Biofuels in the news
Posted November 20, 2007 in Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming
I haven't posted as much recently, but not for lack of interesting news items. Here are three bits from the last day or so:
First, Darren Goode reports for Congress Daily (subscription required) that Rep. Dingell thinks that a CAFE compromise can be reached between the House and the Senate and:
Dingell also recommended that EPA -- not the Energy Department -- administer a Senate renewable fuels mandate. He also wrote that "appropriate safeguards" must address the effect ethanol production has had on food production and the environment since corn-based ethanol was a centerpiece of that 2005 mandate.
Second, Grist picked up on an article from Bloomberg News Service claiming that corn ethanol was "2007's worst energy investment." The article is interesting for a verity of reasons. There's no doubt that the corn ethanol market is experiencing a shake out. In the end, I suspect this will be good for the industry just as internet-base business has roared along since the bubble burst of 2002. (I've written about the alternative here.) The article does a so-so job of explaining why the shakeout is happening. Yes capacity is up, ethanol prices are down, and corn prices are higher than they have been recently. But with oil and gasoline prices at or near record highs and the corn crop near expectations and a bumper harvest, why are ethanol prices down and corn prices up? With ethanol prices around $1.86 per gallon before the $0.54 tax credit (the equivalent of about $2.03 per gallon of gasoline after the tax credit) and gasoline spot prices in the $2.46 and $2.65 range, why is ethanol demand down? Infrastructure and oil company intransigence seem like logical explanations, but I haven't seen any good reporting trying to real explain what's up. Instead, like in the Bloomberg article, we get David Pimentel's silliness about negative energy balance recycled.
Third, Mike Millikin of the Green Car Congress and Biopact report that Syntroleum Corp has recently received $12 million in equity investment toward its planned $135 million 75 million gallon per year facility. What I find most interesting about this is that the project will produce biomass derived alternative diesel fuel, so called renewable diesel. In other words, it won't be producing biodiesel, which is made through the FAME process from vegetable and animal lipids. There's interest in some quarters in adding a biodiesel requirement to the RFS currently being debated in Congress. I actually can see the logic behind saying that a certain percentage of the RFS should serve the needs of the diesel (and jet fuel) market--after all trucks, trains and planes need low-carbon fuels too (see this little snippet on Lord Branson's efforts along these lines). However, I would oppose a specific mandate for biodiesel, which this Syntroleum project shows is just one path to serving the diesel market and one that is inherently limited by the quantity and cost of vegetable and animal fat. The interesting challenge if Congress decided to do a "diesel market" percentage is how fast should the requirement grow. Too fast and the requirement is effectively just a biodiesel requirement because there will be limited alternatives for a while now. (Syntroleum's project isn't even planning to come on line until 2010.) Too slow and it won't do much of anything to speed up development.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Larry Sanazaro — Nov 21 2007 08:14 AM
I met someone a few days ago and we had a conversation about conservation and the issues of energy. It was a relief to find the rare someone who is even aware of the importance of these problems we face today, making good choices like a hybrid auto and the efficient heat/AC units he had chosen for his store, and even more gratifying to hear that a rationale such as his perspective on "what we are passing on to future generations" was held by another person who I had actually met. He did state that he felt that biofuels were the answer, and that was the only thing he said that made me wish he understood the big picture of global warming and the issues of energy just a bit better. The following day on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday there was a short piece on biofuels [4 min 33 sec]. I emailed him and included a link where he could go and listen to it by clicking on the listen button.
Biofuels and Food Prices
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16389598
I kind of learned something new too on the subject. Biofuel from corn uses just the seed while as in Brazil where the sugar cane is used, the whole plant/biomass is used to make the ethanol and that changes the energy gain/loss ratio significantly. Still, it seems a risky endeavor with the Amazon rainforest potentially being targeted once again for some $agriculture venture$. The world loses 63 acres of rainforest per minute (http://www.amazonbioenergetics.com/rainforest.htm) and I believe our diminishing rainforests provide about 1/3 of the world’s oxygen. As for biofuel production here in the states, while the program addressed how much we might optimally produce and what part of our needs that might meet, I have to wonder if that takes in to account the possibility of diminished agriculture returns due to adverse affects of climate change. We may just be opening another opportunity for agri-business to pillage the land with more chemicals in the name of our need to race down the highway like nothing else matters.
I don't mean to disagree on the benefits of biofuels, but it is important that we get as much information as we can. Many people under rate the abundance of energy that oil provides and over rate our ability to provide a comparable replacement. It will take a number of new technologies to even approach what oil provides and also we have to consider what percentage of the public will be able to afford any of the new technologies that require the purchase of some other technology like plug-ins or hydrogen. It will be hard to get many people to absorb the lost value of their present multi thousand dollar gas vehicles and turn around and pay 20K for a new one. I think many gas vehicles will remain on the road for sometime to come, regardless of the cost of fuel. That is basically why I see the need for a paradigm shift in how we think and behave regarding the speed we drive.
55mph can provide from 20 to 50% in savings regarding consumption and with NO new technology. That means we could reap those benefits right now, damn near instantly. We don't even have to wait for data to see how this would benefit both in reducing auto emissions and alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. It has already been done once and the data/evidence/facts very favorably support the logic of doing so. But for some reason yet to be explained to me by any of the pro-environmental organizations, no one dares to support a return to a national 55mph limit. Of the few replies I have received concerning the suggestion that these organizations support a 55mph limit and add it to their "What you can do" web-page, they all point out that they already recommend slowing down. Just about anyone who drives on the interstates will tell you that "slowing down" is NOT happening.
In fact, I believe about 17 states have raised limits to 70mph instead. If you drive on these interstates and as you approach city limits where the limit drops to 55 or even 45, you will be in danger and you yourself will be a safety hazard if you try to even slow down to 60 or 50mph respectively. It is an out of control speeding frenzy out there and allowing it to continue is to accept it as normal behavior. The general driving public just hasn't got a clue, even with the price of gas expected to reach $4/gal next year. The most common complaint/challenge I get from anyone who I suggest that we should return to a national 55 limit is that they are "saving time" by driving faster. If a few minutes here and there are so important, then let's not waste the time we have left to turn this problem around and promote a return to a national 55mph limit. Or is this just another self interest excuse for continuing an addiction?
We are importing all but 11% of our oil. By paying for middle-east oil, we to some degree are providing funds for the same factions we are at war against. There is a lot that is more important to save by slowing down than the few minutes gained by speeding, not the least of which is blood or a non-renewable resource(to name just two). It has taken millions and millions of years to make that oil and little more than a century to go through more than half of it with world demand increasing more and more everyday. We will go through what is left faster and global conflicts will increase as reserves continue to deplete. More oil spills, more wildernesses sacrificed, more people like those on the Niger Delta swindled and their land and lives decimated, all in the name of getting down the road a few minutes faster so we can enjoy our fortunate lives just that little bit more.
A new paradigm of slower speeds could lend itself to adapting more efficient designs in the auto industry if we weren't so silly to expect that industry to come up with autos that are capable of speeds greater than any legal limit and accelerate like a rocket AND THEN demand we get great gas mileage too(?). This change in thinking could also benefit the creation of the alternative vehicles. Fact is that most autos are most efficient at 35-40mph. I have to think that even that could improve if we were more realistic regarding the expectations of what an auto should be capable of regarding speed and acceleration. Unfortunately, instead what we have now is an industry that continues to air commercials that tout greater horsepower and fast cars, while at the same time they are fighting legislation to raise efficiency standards. What are we gaining by continuing this mindset? Have you seen the newest Lexus commercial with their car going round and round in a tight circle, smoking the tires with the caption reading "The Doughnut"? That is just one of many that display speeding autos and that are showcasing more horsepower overkill as what we should be aspiring to. Cheap gas is the last thing we need! Right now we are burning the candle at both ends and you know what happens when you do that. It would be great to see a campaign of that magnitude for something beneficial to the environment.
In fact, regarding a new paradigm, slowing down just might be the answer to much of the problems that are indicative of our fast and faster way of life. Slow down and think to start with, think about what is important, slow down and conserve. Somehow I guess I am equating a return to a 55mph limit to a better way of treating the world around us. Slow down the destruction of natural habitat in the name of progress, slow down the affects of industrial pollution for a buck, slow down and look around, slow down and take the time to write to congress and tell them it is time that they listened to the experts, 2500 of the worlds top climate scientists and do what needs to be done, slow down and pay attention to what the example is that we are to our children, slow down, look around and consider what we are doing to our environment by speeding past what we should be nurturing instead. Should we expect our children to behave in a better way if the only example we provide is this lack of concern for the world we live in?
There is a lot at stake but to realize that you have to slow down and pay attention. That latest Russian oil disaster in the Black Sea is a result of the need/demand for oil being so great that they ship oil in barges that are not intended for sea duty. The world is in a big hurry, and there you can directly correlate the result to the notion that haste makes waste. These kinds of environmental disasters will happen again and again, because so many of us make saving a few minutes our top priority. We don't equate shoving that nozzle in our tank to any of the harm we are doing to our world, and not one pro-environmental group has the fortitude to dare state it as harshly as they should, yet alone suggest the most reasonable paradigm shift necessary.
Another point I want to make is that a casual glance at the problems of global warming and oil depletion does not give anyone a real understanding of the serious nature of them. Similarly, a casual glance at possible solutions does not provide enough information to be able to say that only one substitute can solve such complex problems. By casual glance I mean that we have a tendency to hear a blip on a news report, read an article and make some near-instant decision based on that info along with what ever bit of knowledge we may possess. Although there has been an increase in various media coverage reporting the issues, I find it sort of misleading in that it is presented in a rather glib context, light and lacking in alarm. Similarly I cringe a little when I hear about some proposed solution that tends to give the public the idea that we have nothing to fear because we now have an answer. We need to see the need for action as urgent and we need to recognize that no one new technology alone is going to solve the energy crisis. And we need to be smart in choosing the most beneficial and least harmful solutions. This combination I seldom hear in any one glib report. We don't need to be put at ease or to think that our leaders, in government or industry, are going to save us. Only we can do that ultimately. Of course 55mph is not the only answer and it is a sacrifice, but it is sensible and can provide us with some urgently needed instant results if we truly want to change for the better.
After a lot of earnest digging for information and reading various sources for the past 20 months, I can see that these are very complicated subjects, and both global warming and oil depletion are issues like no other before. Our inept government's ability to acknowledge yet alone solve really important problems, to even focus on what is important, combined with a media that is next to brain dead, have let the American public down. Very few people I know are truly concerned, that is as concerned as they ought to be and what is worse, many are still completely clueless.
Get a subscription to National Geographic magazine and month by month watch each ecosystem fail. It used to be an enjoyable read, now it's like the world of ecosystem obituaries. It's not easy to face the truth, I can't say I am the same person I was 21 months ago. To sound so sour is not my nature, and rather than feeling rewarded by my efforts to enlighten most people it is mostly frustrating to put forth the effort and mostly find an absence of concern, unawareness and lack of knowledge. Or to come across those who think they know the problem and aren't worried because they think biofuel or some other technology is the answer, and the problem is under control?? Worst of all is to come across the ardent ones who have swallowed the misinformation propagandized by the "Wise Use" organizations funded by the most egregious corporate polluters ("Wise Use" as explained in "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert F. Kennedy jr.).
There is no replacement for planet Earth; it is not a disposable commodity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is starting to make statements about how they have underestimated their predictions. (Talk about frustration - They must be really frustrated by the way they have been treated).
Here are 2 more links where you can listen:
U.N. Science Panel Sees Faster Warming of Earth [3 min 41 sec]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16393441
Nobel-Winning Climate Panel Calls for Urgent Action [4 min 15 sec]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16400384
With the equivalent of 7 Californias worth of polar ice gone and the increased speed of melting glaciers in Greenland I expect that we may soon hear the IPCC say that we have passed the tipping point(inevitable at any rate). That will be bad news. I'm afraid that instead of what was an estimated 10 years (stated April 2006, nearly 2 years ago) till we could reach a point of no return should we not severely begin to limit emissions, there is a good probability that we have already crossed that threshold. Given what I have witnessed regarding how seriously the world has responded these past 20 months, the ineffective measures and slow response will be even less influential as an already slippery slop gets more and more slippery. Casual glances at these issues will be replaced by wishing we had paid more attention and wishing we were not faced with the harsh unavoidable reality.
Campaigns to save the Polar Bear or Penguins have some value and I give credit to all the pro-environment orgs. We sure would not be as far along in this fight without their efforts, but once again I wish they weren't coming across so nonchalantly by making it sound like a humane society warm and fuzzy can you spare a dime cause to save the cute animals. The truth that everyone should be aware of is that we may see 50% or more of the world’s mammals succumbing to permanent extinction by the end of this century unless we get serious about our part in this crisis. Saving a few minutes really sounds rather petty compared to that, but you would have to slow down and think about it to understand that. And then you would really have to care enough to do something about it. Why should we continue with essentially the very behaviors that has brought us to this point? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. If anything should be done with speed, it's making that paradigm shift now. I'll be making my donations to the organizations that promote a return to a national 55mph limit.
Sincerely,
Larry Sanazaro
Nathanael Greene — Nov 21 2007 12:01 PM
Larry, thanks for your very thoughtful comments. I like the "slow down" notion a lot. Of course you have to be careful not to get caught in the trap of nostalgia--the notion that things were inherently better in the old days when they were slower--but the idea of slow, careful, and thoughtful use of modern technology makes a ton of sense.
Cheers,
N-
Larry Sanazaro — Nov 23 2007 06:05 PM
You are welcome Nathanael and thanks back at you for your posts and invitation to comment. Nostalgia plays little part in my thoughts, aside from wishing I was as ignorant as I was when I was a teen. I think the fact that I wish gas prices would reach a point that reflects the real value of oil attests to my beliefs being grounded in reality, not nostalgia. And just to make sure you don't get the idea I have money to burn, I can check the lowest amount for income on most surveys. And if it wasn't such a clueless behavior, I rather drive fast too. Hey man, I had a 57 chevy - there is nostalgia - but at some point we all should grow up and behave like responsible people. It's not easy being green.