THE Biofuel Thread pt 3 (merged)

[Tanada]

While it certainly would not hurt my feelings any I want to see it before I believe it. All of my life I have been hearing these sort of claims for a new way of doing things, yet somehow very few of them ever come to fruition.

[ian807]

As always...

1) ]What does it cost per unit of energy relative to other sources?

2) Considering all production energy, what's the energy return on energy invested?

And as always....

Neither of these is ever mentioned in these "breakthrough" articles whose only job is to sell advertising or penny stock.

Cheers!

[NeoPeasant]

These "biofuel breakthrus" always make me wonder: Where is all this cellulose going to in the environment now, and what sort of problems will be caused by it' sudden absence?

Another thing I wonder: If you create an enzyme that makes cellulose into sugars digestible by yeast, don't you also make it digestible by livestock and/or people? Perhaps when we outgrow our obsession with ways of life based on excessive amounts of moving ourselves and our stuff around, we will be able to use this technology to alleviate future famines.

[TheAntiDoomer]

http://www.physorg.com/news189084268.html

Using genetic sleight of hand, researcher Xinyao Liu and professor Roy Curtiss at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute have coaxed photosynthetic microbes to secrete oil—bypassing energy and cost barriers that have hampered green biofuel production. Their results appear in this week's advanced online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[EnergyUnlimited]

However they still didn't address 2 critical issues:

1. If we are to rely on atmospheric CO2, then there is not enough of it in air to secure adequate production rate of fuel (however installation could still work coupled to power plant).

2. Species control in large scale production systems might be impossible to achieve at reasonable cost and effort.
It is likely that other microorganisms (bacteria, algae, fungi, viruses) will invade your bacterial cultures, start to compete with desired microorganism and spoil a fun in no time at all.

[Graeme]

Biofuels By 2020 Could Generate $230 Billion

Biofuels are certainly a source of renewable energy and income for many entities – take the state of Iowa, for example. The question is: how much potential impact could this particular category of fuel source have on the global economy in coming years? A new report [PDF] out from the World Economic Forum suggests it could be very big, generating $230 billion and creating over 800,000 jobs by 2020.

This report, presented by Steen Riisgaard, CEO of biofuel firm Novozymes at the recent Bio World Congress conference in Washington, was authored by Sir David King of Oxford University. It concludes that much of that $230 billion in generated revenue could very well end up here in the United States. It is said our country is the current world leader in biofuel development, accounting currently for more than 40,000 jobs. The future 800,000 jobs figure is projected to just be domestically, including 190,000 direct new green jobs, and 610,000 indirect new jobs.

earthtechling

[Golgo13]

To eat, or to drive.

Choices, choices.

[Graeme]

Yes, we have lots of problems. There are pros and cons for using biofuels. One would hope that the problems associated with manufacturing biofuels can be solved my smarter, college-educated graduates. There are some who simply wish to whine, like spoilt 2-year-old brats, and say it can't be done, and others who are more mature and willing to face up to the challenge and offer solutions. Hopefully, you are in the latter group.

The challenges can be resolved by a collaborative research team. I'll begin with my usual 2-cents worth by doing a google search for potential solutions. For example:

It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass such as citrus peels or used vegetable oil to manufacture an environmentally sustainable fuel supply, and reduce waste disposal cost.

Non-food crops for biofuel

There are different types of biofuels and different feedstocks for them, and it has been proposed that only non-food crops be used for biofuel. This avoids direct competition for commodities like corn and edible vegetable oil. However, as long as farmers can make more money by switching to biofuels they will. [84][85] The law of supply and demand predicts that if fewer farmers are producing food the price of food will rise.[24]

Third generation biofuels (biofuel from algae) uses non-edible raw materials sources that can be used for biodiesel and bioethanol.

Non-food crops like Camelina, Jatropha, seashore mallow and mustard[86], used for biodiesel, can thrive on marginal agricultural land where many trees and crops won't grow, or would produce only slow growth yields.

And you can see that if we had about 40 more renewable energy projects like this, then the economic problems that the US faces will be much less frightening. Capiche?

[americandream]

Taking issue with capitalism is not acting like a spoilt brat and to construe an ideological understanding of the inevitable failure of capitalism, ad hoc remedies notwithstanding, only goes to demonstrate how deluded you are.

Not once have you risen to the challenge of illustrating how the glaringly obvious capitalist annual growth paradigm and its twin, massive resource leakage, can be reconciled with your evident notions of sustainable consumerism and some airy fairy closed capitalist cycle.

The whole idea that you can render the system viable long term by this or that elastoplast at a time when resourcing is in the spotlight and the boundaries of American style consumerism are extending their tentacles over the remaining 5 billion, is so stupid, I really donlt know where to start with you.

The only option you really have if you will think is to press for the removal of this system, not repair the hopelessly irrepairable. And for that you scrap private ownership and obsolescent consumerism, replacing it with a fully socialised infrastructure where money is only a means for exchange borne of labour surplus applied socially and not in the accumulation of the passive surplus of the capitalist.

Yes, we have lots of problems. There are pros and cons for using biofuels. One would hope that the problems associated with manufacturing biofuels can be solved my smarter, college-educated graduates. There are some who simply wish to whine, like spoilt 2-year-old brats, and say it can't be done, and others who are more mature and willing to face up to the challenge and offer solutions. Hopefully, you are in the latter group.

The challenges can be resolved by a collaborative research team. I'll begin with my usual 2-cents worth by doing a google search for potential solutions. For example:

It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass such as citrus peels or used vegetable oil to manufacture an environmentally sustainable fuel supply, and reduce waste disposal cost.

Non-food crops for biofuel

There are different types of biofuels and different feedstocks for them, and it has been proposed that only non-food crops be used for biofuel. This avoids direct competition for commodities like corn and edible vegetable oil. However, as long as farmers can make more money by switching to biofuels they will. [84][85] The law of supply and demand predicts that if fewer farmers are producing food the price of food will rise.[24]

Third generation biofuels (biofuel from algae) uses non-edible raw materials sources that can be used for biodiesel and bioethanol.

Non-food crops like Camelina, Jatropha, seashore mallow and mustard[86], used for biodiesel, can thrive on marginal agricultural land where many trees and crops won't grow, or would produce only slow growth yields.

And you can see that if we had about 40 more renewable energy projects like this, then the economic problems that the US faces will be much less frightening. Capiche?

[Graeme]

AD, We are talking about biofuels in this thread - not economics of continual growth. I wasn't addressing my comments to you. I've told you elsewhere that this issue can be resolved by gradually introducing steady-state economics. It is a separate topic, which I'm not qualified to discuss. And while we're at it, we should opt for zero-growth for global population too - another separate topic.

But lets get back to the topic in question. The US will proceed with their biofuel targets.

US unveils roadmap to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022

US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled a roadmap earlier this week outlining a regional strategy to help meet the target of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022.

“The Obama Administration has made domestic production of renewable energy a national priority and I am confident that we can meet the threshold of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022,” says Vilsack.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) report identifies numerous biomass feedstocks – including switchgrass, corn, crop residues and municipal waste – that could be used to produce biofuel and calls for further research into new feedstocks, sustainable production methods and efficient conversion technologies.

energyefficiencynews

[americandream]

This is an open forum where we are at liberty to debate the finer points of a technical elastoplast and call it bullshit which is what the notion that bio-fuelling expanding globalised capitalism (Which is what America's fuel profile represents and will represent more so in 2020) is. And anyone who believes in a steady state systemic response to our fuel crises can only but so respond. You'll have to display some of that legendary social liberalism Greame and be open to replies that do not accord with your views, or else cogently deal with them.

edit: and the whole notion of steady state capitalism as you appear to ascribe to in that line is a wee bit like Christian prostitution, irreconciliable. Growth by definition requires obsolescence, which is rather rudimentary logic.

The idea that biofuels' role as contemplated in this thread could take up some slack assumes that there is slack to be taken up in a rapidly growing market for energy. It's a pipe dream. At best, biofuels may help to keep the elite, military and pilice operating round the clock with rations for the rank and file but biofuels is at best a finger in the dyke and needs to be called out for what it is.

AD, We are talking about biofuels in this thread - not economics of continual growth. I wasn't addressing my comments to you. I've told you elsewhere that this issue can be resolved by gradually introducing steady-state economics. It is a separate topic, which I'm not qualified to discuss. And while we're at it, we should opt for zero-growth for global population too - another separate topic.

But lets get back to the topic in question. The US will proceed with their biofuel targets.

US unveils roadmap to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022

US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled a roadmap earlier this week outlining a regional strategy to help meet the target of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022.

“The Obama Administration has made domestic production of renewable energy a national priority and I am confident that we can meet the threshold of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022,” says Vilsack.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) report identifies numerous biomass feedstocks – including switchgrass, corn, crop residues and municipal waste – that could be used to produce biofuel and calls for further research into new feedstocks, sustainable production methods and efficient conversion technologies.

energyefficiencynews

[Graeme]

AD, You are quite right that this is an open forum, one of the privileges we have in an American-style democracy. But there is a place for a discussion on economics in this forum. I have tried to "deal" with the issue by referring you to another thread and forum. It would be more appropriate to continue that discussion there. As I said, it is a separate and important issue.

If you will permit me to continue with the theme of this thread - that biofuels offer an alternative to petroleum and also help with economic development - I would like to extend this theme with the following post. It not only mentions biofuels but other renewable energy "sources" as well.

Global warming: The 4.6% solution

What is our goal? To safely provide enough energy for the current and future population to allow for development and enjoyment of a lifestyle demanding as much energy as Americans now are privileged enough (and wasteful enough) to permit themselves.

This is 3,000 quadrillion BTUs. That's how much energy a population of 9.2 billion humans (the probable population in 2100) would use if they used the same energy per capita as we do in the U.S. (327 billion BTUs per person right now). Note that most of Europe gets by on far less, and they have a pretty good lifestyle, so 3,000 is certainly an upper limit, not a conservative estimate.

Just to state the obvious, we probably cannot and certainly don't want to do this with fossil fuels--not unless we want the world to look like China's most polluted cities. We'll certainly continue to use them--but they'll get hard enough to find and prepare that they'll be much more valuable commodities than they are today, and we'll be using renewables shortly because they're cheaper and easier to produce.

Last year renewable energy provided us with 52 quads. That seems like a very long ways from 3,000. But thanks to the miracle of compound growth and endless innovation, to reach 3,000 quads from renewables by 2100 only needs an annual growth rate of 4.6%. To do it by 2050 would require heroic growth--about 10% per year.

Is this feasible? The workhorses of renewable power right now are hydroelectric power and combined heat and power (also known as cogeneration). Hydroelectric power is set to double over the next 20 years, and CHP is growing so fast that nobody can keep track of it.

The renewables that get all the press--wind, solar and biofuels--have grown strongly over the past decade, but from such a small base that one has to wonder if they can continue at the same rate. I certainly think that wind has peaked--at least temporarily, due to the fall in the price of its natural competitor, natural gas. I think biofuels have a long ways to go in terms of fourth generation algae, but ethanol and biodiesel can fill in for the moment.

My long term bet is on solar power, which is dropping in price and spreading in terms of deployment and possibilities. From simple solar thermal for home water heating to complex concentrated solar power stations, solar is spreading like wildfire.

examiner

[americandream]

What the heck are you on about? This is the worldwide web and for all you know, I could be in outer Mongolia or South Africa. Whats speaking on the web got to do with democracy in America unless it is to infer that in waging open and covert wars in Chile, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nicaragua, Iraq etc, etc to name a few places, America is securing me my democracy here in New Zealand. Which is utter drivel.

A basic lesson in democracy. No elite has gladly given anyone the right to vote or speak openly. Those rights were hard won by popular struggles all across this world, from France to India and New Zealand to Norway and everywhere in between. And these struggles are ongoing in the face of elite attempts to trivialise the gains made to date whilst they seek to take ownership of the struggles.

Nor is the issue of whether biofuels or any other fuel system are capable of supplementing crude oil above being challenged beyond the narrow remit you, my friend, have tried persistently over the years to limit us to. It can and will be challenged and it is up to you to come up with better responses than you have to date. Or else, you can admit that you are an apologist for the Wall Stree elite and be done with the cliches. At least, you would be honest rather than these inane responses.

AD, You are quite right that this is an open forum, one of the privileges we have in an American-style democracy. But there is a place for a discussion on economics in this forum. I have tried to "deal" with the issue by referring you to another thread and forum. It would be more appropriate to continue that discussion there. As I said, it is a separate and important issue.

If you will permit me to continue with the theme of this thread - that biofuels offer an alternative to petroleum and also help with economic development - I would like to extend this theme with the following post. It not only mentions biofuels but other renewable energy "sources" as well.

Global warming: The 4.6% solution

What is our goal? To safely provide enough energy for the current and future population to allow for development and enjoyment of a lifestyle demanding as much energy as Americans now are privileged enough (and wasteful enough) to permit themselves.

This is 3,000 quadrillion BTUs. That's how much energy a population of 9.2 billion humans (the probable population in 2100) would use if they used the same energy per capita as we do in the U.S. (327 billion BTUs per person right now). Note that most of Europe gets by on far less, and they have a pretty good lifestyle, so 3,000 is certainly an upper limit, not a conservative estimate.

Just to state the obvious, we probably cannot and certainly don't want to do this with fossil fuels--not unless we want the world to look like China's most polluted cities. We'll certainly continue to use them--but they'll get hard enough to find and prepare that they'll be much more valuable commodities than they are today, and we'll be using renewables shortly because they're cheaper and easier to produce.

Last year renewable energy provided us with 52 quads. That seems like a very long ways from 3,000. But thanks to the miracle of compound growth and endless innovation, to reach 3,000 quads from renewables by 2100 only needs an annual growth rate of 4.6%. To do it by 2050 would require heroic growth--about 10% per year.

Is this feasible? The workhorses of renewable power right now are hydroelectric power and combined heat and power (also known as cogeneration). Hydroelectric power is set to double over the next 20 years, and CHP is growing so fast that nobody can keep track of it.

The renewables that get all the press--wind, solar and biofuels--have grown strongly over the past decade, but from such a small base that one has to wonder if they can continue at the same rate. I certainly think that wind has peaked--at least temporarily, due to the fall in the price of its natural competitor, natural gas. I think biofuels have a long ways to go in terms of fourth generation algae, but ethanol and biodiesel can fill in for the moment.

My long term bet is on solar power, which is dropping in price and spreading in terms of deployment and possibilities. From simple solar thermal for home water heating to complex concentrated solar power stations, solar is spreading like wildfire.

examiner

[Graeme]

You have stated that you come from NZ like me. The Peak oil website is owned and operated by Americans mostly. Look up "About Us". Dan, Aaron (both Americans) and mods can decide who to ban if they think members violate the board rules. In a democracy, we have the right to vote and speak openly. As an example, we can express our views freely on this Board. I'm not talking about the "Wall Street elite" or alternative economic systems. You can challenge whether biofuels will partially replace petroleum consumption as much as you like. The fact is that these fuels will be introduced and they will also provide an economic benefit as I have indicated.

[americandream]

Irrespective of who owns this board, it is in the international domain and as such does not afford me any privileges that I would otherwise not enjoy. The fact that they as American owners of this site afford me the right to voice my opinions is no different frorm any number of websites hosted in any number of countries and driven by the specific objective of pure knowledge (much to their credit). Does that then make that objective peculair to that country. I think not. The urge to be free and express oneself freely in the quest for reasonably considered positions is a universal one and one in which the whole gamut of humanity is engaged, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser. To then suggest that we owe forelock tugging to capitalists for this incidental aspect of being sentient is, to say the least, wind of the purest kind.

As regards these benefits you periodically post, any number of developments between now and when capitalism finally hits the buffers of resource constraints will no doubt benefit the sysytem in a variety of ways. To however suggest that biofuels offer such a potential ( and I refer here to the benefit inferred by you) is utter idiocy in the face of this planets rapid rise in energy demand. Only an absolute clot chooses to ignore the rise of the 5 billion non-westerners aspiring to the American dominated Western way of life and to suggest that anything can replace oil let alone supplement it in the face of these glaring facts is to be....I really don't know how to characterise this, lost as I am for words.

Go and study up on economy for crissakes, man! Seeing half the picture is a health risk, not just to you, but your audience as well.

You have stated that you come from NZ like me. The Peak oil website is owned and operated by Americans mostly. Look up "About Us". Dan, Aaron (both Americans) and mods can decide who to ban if they think members violate the board rules. In a democracy, we have the right to vote and speak openly. As an example, we can express our views freely on this Board. I'm not talking about the "Wall Street elite" or alternative economic systems. You can challenge whether biofuels will partially replace petroleum consumption as much as you like. The fact is that these fuels will be introduced and they will also provide an economic benefit as I have indicated.

[lper100km]

Well, here we have the perfect solution to two of the biggest world problems – energy and population. One has to marvel at it’s simplicity, elegance and malevolence. It can be marketed as a ‘good thing’ for the environment, something that all the eco supporters can get behind. Bio fuels! The answer to all our problems! It’s a solution worthy of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell’s darkest imaginations.

What will really happen is that the agricultural land base will gradually and increasingly be turned over to grow biofuel raw stock. There’s more profit in fuel than food. Start with poor countries or poor areas and pay a small premium to grow biofuel stock. It’s happening now in Sierra Leone where rice is being supplanted by sugar cane (for conversion to ethanol, not sugar). Then as starvation sets in and the population begins to decline, the agricultural land base can be taken over and raided more and more. After all, there are now fewer people to feed. Governments would either be complicit or powerless. Eventually there will be sufficient fuel available for the fortunate who have managed to survive and no further reductions in agricultural land will be necessary. Thus new eco balances will have been formed (economics and ecosystems) for a vastly reduced population and after a few generations, who would remember or even know about the old? All that the history books would say is that there was great world famine brought about by blighted crops or mismanaged agriculture (which would be true, but for the wrong reasons).

I can’t believe I am writing this. I don’t want to think that people, corporations, governments could be so evil in thought as to actually implement such a deliberate policy, but I’m not so naïve as to think that it is not possible. Maybe it starts as a simple business plan for alternative energy but mushrooms out of control once avarice and power plays take over.

What is scary is that building blocks are already in place. Farming and agriculture is now agribusiness in NA and Europe. GM bio products are an established fact.

Sustainability is the way of the future? Maybe, but at what price? Be careful what you wish for.

[americandream]

You really capture the tension between endless annual growth in capital and the effects such a system must have on world food production and the general destruction of our civic values as a communal species, reducing us all to mere disconnected units in pursuit of that growth. Terrible!

Well, here we have the perfect solution to two of the biggest world problems – energy and population. One has to marvel at it’s simplicity, elegance and malevolence. It can be marketed as a ‘good thing’ for the environment, something that all the eco supporters can get behind. Bio fuels! The answer to all our problems! It’s a solution worthy of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell’s darkest imaginations.

What will really happen is that the agricultural land base will gradually and increasingly be turned over to grow biofuel raw stock. There’s more profit in fuel than food. Start with poor countries or poor areas and pay a small premium to grow biofuel stock. It’s happening now in Sierra Leone where rice is being supplanted by sugar cane (for conversion to ethanol, not sugar). Then as starvation sets in and the population begins to decline, the agricultural land base can be taken over and raided more and more. After all, there are now fewer people to feed. Governments would either be complicit or powerless. Eventually there will be sufficient fuel available for the fortunate who have managed to survive and no further reductions in agricultural land will be necessary. Thus new eco balances will have been formed (economics and ecosystems) for a vastly reduced population and after a few generations, who would remember or even know about the old? All that the history books would say is that there was great world famine brought about by blighted crops or mismanaged agriculture (which would be true, but for the wrong reasons).

I can’t believe I am writing this. I don’t want to think that people, corporations, governments could be so evil in thought as to actually implement such a deliberate policy, but I’m not so naïve as to think that it is not possible. Maybe it starts as a simple business plan for alternative energy but mushrooms out of control once avarice and power plays take over.

What is scary is that building blocks are already in place. Farming and agriculture is now agribusiness in NA and Europe. GM bio products are an established fact.

Sustainability is the way of the future? Maybe, but at what price? Be careful what you wish for.

[Graeme]

Shell set to ink Brazilian biofuel megadeal

Shell is poised to complete a multibillion-dollar deal with Brazilian ethanol producer Cosan, instantly establishing the company as a major player in the fast-expanding biofuel market.

Cosan's chief executive Marcos Lutz told analysts and investors late last week that plans for the two companies to launch a $12bn joint venture are now close to finalisation.

Lutz could not say when the deal would close, but insisted that it was at a "very advanced" stage.

The companies announced back in February that the deal would create a new biofuels powerhouse. Cosan is to pool its 23 sugar mills and fuel stations with the bulk of Shell's existing biofuel operations.

Cosan is also set to double its existing bioethanol production, establishing it as the third-largest fuel distributor in Brazil and providing the new joint venture with a direct route into the European and North American markets.

businessgreen

[hillsidedigger]

There's that much more land, water and bio-diversity to be wasted.

[eXpat]

Biofuel is big in Brazil, another thing that is big, is the destruction of the tropical rainforest.

Nick Mathiason wrote in Guardian last month, "Cosan is Brazil's leading bioethanol producer in a country where virtually all new cars run on sugar cane. But there are serious reservations among environmentalists that the growing attraction of biofuels in Brazil could see agricultural land earmarked for food shifted to fuel crops, creating pressure to chop down more rainforests. Kenneth Richter, who campaigns against biofuels, said: "Massively expanding sugar cane plantations to produce biofuels will significantly threaten Brazil's rainforest. The biofuels industry is pushing agricultural activity on to forested land where trees are cut down to make space for farming. (Shell dismisses and disputes these concerns.) To be truly green energy companies should invest in clean, renewable and safe forms of energy like wind and solar power." Shell has significantly scaled down its wind and solar investments, sparking fierce criticism from environmentalists. It is now concentrating on biofuels and carbon capture and sequestration."

It is widely known and believed that the (relatively) recent trend of increasing production of crops to make more biofuels has raised the price of food globally. Many critics have labeled this trend as 'crime against humanity'. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , however rejected that notion at a UN conference in 2008, and offered his own (and novel) explanation for the rising food costs. He said that food is getting costlier, because people in developing countries are now eating more due to their newly improved economic conditions.

http://www.beinformedjournal.com/beinformed-journal/2010/3/3/shells-12b-deal-with-brazils-cosan-for-biofuels.html

I have not doubt that Cosal is a good partner for Shell, after all, they are very budget-conscious people.
Shell makes deal with Cosan in brazil despite slave labour claims

The oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has announced a $12 billion (£7.5 billion) deal with Cosan, one of the world’s largest ethanol and sugar producers, despite claims that the Brazilian company used slave labour.

On 31 December Cosan was included in the Brazilian Labour Ministry’s slave labour ‘dirty list’ after an inspection in June 2007 by the country’s anti-slavery taskforce, the Special Mobile Inspection Group, rescued 42 people from Cosan’s Junqueira refinery. The refinery in São Paulo State produces 24,000 bags of sugar and a million litres of ethanol a day.

The enslaved workers had been trafficked from north east Brazil, the poorest region of the country, with false promises of a good job and decent wages. Inspectors found workers were left unpaid after deductions were taken from their wages for rent in unhygienic lodgings and for basic necessities, including protective hats. The workers, which included one minor, did not have proper contracts and were left without clean drinking worker.

http://www.antislavery.org/english/press_and_news/news_and_press_releases_2009/030210_shell_makes_deal_with_cosan_despite_slave_labour_claims.aspx
But hey! how cares? as long as we can keep business as usual everything is fine...