Biofuels: No There, There. Government Should Focus on Other Alternatives 40 comments
- Gregor Macdonald's articles on Seeking Alpha
- Visit: Gregor.us
- Gregor's Premium Newsletter
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
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
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 40 comments:
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.
You better also look at the company since a lot of your tax dollars went into this company from Department of Energy.
They can do this with everything that is organic. Everything thing made out of oil. I think they call this true recycling and more plants need to be built. I know the state of Virginia has ordered one.
The Plug In Vehicle Scam comment.
Listen up America – It's a scam! The emperor has no clothes! There is no such thing as a cost-effective electric vehicle that will carry a family of four at highway speeds. But the cautionary if not downright conservative analysis from sources as diverse and credible as the Department of Energy, the White House and Carnegie Mellon University somehow manages to get lost in a media sideshow that focuses on scientific breakthroughs that promise a 5-minute recharge time for batteries nobody can afford to buy.
Even Whitman schemes.
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/w...
So we're using Internet to have fun investigating.
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...
It's so painful to think that when we were graduated in 1959, the 50 year reunion class was 1909.
They were fossils.
Hope to see you at the reunion despite dangers of swine flu, economic depression, WWIII, prison, advancing age, etc.
www.prosefights.org/nm..."
We are putting pressure on PNM for release of production information from its Algodones, NM solar array. So far, PNM has been nonresponsive.
Give 2nd generation biofuels like algae a level playing field and it makes a lot more sense than pumping a limited resource out of the ground 1000s of miles away in a land that universally hates us because of it.
These will eventurally be the "FREEDOM" transportation powered vehicles (personal commuting and local delivery trucks) - whatever is not electrified and on steel or mono or levitated rails (which includes all the cargo/goods railroads, hi speed trains, interstate hiway right-of-way electrified ferries for goods and people and their biofuel hybrids, and electrified transit systems inside beltways.
And with this we will only need 5% of our current oil consumption for plastics, etc. (until they are made from biofuels also), and another 5 % for special needs. In other words, we won't need 20 million barrels per day, only two (yup 2). Not to worry..
Oh yes, and with all this we won't need coal and nat gas either. Nuc, hydro, wind and solar, et.al will handle POWER GENERATION (and most of TRANSPORTATION). The fossil fuels will stay safely stored where they are, forever. Even tho some folks would like us to use them now and then face this same set of conditions 50-100 years from now. That group, is the selfish greedy group committed to oil, gas, coal, shale, tar and oil sands -- all buggywhips of the future. I want my black gold in the ground for WHEN THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!!!! Should that ever come to be.
Let's do the smart thing and develop the replenishables. The non-replenishables provide only one chance, per definition. Hence, the renewable alternatives.
I know, only the "whatever" would want to do this.
Come on biofuel hybrids with waste heat recoverd solid state devices directly converting and feeding the electric motors, with the only on-board storage device being the GRASS TANK. Sorry, John, no batteries (except for the ignitor if we don't use a capacitor).
To add some fuel on the bio-fuel fire, here is a cut and paste from another post regarding a Lithium-based economy. If it's long-winded, I apologize:
I think a Lithium (or even hydrogen) based economy will be short-lived at best. Lithium is only found in a few countries and is very toxic, and hydrogen requires a fair amount of energy to create it and a lot of room to store it. If Obama is serious about moving past carbon based energy, he should look at and fast track Zinc-Air. Yes, you read correctly, Zinc and "Air." Zinc-Air Batteries have been around for a while and are most commonly found in hearing aid batteries. The batteries work by exposing zinc pellets suspended in an electrolyte to air which produces a current.
Recently, Energizer introduced its "Zinc Air Prismatic" Battery at the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. It is an improvement on existing technology and is able to produce up to THREE TIMES the energy of similar alkaline or lithium ion batteries. (You can Google their tech specs.) Energizer is working with OEMs to integrate this technology into cell phones, laptops, etc. Products will need to be developed around the Zinc-Air battery because the air needs to be managed or throttled. If the O2 isn't managed the battery will discharge continuously until it runs out.
What's great is Zinc-Air is a very "green" technology. Zinc is plentiful throughout the world and non-toxic. Better yet, it's inert/safe unlike lithium-ion or hydrogen. Just Google "lithium-ion explosion" and see what you get. I don't own a hybrid, and I sure wouldn't want to be in a Lithium-ion hybrid car when the batteries explode during an collision. As for hydrogen's safety, one name immediately comes to mind: "Hindenburg."
Lithium definitely has problems and I recently read Toyota will develop a Zinc-Air battery for their hybrids. In addition to safety, the Zinc used in Zinc Air batteries can be recycled. Sounds pretty "green" to me....
OK, how do I know this? Well, after performing some due diligence on the company listed below, I became a believer that Zinc-Air will probably be powering personal vehicles in the future. (On a side note, this technology already powered a commerical bus during an operational test in Las Vegas, and there is even a video of Sen. Harry Reid riding the Strip in one.)
The Zinc-Air technology was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the 90s by John Cooper. Right now, a company in Livermore, CA has the exclusive world wide rights to use this technology: Power Air Corporation (PWAC). PWAC has been a developmental company and just started producing Zinc Air powerpacks for sale. They have also developed indoor generators that can be used indoors since there is no exhaust of any kind. PWAC unfortunately appears to be on life support right now and is trading between 5 and 8 cents. It has been argued on the Yahoo Message Board for PWAC, that PWAC and Energizer are partners in the development of the Zinc Air Prismatic battery. It is a persausive argument in that the chances of two companies developing the same type of battery with exactly the same specs at roughly the same time is pretty remote. I have some PWAC and hope that whatever licensing fees they may be due come fast.
If anyone is interested they should check out PWAC's website: poweraircorp.com. What really caught me was how this technology can be used in vehicles. When using this technology, you don't need to exchange (or recharge) the batteries, only the electrolyte that contains the Zinc pellets needs to be exchanged. This would mean sucking the old depleted electrolyte out (which is then recycled) and pumping fresh electrolyte into the vehicle. This could EASILY be accomplished by a service station-type provider.
To some, this pumping out/pumping in of electrolyte might seem complex or dangerous, but remember the electrolyte is inert and should be no more complex than pumping your own gas.
Interestingly, a company called AEDCSA (Alternative Energy Development Corporation South Africa) is trying to market Zinc Air Fuel Cells (ZAFC) that look very similar to some of the older prototypes developed by PWAC. These ZAFCs will be used to power off grid homes and eliminate the dangers of candles or kerosene lamps. Additionally, some of the graphics (the cloud background for one example) are the same or similar as those found on PWAC's website. A lot of the wording on the two sites are similar as well. (aedsca.com) Maybe this is a bottom-up campaign...
In any case, I think the obvious limitiations of Lithium (like the fact that you have to charge it with electricity produced by conventional means like coal or fuel oil and it explodes) will eliminate it from consideration. I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on Lithium or Zinc Air technology...
clrlight.org/CleanCoal...
Their touted DuPont business model, FOOD-to-FUEL & FABRIC, is fatuously flawed, intensifying food shortages and food inflation.
Their bio-products are over-priced and uneconomical, and more often than not require huge amounts of petroleum to produce. Sorry, corn-made clothes and corn-made carpets, and corn-made auto parts and deicers, not to mention wheat bio-fuel, don't cut it. ...funfun..
I'm invested in both oil and alt fuels and believe both have a long run ahead. We shall see...
May be our best hope is to conserve what we have and may be in 20-40 years some new fuel will be developed. In the meantime our best bet is stop using Oil and Gas to generate electricity and heat our homes, a massive task in itself. We could improve public transport, electrify our railways, drive less and when we do drive use very fuel efficient hybrid cars.
The most effective way to do that is to tax all forms of oil use and cut income taxes, otherwise we are going to get people producing Bio-Fuels using cheap oil to grow crops that produces expensive ethanol or using Natural gas to produce steam to extract the oil from oil sands and shale. Subsides to alternative fuels distort markets as they let producers use relatively cheap hydrocarbons to input almost as much energy into the alternatives as if they use oil or gas the first place. Let taxes and markets do the work not laws or tax brakes or subsides. Taxes can be used to smooth out the prices spikes and bring forward the development of new technology as the cheap oil runs out.
As discussed in my post titled "Notes On Bioethanol Programs In The United States", the choice of feedstock can make or mar an ethanol program. The US corn-based ethanol program was ipso facto doomed from onset. Corn has poor ethanol productivity and even poorer energy balance (ratio of energy yield to energy input). Corn is also a food crop and so has to compete with food and other agricultural uses. A report by the World Bank in 2008 blamed diversion of grains to biofuels production for the severe drawdown in inventories as well as the associated price increases. The added cost of the necessary process of first converting corn starch to sugar before fermentation, combined with the rising cost of corn and later, the steep fall in oil prices to make corn ethanol production uneconomical.
But Brazil with sugarcane as feedstock has become a model of ethanol excellence. Sugarcane has double the ethanol productivity of corn and about eight times the energy balance. Sugarcane is not a food crop per se and so does not bear those fuel-food conflicts associated with corn. There are also market synergies with sugar and ethanol which are products of sugarcane milling. The milling residue known as bagasse is used for additional power generation, the excess of which is sold to utilities with proceeds in the millions of dollars. About 50% of all vehicles in Brazil run on ethanol blended fuel and all service stations are ethanol stations. Gasoline blend ratios range from E25 to E100 (0% gasoline). There are no government subsidies for ethanol production in Brazil and the cost of production there is substantially lower than in the US. In addition, ethanol production in Brazil is said to be profitable down to a crude oil price of US$30 per barrel and with crude prices at US$50 per barrel and rising, there is room for profitability.
If this is not ethanol success, what else would be?
Listen
www.prosefights.org/nm...
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.
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.
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".
"…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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
biodiversivist.blogspo...
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.
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.
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