t require much pesticide. And according to the study, up to 30% of our transportation fuel needs could eventually be met by extracting oil from prarie grasses…
By 2030. Given technological advances we have not yet made.
Reports like this one illustrate how very dependent our society is on a sea of dwindling petroleum.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 14th, 2006 and is filed under Economy, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 14th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Well… we could put more into using batteries or hydrogen fuel cells (or even LOH) for fuel – then the only issue is power generation, rather than transportation. At that point, nuclear power supplemented with solar, wind, &c starts to look pretty attractive…
July 14th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
There is also the fact that the production, processing, and transportation of corn and soybean based biofuels greatly reduces the net petroleum savings. Waste based biofuels negate the production costs. Making biodiesel more widely available will help offset the transportation usage until hybrid diesel engines are available.
The subsidies are going to the wrong industries in my opinion. Biofuel plants need to be as energy independent as possible, biodiesel and e85 need to be more readily available, and truckers/farmers using 1984 or earlier combines and trucks need tax credits for replacing the hoses, seals, and gaskets on their machines. (Biodiesel melts rubber)
Its a big problem that requires huge changes and those politicians in corn and soybean producing states will initially fight hard against the cutting soft subsidation of their constituents crops until they can be made to understand that chaffe will sell as well as the wheat.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Dyre42, at this point in time you are absolutely correct that lack of refining capacity and distribution network are the two key factors stifling the growth of what is really the only option that will wean us off our dependency on OPEC: ethanol. Most vehicles today can burn ethanol without retrofitting, meaning a potentially easy transition – all we have to do is get the product out there, which is far easier said than done. Look to Brazil though for an example of the distribution network in action; service stations offer both petroleum products and ethanol and drivers choose whichever happens to be cheaper that day.
Biodiesel is a great step forward, but with its petroleum component still forces a reliance on foreign oil. Ethanol is the only realistic renewable option that we have right now, but realistically that is many years away from being a part of commuters day-to-day routine. The question then is how do we speed up that process, without simply pouring money into a hole?
Interestingly, amid all this the electric car feels the time is due for a renaissance. In five days Tesla Motors will release its highly anticipated new model that is supposed to be sporty looking. The claims: 0-60 in 4 seconds, does the equivalent of 135 MPG, goes for 250 miles between charges, and costs run at about 1 cent per mile. The big question for interested environmentalists then is how is your electricity generated – is an electric car any cleaner in the long run? No question though for those just wanting to cut and run from OPEC; an electric car is a way to do that. The car will be unveiled on July 20 at teslamotors.com
July 15th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
According to the DOE, the current price to make a distributed gge (gallon gasoline equivalent at the gas station) of hydrogen via electrolysis is approximately $6. By 2010, that’s supposed to be dropping to a bit under $3 (both numbers are untaxed). That puts a reasonable price ceiling of $4/gal after taxes or we’re just going to jump to hydrogen. Natural gas reformation is likely to be somewhat cheaper to produce but will need larger facilities and transport.
$4 a gallon gasoline is not going to be pleasant but at least we know that the pain won’t be unendurable. $4/gal is pretty cheap gasoline for the EU and they’ve avoided economic collapse. The good news is that from that point on, our vehicle energy prices will be stable and trending slightly downward as we improve the technology to make our own.
July 16th, 2006 at 8:22 am
TM: But what energy are we using for the electrolysis?
What is the EU paying now for a gal of gas? If it is higher than $6 why haven’t they switched.
It’s hard to tell in a blog, but I am not being snarky, I really want to know.
Also, I read somewhere (can’t remember at this time) that a 100 mile by 100 mile area in the the southwest could supply all the power the US currently uses via solar. If this is true, I could give up 10,000 square miles of desert.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Hi;
This lacks vision. The free market will respond with more and cheaper feedstock designed for fuel, not food. Soy yields 60 gallons per acre and is currently available because it has a market. Palm, Jatropha, Castor, and others under development yield 10 times soy, 600 gallons per acre. We can import this from Africa, South America, places in the world that need the money most, dozens of them. New and better mousetraps will develop as the economies of scale kick in.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Food or fuel a debate? Ethanol production from maize has a co product called dried distillers grain (DDG) that is really concentrated protein and is most times mixed with excess sugars (syrup) left over from the dry milling cycle. This is an excellant feed source for both cattle and hogs – the same animials used to create the foodstuffs that humans eat. Where is the loss of foodstuffs? Do most readers believe they are eating yellow dent corn directly from the store?
The same goes for biodiesel produced from soybeans. The soybean oil was previously used for food by hydrogenating it to make hard fats like “Crisco” and margarine. The soybean meal (still the reason for soybean production) is used mostly to feed hogs and in some cases dairy cattle which of course are used as feedstuffs. Where is the loss of foodstuffs? Do people believe soybeans are all consumed as tofu and edamame?
It seems to me, that this is a debate carried on by the ignorant to impress the uneducated.
Biofuels production is also not compared to petroleum production. The number bandied around about the efficiency of petroleum refining is .88 this means that for every gallon of petroleum feed stock it creates .88 gallon of finished, usable energy product. Compare that number with either corn based ethanol or soy based biodiesel. Please!
July 17th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Fascinating responses, everyone. Thanks for commenting!
July 18th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Yes, excellent info about biofuel alternatives. Looking at Brazil for what it experienced the last 30 years could prove helpful. Didn’t they have some of these same problems ? But the one thing not mentioned yet is where is the leadership role so far? Six years into this Bush presidency, billions a day gone into this failed Middle East effort where the petroleum was supposed to pay for it all… and now you’re gonna introduce your big ideas on becoming independant from the whole mess ? Great job being ahead of the curve. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to question the judgement of our government !