Word
by George SeldesJune 1st, 2007 at 08:46:57
The False Hope of a Biofuel Free Lunch
From an op-ed by Mark W. Anderson, coordinator of the Ecology and Environmental Sciences Program at the University of Maine (Bangor Daily News):
Some analysts see corn-based ethanol as just a transition to “cellulosic” ethanol, but many of the same problems exist here. Most fundamentally, the flow of energy through plant systems is simply not large enough to replace fossil fuels. Additionally, any increased reliance on biofuels means that we divert precious farmland away from food production for the human population that continues to grow at a rate of nearly 80 million people a year. And whether it be for fuel or food, human use of more of the globe landscape for domesticated plants means we will see accelerating threats to other plant and animal species. Energy for food or fuels consumed by humans is not available for our nonhuman companions on this planet.
Why does government policy encourage such a flawed approach to energy policy with direct subsidies and massive spending on research and development programs? Why did we not learn from the failed synthetic fuels programs of the 1970s? There are three reasons, two of which come from what economists call “rent seeking behavior.” Rent seeking is when individuals and firms use the public-policy process to generate direct benefits, such as large direct subsidies. First, the most obvious beneficiaries of the ethanol craze are corn farmers and large agribusiness firms that buy and sell corn and other agricultural products. The subsidies have worked and there is an explosion of new ethanol factories in the Midwest. Whether or not this is good energy policy, it certainly has been good for corn farmers, giving new meaning to the phrase “corn-fed pork.”
Second, Midwestern universities and other research institutes have also prospered in this biofuels frenzy as the federal government pours millions of dollars into research and development programs. Careers are made, campuses grow, whether or not energy policy improves — more rent seeking behaviors.
Third, you and I are equally to blame. Americans want to believe that our energy challenges can be solved without any change in our habits or lifestyles. As long as the government tells us that there is a “renewable energy” source, we believe can continue to consume energy with abandon. We can drive ever bigger vehicles, ever more miles. We can heat and cool larger houses and live wherever we choose. This is the false hope of a free lunch from biofuels.
No matter how technologically capable we are, we cannot overcome the laws of nature. Biofuels are not a renewable energy source that will replace our dependence on fossil fuels. Believing so only continues to distract us from the real work at hand. If we were to put just a fraction of attention, creativity and funding into energy conservation that is going into biofuels, we would move much more quickly to address the energy problems at hand.
Complete article:
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?article …
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
There will never be a replacement for the energy in fossil fuel, that isn’t in dispute. It is only fossil fuel that has been a free lunch. Biomass and biodiesel proponents seek to ensure, in this analogy, that we have a lunch at reasonable cost, rather than no lunch at all. The sacrifices that will be necessary for other energy sources will be apparent in the years to come. Solar farming and wind farming both require acreages that could be used for food production. There is no perfect solution.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Well, once again we seem to be in agreement but somehow not. Perhaps we can shed some light on this by stating clearly our positions in plain English, without the metaphors and analogies.
I’ve gone on at length trying, apparently without success, to explain that I have no categorical objections to biofuels, while emphasizing my fear that Oregon seems poised to use very scarce dollars to repeat the blunder/corruption present at the federal level by adding yet another slice of pork to the biofuels’ industry’s already heaping plates.
I’ve stated repeatedly that I support true R&D for all energy sources, starting with conservation and efficiency but including supply methods as well, where appropriate.
I’ve even bent over backwards to suggest that there is compromise where I could support a production subsidy for Oregon-grown & produced biofuels, so long as the subsidy is only awarded for the net renewable energy content of the biofuels. That is, if the energy content of the liquid fuel output (the biofuel, not including coproducts not useful as replacements for fossil fuel liquids) is less than the energy content of the fossil fuel, then no subsidy.
If you don”t agree with those positions, then let me ask two questions of you:
What is it that you, as a “biomass and biodiesel proponent” are proposing?
What problem are biofuels (ethanols & biodiesels) the solution to?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Took me a while, but I wanted to find this article for you — a pretty strong case against any sorts of biofuels production at all, and even moreso against any sort of subsidized biofuels production.
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=0
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
George,
In a comment above, you say, “I’ve gone on at length trying, apparently without success, to explain that I have no categorical objections to biofuels…”. The problem must be my understanding of “categorical”, because is does seem to me that you have many objections to biofuels. Isn’t that so? In a later post, you comment “Nuts, but profitable” to a plan to encourage biofuels.
The article you include in the post here has the statement, “Biofuels are not a renewable energy source that will replace our dependence on fossil fuels.” I don’t understand exactly, possibly because it is a compound sentence. To take the first part, do you agree that biofuels are renewable? Is this author’s statement only meant to say that we can’t hope that biofuels can be produced in sufficient volume to replace fossil fuels at the current usage rates? If that is the case, is it not acceptable to piece together alternate fuels from a number of sources, as well as encourage conservation?
I’m new to this site, and trying to improve my understanding of global warming details. Is it your view that biofuels are bad for the climate? If so, could you point me to some articles on this? If not, is it your concern that we should be putting our “energies” elsewhere? (bad pun!)
June 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Pete, thanks for asking. Welcome! I encourage you to spend some time absorbing the wealth of information available at two excellent sites:
1) Robert Rapier’s excellent “R Squared” blog at http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/
2) Energybulletin.net, a compendium of everything energy related.
Meanwhile, to address your comment.
1) My understanding is that a categorical objection is one that would reject anything that falls within the category.
So I don’t have a categorical objection to biofuels.
For starters, for as long as we’re able to have fast food fry pits, we should be requiring that the waste grease be turned into biodiesel. On the other hand, clearing off the forests in Indonesia to plant palms for palm oil to be turned into biodiesel is worse than stupid–it’s criminally stupid.
So my specific (rather than categorical) objections to biofuels or rooted in the specific problems with them. More precisely, my major objection is to subsidizing biofuels rather than letting them compete with and supplant petroleum products where appropriate. “Where appropriate” means “where their use leads to a greater REDUCTION in fossil fuel usage than anything else we could have done with that money/time.”
2) To answer your question about whether it’s acceptable to “piece together alternate fuels” from a number of sources I would need to know the answers to the questions I asked JD:
Pending your reply to those questions, I can only say that the no biofuel is acceptable that is not sustainably planted/tended/harvested/shipped/processed/shipped/burned.
For starts, that would mean preserving the soil and absolutely no use of fossil energy, particularly coal, anywhere in the system–we need to be phasing out coal ASAP. Burning 300 tons per day to make ethanol for autos is, truly, nuts. Suicidally so.
Equally important, no biofuel is worth discussing if it means trading depletion of oil for depletion of soil. We can return to living without oil, but no society has lasted 20 years after destroying its soil.
We are currently on an unsustainable treadmill with fossil fuels–but they are such a rich source of energy (the energy of ancient sunlight stored in them) that, if we are careful and thoughtful, we can use those fossil fuels to reorder our relationship with our energy sources and uses.
But we shouldn’t fool ourselves that going from one unsustainable system to another is any improvement.
Yes, biofuels are disastrous for the climate, not only because we are burning more and more coal to make them, but then we are burning the biofuels in the most wasteful ways possible, powering the standard American auto.
So, if I were a concise person like you, I would say we should definitely be putting our energies elsewhere. :^)
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
George,
In my comment, I’m merely replying to the article you quoted. The biofuel issue has become polarized, with plenty of ammunition on both sides.
I propose the answers to your questions are self-evident, in light of the impending scarcity of oil and the need to harvest hitherto untapped sources of energy.
Farmers have been successfully managing soil depletion and erosion for decades. Biofuel crops shouldn’t present a risk to soil integrity unless standard procedures are ignored.
The transition to totally sustainable energy can’t be done instantly, we need time to taper off and iron out the kinks.
Welcome Pete, and thanks for the comments!
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
JD,
The answers to those questions are NOT self-evident, at least to this self. If I try to tease out what I think your answers are based on inferences from what you say, I will necessarily be putting words in your mouth you may not intend, and we’ll probably spend a lot of time going round in circles.
So, if I may, let me ask you to plainly state here what you say is so self-evident—if it’s as evident as you say, then it should not be too great an imposition.
So, please, what do you propose is proper policy with respect to biofuels, and what problem(s) are you intending to address with these policies?
Perhaps this issue has become polarized because we don’t take the time to clearly identify the questions at issue and to understand the positions of the people at the other “pole.”
Meanwhile, your assertion about farming the last few decades coincides with a period of substantial and rising petrochemical inputs and widespread soil depletion. Moreover, note the studies showing that our conventionally farmed soils produce food with declining nutrient value because conventionally managed soils need minerals not being provided by the petro-fertilizers regime).