Comments on: Biofuels and Mitigation/Adaptation http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9676 docpine Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:57:10 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9676 Not to be repetitious here, but there are many potential sources of biofuels that don't require fertilization. Again, I am concerned that biofuels are getting a bad reputation right now because of the corn cropping system. Biofuels are so much broader than that, and we can breed plants and design cropping systems any way we want for sustainability, including without fertilizers. And generally wood available for biofuels has not been fertilized. So I agree with Michael, a sustainability assessment of a particular source of biofuel needs to be done before we could calculate the environmental costs and benefits. What surprises me about this discourse at the broader policy level is the swinging of the pendulum from biofuels are good to bad without stopping by the answer to this question "why not design them to be good, if you think they are bad?" Not to be repetitious here, but there are many potential sources of biofuels that don’t require fertilization.

Again, I am concerned that biofuels are getting a bad reputation right now because of the corn cropping system. Biofuels are so much broader than that, and we can breed plants and design cropping systems any way we want for sustainability, including without fertilizers. And generally wood available for biofuels has not been fertilized.
So I agree with Michael, a sustainability assessment of a particular source of biofuel needs to be done before we could calculate the environmental costs and benefits. What surprises me about this discourse at the broader policy level is the swinging of the pendulum from biofuels are good to bad without stopping by the answer to this question “why not design them to be good, if you think they are bad?”

]]> By: BRIAN http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9675 BRIAN Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:57:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9675 See: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy' at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/ Vertical algae farms “can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans”, and would likely mitigate against detrimental land cover changes in the future. Still, attention should be paid to the nitrate wastes from fertilization regardless of the product grown for biofuel purposes (recall the New Jersey size "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico brought on by the rush of US farmers to cash in on ethanol production). See: Algae: ‘The ultimate in renewable energy’
at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/
Vertical algae farms “can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans”, and would likely mitigate against detrimental land cover changes in the future. Still, attention should be paid to the nitrate wastes from fertilization regardless of the product grown for biofuel purposes (recall the New Jersey size “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico brought on by the rush of US farmers to cash in on ethanol production).

]]> By: michaelkenward http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9674 michaelkenward Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:09:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9674 Apologies for the duplicate. The web site told me it had experienced an error. Apologies for the duplicate. The web site told me it had experienced an error.

]]> By: michaelkenward http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9673 michaelkenward Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:08:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9673 "At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon." It does, indeed. Possibly more. But where does that carbon come from? A field down the road that was planted last year? An oil well in the North Sea with plants that were fossilised many millennia ago? Biofuels are not intended to take carbon out of transport but fossil carbon. In equilibrium, biofuels could puff out as much CO2 in a year as the crops that fuel them soak up. Whether or not this is a realistic scenario is, of course, another matter. The idea that biofuels compete with food is, indeed, bogus. Some biofuel plants create at least two products. One is bioethanol. The other is, get this, animal food. Get your technology right and you can produce just as much animal food as you would if you did not process the crop. Piling on the irony, that animal food can be richer in protein than the original crop, reducing the need to chuck in imported protein supplements. As with many things, then, knees jerking all over the place have little to do with technical reality. But who wants to spoil a good argument with uncomfortable facts? All this means is that some biofuels are better than others, and the way to differentiate them is to conduct a thorough sustainability assessment. “At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon.”

It does, indeed. Possibly more. But where does that carbon come from? A field down the road that was planted last year? An oil well in the North Sea with plants that were fossilised many millennia ago?

Biofuels are not intended to take carbon out of transport but fossil carbon. In equilibrium, biofuels could puff out as much CO2 in a year as the crops that fuel them soak up.

Whether or not this is a realistic scenario is, of course, another matter.

The idea that biofuels compete with food is, indeed, bogus. Some biofuel plants create at least two products. One is bioethanol. The other is, get this, animal food.

Get your technology right and you can produce just as much animal food as you would if you did not process the crop. Piling on the irony, that animal food can be richer in protein than the original crop, reducing the need to chuck in imported protein supplements.

As with many things, then, knees jerking all over the place have little to do with technical reality. But who wants to spoil a good argument with uncomfortable facts?

All this means is that some biofuels are better than others, and the way to differentiate them is to conduct a thorough sustainability assessment.

]]> By: michaelkenward http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9672 michaelkenward Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:03:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9672 "At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon." It does, indeed. Possibly more. But where does that carbon come from? A field down the road that was planted last year? An oil well in the North Sea with plants that were fossilised many millennia ago? Biofuels are not intended to take carbon out of transport but fossil carbon. In equilibrium, biofuels could puff out as much CO2 in a year as the crops that fuel them soak up. Whether or not this is a realistic scenario is, of course, another matter. The idea that biofuels compete with food is, indeed, bogus. Some biofuel plants create at least two products. One is bioethanol. The other is, get this, animal food. Get your technology right and you can produce just as much animal food as you would if you did not process the crop. Piling on the irony, that animal food can be richer in protein than the original crop, reducing the need to chuck in imported protein supplements. As with many things, then, knees jerking all over the place have little to do with technical reality. But who wants to spoil a good argument with uncomfortable facts? All this means is that some biofuels are better than others, and the way to differentiate them is to conduct a thorough sustainability assessment. “At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon.”

It does, indeed. Possibly more. But where does that carbon come from? A field down the road that was planted last year? An oil well in the North Sea with plants that were fossilised many millennia ago?

Biofuels are not intended to take carbon out of transport but fossil carbon. In equilibrium, biofuels could puff out as much CO2 in a year as the crops that fuel them soak up.

Whether or not this is a realistic scenario is, of course, another matter.

The idea that biofuels compete with food is, indeed, bogus. Some biofuel plants create at least two products. One is bioethanol. The other is, get this, animal food.

Get your technology right and you can produce just as much animal food as you would if you did not process the crop. Piling on the irony, that animal food can be richer in protein than the original crop, reducing the need to chuck in imported protein supplements.

As with many things, then, knees jerking all over the place have little to do with technical reality. But who wants to spoil a good argument with uncomfortable facts?

All this means is that some biofuels are better than others, and the way to differentiate them is to conduct a thorough sustainability assessment.

]]> By: Paul Matthews http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9671 Paul Matthews Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:14:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9671 As of today, car fuel in the UK must contain 2.5% biofuel, as part of misguided government 'targets', despite widespread criticism. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7347142.stm At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon. The claimed benefit is that the plants absorb the CO2 from the air, but so did the plants that were there before, so this argument is largely bogus. The rush to biofuels has accelerated the destruction of rainforest in Brazil and Indonesia. Other factors are the high energy (and hence CO2) costs of the fuel extraction process, transport, and the high levels of artificial fertiliser needed. All this in addition to the impact on food prices. There is no easy way out of our unsustainable way of life. As of today, car fuel in the UK must contain 2.5% biofuel, as part of misguided government ‘targets’, despite widespread criticism. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7347142.stm
At the risk of stating the obvious, a car using biofuel still emits the same amount of carbon. The claimed benefit is that the plants absorb the CO2 from the air, but so did the plants that were there before, so this argument is largely bogus. The rush to biofuels has accelerated the destruction of rainforest in Brazil and Indonesia. Other factors are the high energy (and hence CO2) costs of the fuel extraction process, transport, and the high levels of artificial fertiliser needed. All this in addition to the impact on food prices.
There is no easy way out of our unsustainable way of life.

]]> By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4382&cpage=1#comment-9670 docpine Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:20:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4382#comment-9670 It is interesting to me that this debate is framed as pro and con "biofuels." We all know that it is possible to make biofuels from other material than food crops, and to make it from land where it is impossible to grow food crops. Technology is in development to make it from residues of various kinds, including cellulosic (trees, etc). So when we characterize "biofuels" as competing with food, are we throwing the policy baby out with the bathwater? And mysteriously to me, why is the issue being framed this way? Can't we agree that some biofuels are less environmentally and socially damaging, and others more so? It is interesting to me that this debate is framed as pro and con “biofuels.” We all know that it is possible to make biofuels from other material than food crops, and to make it from land where it is impossible to grow food crops. Technology is in development to make it from residues of various kinds, including cellulosic (trees, etc). So when we characterize “biofuels” as competing with food, are we throwing the policy baby out with the bathwater? And mysteriously to me, why is the issue being framed this way? Can’t we agree that some biofuels are less environmentally and socially damaging, and others more so?

]]>