More on biofuels
Posted by Heading Out on May 26, 2006 - 12:06pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol [list all tags]
The point is that as my recent post noted there is an ongoing rapid increase in the number of farmers that are getting on the ethanol bandwagon. Because the scale of each individual ethanol refinery is not that large, it can be funded locally, permitted apparently relatively quickly, and in production with a fairly high (from what I hear from sources) rate of return that is even greater than that in the conventional oil business. Thus there is a little evidence that, with the right alternatives, and provided they can operate at these scales, that the response time to a solution may not be as long as some folks fear. Particularly where the underlying technology has been around for a while.
So why am I grumpy? Well it is because I think that the emphasis is being given to the wrong biofuel. In energy content biodiesel contains some 138,000 Btu/gal, while ethanol only contains 76,000 Btu/gal. (Gasoline is 114,000 Btu/gal). Within the US production has risen from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to 75 million gallons of biodiesel last year. There are a number of different sources for the fuel. Though the currently popular source from the cooking vats of fast food restaurants is not going to be a huge supplier it points, again, to the fact that this fuel can be generated on a small scale, through multiple sources at lower levels of investment that are more readily available. Thus the possibility of an answer where we use, not one big refinery that could take 10 years to get permitted, if ever, but instead a myriad of little refineries over the country that can be installed in less than a couple of years. The Europeans seem to have caught on, and so is the rest of the world. So maybe I should drink my cup of tea, and grin, just a little, before I lift the black object by the stair and Head Out again.
*
Emerging from the meeting of House Republicans, GOP spokesman Sean Spicer said members were willing to come out and talk about oil drilling; not a single journalist accepted the offer.
Another point based on this phrase:
The transient nature of public attention being what it is, we seem already to have reached a stage of acquiescence* to the idea of $70 oil. Though we don't have quite as many pundits this year appearing to reassure us that we will be back to $30 oil as there were last year
I remember Michael Lynch's prediction in 2004 that oil prices will average $25 or $30 in 2005, and they were of course about twice that much. couldn't find a prediction from him for 2006 myself. Has he made such a prediction?
Energy Resources link
http://www.webcasting.com/houston/
Diesels have been held back in North America by the high concentrations of sulfur in fuel. Sulfur poisons catalytic converters. Its oxides are corrosive and increase the concentrations of particulates (sooty smoke) in the exhaust. Diesel cars have been unable to meet the emissions standards in five states, including CA and NY.
The
advent of low sulfur diesel this fall would have changed this situation, except that EPA continues to stack the deck against diesels in passenger cars. The upper limit of sulfur in diesel will be going from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which would have opened the door to European engines and emissions control technology for the 2007 model year. However, EPA has mandated that diesel cars must meet the same emissions standards as passenger cars, beginning with the 2007 model year. Sounds fair, but it's a big technological problem.Diesel
engines typically return 25-40% better fuel economy than gasoline engines. One of the main reasons is the higher energy content of the fuel, mentioned by HO. The combustion process can normally be optimised to minimise NOx (oxides of nitrogen) or minimise unburned hydrocarbons, but it's inherently difficult to minimise them bothTo be fair, his predictions have still been slightly better than Simmons. I don't worry too much about predictions though, I pay more attention to the underlying model, and for prices, I don't think anyone even has a model.
Having said that, if rock oil follows whale oil prices, there is a price hike before the peak (like what we have seen?), and then prices stay around the same high level through the peak and after. I guess that when price reaches a certain threshold demand drops off a cliff.
The key word in that scenario was "if" ;-)
We make so much because we subsidize it heavily. Back in 2002, I remember hearing on NPR that you could buy a boxcar full of corn for less than the cost of transporting that boxcar full of corn (this is why our beef is almost completely "grain-fed" -- read "corn-fed").
If we did away with the subsidies, corn would suddenly become substantially more expensive -- and supplies would, accordingly, drop.
Thus, corn's not the most efficient source; it's just the most heavily subsidized. I'd personally rather go for efficiency, but that requires changing some very fundamental politics (and, at the end of the day, the politics do matter).
Yours,
Thomas Wicker
Have you thought about changing from command to market economy in the USA? (Only half joking...)
Seriously, it makes stupid inefficiencies obvious.
I have an understandig for short term subsidies to develop a technology or industrial base that can be expected to be needed in a few years but running a market manipulation for years on end probably creates enourmous inefficiencies.
http://www.ageratec.se/biodiesel_index.asp?lang=EN
I still have concerns for global EROEI, since most studies don't include all energy requirements like construction and maintenance of all the engines (ever seen how a wheel on a tractor is changed ?), irrigation (in our countryside water has to be pumped for irrigation. Water volume required has been increasing in the past years). Volumes of fertilizer and pesticides vary enormously from one published study to the other as do the estimated BTU's for the manufacturing of these products (see links provided by robert rapier for an estimation of these spreads).
And for the long term I keep asking my brother in law to please consider soil depletion (a very real issue, since plants do need other elements than N,P,K and CO2 to grow), surface of arable land (in slight excess in France but already competing with agriculture for food). Also don't forget that EROEI of our whole transportation system is <<1. This means that energy taken from biomass is taken out and isn't put back into the system except for CO2. For now there is an excess biomass with regard to the whole ecosystem, otherwise oil wouldn't have formed. So we can sacrifice some of this ... but at what ecological cost and in what places ? Moreover, if we increase the area of arable land, will we really increase the total biomass (i.e. the carbon sink) ? I stay with stuart staniford on this point, increasing our total C02 emission is probably very deleterious.
I must say that these arguments don't hold for someone involved in agriculture. In Europe biodiesel will increase, regardless of what we say or may think, unless the consequences become disastrous or the economy breaks down.
This points toward using zero-till, leaving an optimum amount of organic matter on the surface and returning all nutrients either as liquid effluent or ash. If some of the carbon can be returned as charcoal (inorganic) and tilled in every ten years or so, the nutrient-holding capacity of the soil could be substantially increased at the same time as carbon is sequestered for millennia.
You are absolutely right!
(I don't often find myself agrreeing with you so wholeheartedly ;-)
No-till, leave as much as possible in place or return everything you don't use.
These principles are the essence of the Masanobu Fukuoka philosophy of natural farming. I believe such principles can be applied in varying situations with positive long-term results.
i.e. lower external inputs (energy, materials) and healthy soil.
Mr. Fukuoka has been analysing energy inputs versus energy outputs of farming since the 1930s.
Blinded by the "Green Revolution", most people dismissed his valid concerns about the disaster being created by "modern" farming methods.
http://www.ufop.de/downloads/RZ_Biodieselbericht_230605.pdf (german version)
Interesting brochure about the production of biodiesel in Germany and Europe. The rise in production during the last years is rather impressive (last year production was 1 mt, this it's expected to be 1.5 mt, out of 30 mt total yearly diesel consumption).
Diesels have been held back in North America by the high concentrations of sulfur in fuel. Sulfur poisons catalytic converters. Its oxides are corrosive and increase the concentrations of particulates (sooty smoke) in the exhaust. Diesel cars have been unable to meet the emissions standards in five states, including CA and NY.
The advent of low sulfur diesel this fall would have changed this situation, except that EPA continues to stack the deck against diesels in passenger cars. The upper limit of sulfur in diesel will be going from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which would have opened the door to European engines and emissions control technology for the 2007 model year. However, EPA has mandated that diesel cars must meet the same emissions standards as passenger cars, beginning with the 2007 model year. Sounds fair, but it's a big technological problem.
Diesel engines typically return 25-40% better fuel economy than gasoline engines. One of the main reasons is the higher energy content of the fuel, mentioned by HO. The combustion process can normally be optimised to minimise NOx (oxides of nitrogen) or minimise unburned hydrocarbons, but it's inherently difficult to minimise them both at the same time. So diesel engines have evolved with particulate traps and catalytic converters to convert CO and partially burned hydrocarbons to CO2 and water. To meet EPA's 2007 standards, some system for reducing NOx to nitrogen needs to be added to the exhaust train, and that's a problem.
One approach is to add a sequential catalytic converter. However, such a system requires ammonia (urea) to be injected to reduce the NOx. A supply of ammonia must be carried on-board the car and EPA is, of course, concerned that owners will neglect to fill it. AFAIK, EPA has not signed off these systems, which raises a worry for me as to the availability of new diesel-powered light passenger vehicles next year. It will be interesting to see which manufacturers can produce an emissions-compliant system.
Sorry, that should have been "the same emissions as gasoline-powered passenger cars. I didn't mention light trucks, but the same standards apply.
I will say this much though. From here:
ttp://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_distillate.html
You can see ULSD production sharply increasing. It is still only 10% of the LSD production however, but I would imagine that most refineries aren't going to switch to 100% until close to the deadline.
There are some complicated rules about who is supposed to have the ULSD when, and California is supposed to switch over at an accelerated pace:
http://www.clean-diesel.org/highway.html
and
http://www.clean-diesel.org/nonroad.html
The problems with emissions may be real, but are probably going to be solved without a prohibitive cost in terms of either efficiency, up front vehicle cost or refining costs.
In my estimation, the issue with bio diesels will be whether the fuels can be produced at a reasonable cost without compromising the food supply.
I think pissing on emissions equipment would appeal to a lot of people...
The only way you make any progress on CO2 reduction is reduction of the use of oil and/or other fossil fuels. People will respond to price signals which will be driven by total supply of all fuels, including biofuels.
As long as we don't set a mandatory and enforceable limit on CO2 emissions, all this talk and investment in alternatives gets us nowhere. My fear is that much of the praise of biofuels is driven by refusal of politicians to deliver to people what they perceive as bad news; we have to consume less, radically, at least 60% less. So we offer the free lunch. And, besides, before people figure out the scam, the politicians will be long gone.
If we had a mandatory cap on CO2 emissions with an enforced cap and trade system, we could let the market for CO2 sort all this out. Producers of ethanol would be subject to the same rules as everyone else with respect to their fossil fuel inputs. The system would sort how these inputs should be utilized. If the energy return from biofuels was large enough, it would be worth paying for the necessary credits. If the industry wasn't efficient enough in its use of energy, the cost of those inputs would reflect the cost of credits engendered by the cap and trade system.
My guess is that the ethanol industry would fold up in a heart beat if it were forced to account for its co2 contribution. However, if the cap and trade system were implemented, we could quit arguing about the wisdom of ethanol and let the CO2 market and the economic market decide.
And btw, under a rigorous cap and trade system with very high co2 reduction goals, it might make sense to eliminate all subsidies and credits to all forms of energy -- oil, coal, solar, nuclear, biofuels, etc. As it is, because we don't tax externalities, we have this increasingly complex mix of subsidies.
Currently, we heavily subsidize biofuels, especially ethanol because of its corn content, which prevents the market from doing its job and engenders increasingly complex and ultimately fruitless debate.
In short, the great promise of ethanol is that it makes gas cheaper, by reducing demand for it!
Remember that the Iowa caucuses are among the 1st in the nation. Anyone that wants to be president is going to be tempted to pander to the Iowa farmers, and ethanol is a good way to do it.
With respect to hurricane damage, Democrats probably won't be looking to pick up votes, etc., in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or South Carolina. Democrats will look to pick up in Florida and maintain their position in Louisiana. The Republicans will be looking to pick up in Louisiana and maintain in Florida. Of course, sugar cane grows in both Florida and Louisiana, although cane fields have been paved over and contaminated by salt in those states, respectively.
The picture is more complicated than just Iowa.
When we are looking at Biofuels for transport in as much depth as we are here should we not be calibrating the analysis against the historical reference points of proved biofuel powered transport?
These are walking / bicycling and the horse, with the addition of wagons and buggies of various sorts.
Seems to me like the "engine" best suited to converting plant material to transportation of people and cargo over distance is the gut and muscles of an animal, not the internal (infernal) combustion process via a still or biodiesel production facility.
As some have said here an EROEI of < 1on the biofuel cycle might make sense if we had another source of power (nukes, wind, PV etc) to add to the system as "top up" given that we do need to move things around and if a mechanical engine was the only option to produce motion. But we know that's not the case and so it seems to me we should start from the muscle powered transport model as the base case against which to measure other biofuel uses...
Hope this is not too "neo-Amish" to be meaningful
Dont think so, animals use quite a lot of power when idling and are not good at providing electricity or hydraulics. It is also hard to use them in parallell to get adequate power for running combines etc.
Believe me, I agree 100%. I made the same case for biodiesel over ethanol here:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/biodiesel-king-of-alternative-fuels.html
RR
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/45110/7810#88
When it can be grown w/o having to have a high CO2 concentration, and be able to withstand 'contamination' from outside algae sure. Then it becomes a widly useable solution.
Otherwise its just re-arranging the deck chairs on the hinderburg.