|
|||||||||||
July 06, 2006Energy Dependence, Part 2Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Energy Policy A recent op-ed by two professors at the Polytechnic University of New York in the Washington Post makes the case that biofuels offer no long-term alternative to fossil fuels. They write: But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating. And they end with the always-inconvenient issue of trade offs: Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live.Posted on July 6, 2006 08:15 AM CommentsTo me this article is useful to the extent that there may be a few people under the impression that there could be a silver bullet and that that will be biofuels. I didn't think there were that many. Otherwise its not very helpful--instead of taking a negative approach for non-expert Post readers, why not ask what biofuels could responsibly contribute and then look for that contribution? These authors rightly point out that compared to eating, driving is ultimately optional. Obviously biofuels can only be one among a suite of options that will sufficiently reduce carbon emissions--including reduced overall energy use, solar, wind, and wave energy, fuel cells, afforestation, geological sequestration, and perhaps air capture. No one ever said we had to replace 100% of fossil energy use...just most of it. Its funny that these authors don't allow for the possibility of using other renewable sources to provide the energy to produce biofuels, rather than the crop fuel itself--which would dramatically raise the net energy, no? Posted by: Eben Polk at July 6, 2006 10:08 AM Ethanol can only make a small contribution to US energy needs. Chemistry Nobel Laureate, George A. Olah thinks Methanol is the answer: http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Apr/hour1_042806.html Regards, Paul Biggs Posted by: Paul Biggs Interesting article! I don't imagine that anyone except for a few airhead Boulderites and the 'corn lobby' really thinks of biofuels as a full solution to our energy/GHG reductions needs. But I'm curious about the numbers in this article. The peer-reviewed Science paper at Posted by: Sean D at July 6, 2006 02:04 PM "What do they mean?!? 49% ? 15%?" They say current gasoline usage is 170 billion gallons of gasoline. Then they postulate the following scenario: 1) if switchgrass produces 1000 gallons per acre, 2) 300 million acres would produce 300 billion gallons of ethanol, and 3) if that has half the net Btus per gallon of gasoline, ...that would be 150 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent. But they also say that gasoline usage will double... ...so the value would be 150 billion out of 340 billion...or 44%. Posted by: Mark Bahner at July 6, 2006 08:47 PM Surely the basis of biofuel advantage is that CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere to offset the amount added by burning. In all of these calculations I don't see any allowance for the change in net CO2 absorption per acre. Any land planned for Biofuel use is already absorbing a certain amount of C02 per acre so that amount must be taken out of the equation when calculating the net improvement. Is this logic correct or am I missing something here? Posted by: Nigel Davis at July 7, 2006 02:51 AM Nigel, Consider it this way: Right now, there is a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere and in the vegetation on the Earth's surface. That amount will not change if you change the type of vegatation that you are growing. The only way you can change this amount is be sequestering the carbon and storing it underground (like fossil fuels), or releasing sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere (like burning fossil fuels). So I don't think you need to account for CO2 absorbtion that is currently taking place in plants. It is already part of the equation. Posted by: Jim Clarke |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||