Bio-fuels .... good or bad? 16

[jmw]

Does anyone have any idea of the impact of bio-fuels? pros and cons?
We are no longer talking about recycling used chip fat here, but purposeful production.
Even as Bio-fuels begin to atract attention we hear about grain and meat prices rising, as we should expect when there is competition to turn our wheat into either bread or fuel.
We also have concerns about our environment. Indonesia is said to be prepared to plant more palms for the palm oil and that means more destruction of the forrests (more burning and smoke?) and loss of habitat to the already endangered (how seriously?) Orang Outang.
This report suggests Brazilian sugar cane as a source.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/09/24013816/BPCL-looks-to-tie-up-with-Petr.html

We all know that we are already losing rain forest at an alarming rate so how bad will this be? 600 acres doesn't sound like a whole lot of land but:
[ul][li] how much bio-fuel will it produce?[/li]
[li]Should bio-fuel be organic? (seriously, the impact of chemicals etc isn't just on foods but on the local ecosystems... )[/li]
[li]How much land would be required to produce enough bio-fuel to replace petrol/diesel?[/li]
[li]If we replace petrol/diesel with bio-fuel, how cost effective is secondary refining [/li]
[li]what are the impacts on the oil industry? Does crude get more expensive or less?[/li]
[li]what are the economic impacts of such changes on refining and thus on society?[/li]
[li]What are the questions we should be asking?[/li][/ul]


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

Or for a long-term picture, how many Joules of energy go into the average person's mouth compared with those that go into his tank? I have no idea but suspect that the ratio is well below unity.

 

[BJC]

There is a good artical in the OCtober NAtionla Geographic that answers some of your questions.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels-interactive.html

 

[jmw]

And some interesting comments in the Greenie watch website especially the comment titled "Naughty Bio-Fuels"

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MechanicalAnimal]

Try reading "Revenge of the Gaia" or some other James Lovelock book. He has an attitute and isn't 100% objective (far from it), but he lays out some objective scientifically correct info.

 

[YoungTurk]

On the last point jmw, I think you're already on the right track in terms of the questions we should be asking.

As far as the other questions go, I think the answer is largely that it depends.

How much will it produce - which type of biofuel are you considering, and which refining process?
Cost effectiveness - what is the energy source for your refining process?
What will the future price trend of of petro-fuel be?

Personally I'm quite hopeful for bio-fuel. The fact is it can be produced and used with a net carbon release of zero, if done right. And the proceeds from bio-fuel are much more likely to benefit a wider section of the population than petro-fuel; notably the agriculture producers and their supporting industries. Many of the arguments targeted at bio-fuel neglect to consider (often intentionally) that it is a a technology in its infancy, with a large amount of efficiency yet to be gained.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

 

[YoungTurk]

Example: from the antigreen website dated today, Sep 25: "Corn based ethanol contains 76,000 BTU's/gal, and takes 98,000 BTU's/gal to plant, grow, harvest, and refine. NET POSITIVE BTU? Uhhh. None. -22,000 actually. "

From Argonne National Lab, dated July '02: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34- percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain."

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Antigreen indeed.

 

[GregLocock]

Well, Argonne aren't exactly neutral. Their funding comes from the Feds, and the Feds want to bribe the farmers, so the politically acceptable message is that corn based ethanol is a positive step.

Realistically most of this silliness will be eliminated if, or when, the price of oil rises to a level commensurate with its value - at the moment it is so cheap it is virtually impossible to make rational decisions on reducing its usage.

However since the Saudis are now building petrochemical plants, to turn oil into plastic, we might see a fundamental revaluation of the price of oil.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[0707]

Burning bio fuels simply sends back into the atmosphere carbon dioxide that the plants took out when they were growing in the field.

So the use of bio fuels will grow more and start becoming attractive as fossil fuel oils price increase.

There is no sufficient arable land on which to grow all the bio fuel crops needed to satisfy industrialised nations.

The industrialised countries are looking to the Third World to feed their addiction: the land is there for the taking as is cheap labour, and the environmental damages of large plantations, bio fuels extraction and refining can all be outsourced, exactly as they were in the extraction of crude oil.

By cutting down the world forests to have intensive Soya plantations will have a negative impact on net CO2 balance.

Development needs energy, energy has impacts on Earth climate changes, and Earth is the ship of all the humankind. Let us think together for a better and clean energy

luismarques


“We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.
By James Lovelock Allen"

 

[KENAT]

On a relatively small scale with targeted application etc, probably good.

On a very large scale which involves reducing food production so much as to cause hardship, destroying valuable environments etc then probably bad, or at least problematic.


"By cutting down the world forests to have intensive Soya plantations will have a negative impact on net CO2 balance. "

Will it, at least significantly? I thought that mature forests were close to carbon neutral, the dead foliage etc decays releasing CO2 etc almost as fast as the live foliage takes in CO2, especially when you add in the associated wildlife. Growing crops (if you ignore the fuel used etc) is also approximately carbon neutral.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[jmw]

In the UK we are informed that the price of eggs is set to increase by 50% because of wheat prices.
This is somewhat alarming because we have hardly mooted the idea of bio-fuels and already we are seeing serious price impacts.
Now I don't know just how much of this is anticipated and how much is transitional but it worries me that in the short term we may be able to feed our cars but not our families and even if both food and bio-fuel are available we may not be able to afford both.
Of course it is transitional.
We just have to wait until the rain forests are chopped down and burned (as seems to be the natural response and which releases a huge amount of CO2 and CO2 collected by some trees over many decades, perhaps even a hundred or so years in some cases, will be released in a series of rapid bur seasons.) then we will have all the land we need for bio-fuels and food. Maybe. Club of Rome anyone?
We still avoid the problem of too many people and a need for a fuel source that doesn't destroy the planet as we know it in one way or another.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

... back to Lomborg's assessment. Big solar cell arrays in otherwise empty deserts.

 

[KENAT]

Related question, while it may vary with climate etc., what is actually the best crop in terms of efficiency for creating biofuel?

Cane sugar seems good for conventional ethanol but is corn really competative without massive governement subsidies? Is sugar beet a better alternative?

Are some of the 'vegetable' oil sources more efficient?

If cellulose ethanol comes out well then what is the best feed crop, or is it better to use waste from regular food production?

What about these supposed processes that can turn certain wastes into an oil?


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[Ashereng]

In the US, where corn is used for ethanol/bio-fuel production, prices for "agricultural" producers are going up:
- fertilizers for other crops are increasing as corn growers, with a higher margin crop, can pay higher prices
- feed lot owners are charging more because corn (for feed) is increasing (to a fuel equivalent)
- land that once produced other crops are switching to corn, resulting in less other produce
- land that once did not produce anything (for example, lack of water) are being converted to crops, in many cases, with irrigation (because the fuel equivalent prices make it economically viable) resulting in heavier water usage, and heavier water run off

So, price of food is going up.

Another problem: if you grow only corn on a piece of land, you start "starving" the soil of specific nutrients - that is why farmers rotate crops in certain patterns, in order to keep the soil healthy. The alternative is fertilizers, which is what many growers are doing to take advantage of the prices due to ethanol.

Yes, other countries are going bio-fuel, but at what long term cost? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

I think bio-fuel is a good technology. I think the application of the technology needs to be improved. When we use wood chips, food processing plant leftovers, spent oil/grease, bio-fuel is a good idea. To use "virgin crops" to convert to bio-fuel (ethanol, bio-diesel, etc), I think that needs to be re-thinked to see if it really is viable in the long run.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[dcasto]

ther is 24 calories in 1 oz of ethanol. If you need 3000 calories to stay alive and walk to work, that's 1 gallon per day. Every gallon of ethanol fuel starves 1 person.

 

[KENAT]

Well, why not give up tobacco, tea, coffee, silk etc before starving. Even abandon some food types that make relatively inefficient use of the land.

How much land is used on 'non essential' crops, how much ethanol could we get from it?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[jmw]

That is also where the question of "organic Bio-Fule" comes in. Organic farming generally makes less intensive use of land. Plus, in the UK, farmers are encouraged to leave the field margins and hedgerows for the benfit of wildlife whether organic farmed or not.
Plus we have the EU set aside schemes.
Now you can bet that pressure on land use will put pressure on organic farmers and the price of organic food will probably rise more steeply just to get the same or better $/£/€ yield per acre.
Or, organic farming will go by the board. As suggested above, without crop rotation farms will be dependent on fertilisers.
There are some serious environmental issues here.
What happens to set aside?
The big supermarkets have had some negative effects on the countryside, and farm management tends toward the big machines which requires larger fields and fewer hedge rows. Operatoed by or on behalf of the bio-fuel companies can we see pressure for more of this?
EU dwellers can also look forward to some interesting revamping of farm subsidies.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

I have 26.9MJ/kg for ethanol's lower heating value. That's 6.4 kcal/g or about 5000 kcal/l or 23000 kcal/gallon_UK. So each UK gallon could "feed" about 7 people.

(My order-of-magnitude alarm bells started ringing when I noticed that a gallon of ethanol equates to 2.5 gallons of whiskey. That's a lot of booze for one person to consume each day!)

 

[jmw]

SomptingGuy,
You scared me! I'm still scared.
Food or fuel, OK, but food or whiskey? Oh dear. Just think how punitively the Chancellor will tax Whiskey to make us use it for fuel esle fuel prices will climb to whiskey prices.
The impact on the Whiskey industry would bring about the Secession of Scotland from The UK.
So OK Japanese or Welsh Whiskey, I can live without that, so long as there is Scotch or Bourbon.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Ussuri]

Except that "Whiskey" is anything not produced in Scotland. They distil "Whisky" in Scotland. They say man cannot live on beer alone. What about beer and whisky then?