Biofuels: No There, There. Government Should Focus on Other Alternatives

Over the past three years the lifecycle of American biofuels has gone from birth to collapse, with the majority of public and private ethanol and biodiesel companies now in bankruptcy. The reason is simple. There is no there, there. So it doesn’t matter if we have 3rd, 4th, or 100th generation biofuels. Alchemy cannot transform the brief absorption of sunlight in plantlife into any meaningful quantity of energy. If in some other physical universe, which we do not currently inhabit, it was possible to transform young organic material into liquids without the expenditure of additional energy, then in that world biofuels might look interesting. Until then, plants are not energy.

But enough about the science of biofuels and yesterday’s thoroughly depressing announcement from the Administration, to form an interagency task force with billions in new (plus bailout) investments in the sector. What’s more intriguing is to wonder why, after having completed a real-world test of the unsustainable biofuel business model–with its razor thin capital (and energy) profit margins–our society is going to bang its head against the same wall all over again. I mean really, why bother?

The answer may lie not in biofuels, but in oil. And, in our difficulty with large numbers. The energy content of young plantlife can be expressed in small numbers. But the energy content of oil is a large number. Modern society is so deeply inculcated and infused with oil that we are likely to project similar energy concentrations onto other energy sources. Oil towers over ethanol feedstocks, the way a skyscraper would shadow a house. A bushel of corn contains about 400,000 BTU. Thus, about 14 bushels are needed to match the 5.8 million BTU in a barrel of oil. But that’s over 800 pounds of corn. Moreover, oil is already in liquid form. Frankly, it makes more sense to burn corn in a furnace for heat, than to marshall an additional set of energy inputs to liquify it. And that’s exactly what many people do.

In this context, any renewed push by society to liquify plants starts to look ritualistic, not scientific. While the world remains quite rich in both gaseous and solid fossil fuels–natural gas and coal–the world is likely now in liquid energy decline. If that’s the case, let’s deal with it head on. Chasing the biofuel dream looks increasingly like a prayer. One wonders how people will think of us 100 years from now as we desperately run in silly circles, building monuments.

Photo: Easter Island

Comments

[changenow:]

To Dennis U Atunya, Have you ever tried to eat the corn that is used to make ethanol or even know that there is a difference between the corn we eat and the corn used?? I am from Iowa, I know the difference. The corn we put on our dinner tables is called sweet corn. The corn used to make ethanol is called field corn. Only about one percent of that corn is used in food that we comsume. Twelve percent goes into ethanol, and the rest of it is exported and processed for other uses in our own country. Ror those of you who have nothing better to do than bash biofuels, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the different processes berore you speak because you have no idea of what actually happens.

May 07 01:16 AM

[one eye:]

PWAC? thanks.

May 07 01:57 AM

[kmarkt2:]

Hi John,
Please tell me more of your first hand experiences with this subject.


On May 06 05:04 AM John Petersen wrote:

> From first-hand experience I can tell you that biggest problem with
> biofuels business models are uncorrelated commodity price risks on
> both the feedstock side and the product side of the equation. Feedstocks
> vary in price with agricultural commodities and products vary in
> price with energy commodities. When you put the two together they
> frequently spell (pick your favorite obscenity). Using waste for
> biofuels has some merit in power generation and other applications
> where transportation grade fuel is not required, but like so many
> things in life the quality of the output is directly proportional
> to the quality of the input.
>
> A lot of very interesting work is being done in the fields of cellulosic
> ethanol and biodiesel from algae, but expecting any technology to
> run before it learns to walk is poor planning.

May 07 04:48 AM

[William Dav...:]

The only really practical Bio-fuel is sugar cane, that the Brazilian have been using since the 1970's as the energy you get from Corn etc is too low and energy input to high.

There is a painful denial going here about the practicality and the cost of the alternatives to oil. They are just not anywhere near as good as oil as a store of energy or going to be as cheap.

The investment required is massive and energy yield from alternatives means its not even going to that profitable for the investors unless oil prices are about $150 a barrel or more.

May 07 08:30 AM

[Rick Krementz:]

So many errors, so little time....

The author stating categorically agriculture can't make usable fuels is nonsense. Ethanol from corn does not make sense, however there are many others, such as oil from palm, ethanol from sugar cane, and in the future fuel from algae, jatropha, waste streams, and switch grass. Petroleum and coal are nothing but old plants; and wood power has warmed and powered (steam engines) humans for a long time. Which technology will make the most sense is not clear yet, but a blanket "it won't work" is ignorant.

@billp37, there is plenty of lithium for batteries. See seekingalpha.com/artic.... Building out the (less-dumb) grid and enough renewables will be challenging, but a shortage of the raw materials is not a problem.

@Terrence Hollis, Changing Worlds technology seems like a great start, but they recently went bankrupt and have ceased operations as far as I know. They have a pretty good PR team, but several engineers have seriously questioned their chemistry (can't find the link link right off, sorry, but start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) . Their production cost (with free feedstock) was over $11/gallon, and despite the hype, did not produce real diesel, i.e., something to put in an engine. The "diesel" claimed to be made was only used in industrial boilers which needed significant modifications to burn the oil.

A usable fuel now is ammonia, which can be produced from wind (electricity) or natural gas. Much easier to use than hydrogen, burns in a slightly modified diesel engine, and has nearly the same energy density as diesel. Ammonia is the third-most produced chemical in the US; there are 3,000 miles of ammonia pipeline for distribution. It uses essentially the same infrastructure as propane (low pressure steel tanks), is not explosive, carbon-free, and is not "science fiction".

May 07 11:09 AM

[Biodiversivist:]

Changenow,

"…Come on people, do you really think ethanol is the reason food prices are going up?…"

A major hope of the corn ethanol program was to increase grain prices to the farm industry. The USDA is on record predicting that it would.

The CBO just reported that ethanol will increase the cost of food assistance programs almost a billion dollars. Extrapolating that to the American public in general results in about $9 billion.

seattletimes.nwsource....

A World Bank study said that 75% of the global increase came from biofuels:

www.guardian.co.uk/env...;

"…Take ehtanol to a fifteen percent blend level, and you bring over twenty-six billion dollars into our nation's economy…"

Corn ethanol has done nothing but transfer wealth from blue states to red states. It is the parable of the broken window writ large:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"…Only about one percent of that corn is used in food that we comsume…"

Most corn is used for livestock feed, cow, pigs, chickens, eggs, dairy, which last time I checked are all food for people. They process raw grain into something more palatable just as a bakery does.

"…Twelve percent goes into ethanol…"

20% went into ethanol in 2008. The RFS limit on corn ethanol exists to protect food prices. If putting half of our corn into our gas tanks would be unacceptable, putting a quarter of it in our tanks is 50% unacceptable.

May 08 01:43 AM

[changenow:]

Biodiversivist, A quote from the seattle times link you put up, "Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, because of a surplus of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices. Hmmm. Must have forgotten to read that part huh? The processed corn is more platable than whole corn, but it is nothing like what a bakery does, and is actually better for the animal than whole corn. As far as how much corn is used to make ethanol, If there is a surplus, what difference does it make. And as far as the rfs limit, it is set to increase to thirty-six billion gallons by 2022. You either didn't know that or left that out too

May 08 03:27 AM

[Biodiversivist:]

Changenow,

You quoted the article as saying:

"...Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, because of a surplus of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices. Hmmm. Must have forgotten to read that part huh?..."

But the article actually said:

"...Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, the report says, because an increased supply of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices...."

which is an ordinary and common sense observation. Something you can always expect from a newspaper article ; )

One way to increase the supply of corn for food is to reduce the amount used for fuel.

"...The processed corn is more platable than whole corn, but it is nothing like what a bakery does..."

I was saying that when livestock eats corn, it is processed via their metabolism into things like meat, eggs, and dairy, which are generally considered to be more palatable foods than raw grain. A bakery processing raw grain into bread is an analogy for that process of converting raw grain into a food that is more palatable.

"...As far as how much corn is used to make ethanol, If there is a surplus, what difference does it make....."

Farmers have always striven for a surplus. A surplus gets a farming community through the winter and provides a buffer for crop yield fluctuations. The definition of crop failure is a failure to create a surplus. Global grain stocks (surpluses) are accounted for in grain prices. Higher grain surpluses often equate to lower prices. Surpluses always get sold eventually.

In six out of the last nine years humanity has consumed more grain than it has produced, drawing down on world grain stocks. Without those stocks we would have cyclical famine.

"....And as far as the rfs limit, it is set to increase to thirty-six billion gallons by 2022. You either didn't know that or left that out too..."

I was talking about the 15 billion gallon limit on corn ethanol stipulated by the RFS. 21 of the 36 billion gallons in 2022 must come from non-corn-based ethanol.

May 08 10:44 AM

[really:]

Someone should have told the Brazilians 40 years ago that ethanol will never work. The industry there relied on subsidies and protected the industry for most of those decades, until about the past 5 years. This must have been pretty costly to Brazil, although this is never talked about. What changed for ethanol consumption in Brazil was that the auto manufacturers finally produced cars that ran well on ethanol (for several decades this was a disaster and people hated cars that ran on alcohol), the gov't gave incentives to purchase these cars, the cane producers figured out how to be more efficient.
If more ethanol is used as fuel, the price of oil will come down, and no doubt that makes the economics work against the idea. But, this isn't about economics. As was the case in Brazil, the country wants to free itself from dependency on foreign oil, as well as reduce carbon consumption. While ethanol has not yet made the case in the US for reduced carbon consumption, only be sticking with pushing for greater fuel efficiency in autos that run on ethanol (Ford already has come up with ideas) and advancing ethanol production techniques can this be achieved. If other places can do this, there isn't any reason it cannot be done in the US, but the gov't has to lead this. Just like Brazil, it never would have happened unless the gov't mandated it.

May 08 11:10 AM

[simplicator:]

What's your solution? Keep burning fossil fuels? Fossil fuels came from plants, so energy from plants actually makes sense to you, they just have to be really old plants? We are just starting with biofuels, so we are not at our final destination with them - they will get better.

My question is, what will people think in 100 years if we do nothing? If you want to criticize biofuels, you should offer a viable alternative.

May 08 11:33 AM

[changenow:]

For starters, really and simplicator, BRAVO. It's nice to see someone else showing support here. As for biodiversivist, if bashing me makes you feel better, than so be it. How can you call yourself a biodiversivist when you have said nothing to support biofuels? Brazil went through alot of hard times, kinda the same the usa is going through right now, but their government supported them. I would rather put money back into our own country than into the pockets of the middle east, as racist as that makes me sound, its time to secure the future of our country

May 08 04:10 PM

[Biodiversivist:]

Changenow,

I just reviewed my posts. I was polite and matter of fact. If you feel bashed, I apologize.

A lot of people have been sucked in by the biofuel industry propaganda machine. It even has a name, the Renewable Fuels Association. They exist solely to create a positive public image for corn ethanol and soy biodiesel (biofuels made from waste are not their concern). Think about it. Where have you gotten your information? It sure wasn't from peer reviewed science journals:

home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/pa...

I understand your desire not to use oil. My family reduced our oil use over 80% without moving any fewer miles, spending any extra money, or using any more time. We simply swapped out our 24 mpg car for a 48 mpg car and a 15 mpg car for a hybrid electric bike and trailer for single occupant around town errands:

www.youtube.com/watch?...

Still have my Cherokee. It just doesn't move very often.

America cannot use the Brazilian model for several reasons.

1) Your average American uses six times more gas than your average Brazilian.
2) They have a tropical climate and can grow all the sugarcane and palm they want. We have corn and soybeans. Compare the difference:

home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img...

home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img...

3) Oil still makes up 80% of Brazil's liquid fuel supply, ethanol 20%.

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

May 08 08:30 PM

[Biodiversivist:]

Huh, I see this blog truncates certain URLs. Sorry you can't see the links, they're informative. Some sites are more conducive for debate than others. This post contains them as well, maybe it will be displayed. Here goes:

biodiversivist.blogspo...

May 08 08:49 PM

[ripskii:]

John Petersen: Your comments on biofuels are on target. One consideration is that algae holds out the possibility of a "gain" on the usual bio plant system. In theory algae has about a 40X advantage over oil plant seeds in converting solar energy into oil bearing plant material. The major question is how much of that advantage can be realized in real life production? There is an interesting DOE study done some years ago where they grew algae next to a coal fired power plant to sequester the carbon dioxide. The gave up too soon because they couldn't control the algae they were trying to grow due to contamination. I have some experience in this area and if you want a pure monoculture extreme care must be taken in the design of the system. Recently there has been a realization of the algae production potential and serious university research is now being done on this.

May 08 11:03 PM

[ripskii:]

Nom de Guerre: Zinc Air batteries have been around for many years. I worked on a version many years ago where we used seawater at the electrolyte and they worked quite well (in an ocean application). The railroads used them for standby applications in the 1920's because they have almost no self discharge. We just changed the zinc electrodes which was the same as "recharging" them in one or two minutes (if you made the exchange simple which we did). I've often wondered why more wasn't done to develop a viable modern cell?

May 08 11:19 PM

[Dennis U. A...:]

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the process of bioethanol production. Whether it is sweet corn or field corn, the truth is still that corn has a poor ethanol productivity and poor energy balance and cannot compete with other ethanol feedstock such as the lignocellulose family (miscanthus etc.) which have up to 5 times and 10 times the ethanol productivity and energy balance respectively of corn. There is also the necessary step of converting corn starch to sugar before fermentation which adds significantly to the cost of corn ethanol production. These add to the limitations of corn-based ethanol, Iowa or not.
Brazil has been more successful than the US in biofuels because of a better choice of feedstock in sugarcane.

If only you could read very well you would have understood from my comment that l am for biofuels but do not think corn is the right feedstock.
Maybe you should read my post and post a comment at: 7xreferences.blogspot.....

As for the reference to biofuels and grain prices, perhaps you should address your note to the author of the cited report at the World Bank.


On May 07 01:16 AM changenow wrote:

> To Dennis U Atunya, Have you ever tried to eat the corn that is used
> to make ethanol or even know that there is a difference between the
> corn we eat and the corn used?? I am from Iowa, I know the difference.
> The corn we put on our dinner tables is called sweet corn. The corn
> used to make ethanol is called field corn. Only about one percent
> of that corn is used in food that we comsume. Twelve percent goes
> into ethanol, and the rest of it is exported and processed for other
> uses in our own country. Ror those of you who have nothing better
> to do than bash biofuels, maybe you should familiarize yourself with
> the different processes berore you speak because you have no idea
> of what actually happens.

May 09 02:52 PM

[Dennis U. A...:]

To: changenow

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the process of bioethanol production. Whether it is sweet corn or field corn, the truth is still that corn has a poor ethanol productivity and poor energy balance and cannot compete with other ethanol feedstock such as the lignocellulose family (miscanthus etc.) which have up to 5 times and 10 times the ethanol productivity and energy balance respectively of corn. There is also the necessary step of converting corn starch to sugar before fermentation which adds significantly to the cost of corn ethanol production. These add to the limitations of corn-based ethanol, Iowa or not.
Brazil has been more successful than the US in biofuels because of a better choice of feedstock in sugarcane.

If only you could read very well you would have understood from my comment that l am for biofuels but do not think corn is the right feedstock.
Maybe you should read my post and post a comment at: 7xreferences.blogspot.....

As for the reference to biofuels and grain prices, perhaps you should address your note to the author of the cited report at the World Bank.

May 09 03:13 PM

[William Dav...:]

The real trouble with cereal-based biofuels is that they take so much energy to manufacture – their carbon footprint is around 70% of mineral oils.

May 10 03:47 AM

[William Dav...:]

Re "Petroleum and coal are nothing but old plants" true but they have been subjected to huge amounts of pressure and heat to produce them over millions of years, it probably took more energy than they produce today. There is a difference between what is possible and what is practical in terms of the energy yield. Its not just that it may not scale up to produce enough for 230 million vehicles in the US alone, its low energy yield will drag down human productivity compared to oil and our standard of living with it.

May 10 04:08 AM

[changenow:]

Biodiversivist, renewable fuels is not propaganda, or politics, it is right in front of us and it is in our grasp. The problem starts with big oil companies, and the gma has to point the finger at biofuels to vindicate their profits as well. Has anyone read the cbo report for april of 2009? Let me quote it by saying that "They found that higher corn prices because of ethanol production accounted for .5 to .8 percent of the 5.1 percent that food prices rose between
april 2007 and April 2008." The site I got this information from is cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/.... Straight form the horses mouth. As for you Dennis U Atuanya, I have plenty of experience in the biofuels business. Do you do independent studies to back up your statements, or is that just more propaganda

May 10 03:00 PM