Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America

[Jcrowley]

Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America
Written by Alice Friedemann
Released April 10, 2007

"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and are a Threat to America’s National Security

 Part 1. The Dirt on Dirt.
 Part 2. The Poop on Ethanol: Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI)
 Part 3. Biofuel is a Grim Reaper.
 Part 4. Biodiesel: Can we eat enough French Fries?
 Part 5. If we can’t drink and drive, then burn baby burn. - Energy Crop Combustion
 Part 6. The problems with Cellulosic Ethanol could drive you to drink.
 Part 7. Where do we go from here?
 Appendix
 Department of Energy's Biofuel Roadmap Barriers
 References

Editor's note: There are many serious problems with biofuels, especially on a massive scale, and it appears from this report that they cannot be surmounted. So let the truth of Alice Friedemann’s meticulous and incisive diligence wash over you and rid you of any confusion or false hopes. The absurdity and destructiveness of large scale biofuels are a chance for people to eventually even reject the internal combustion engine and energy waste in general. One can also hazard from this report that bioplastics, as well, cannot make it in a big way.

The author looks ahead to post-petroleum living with considered conclusions: "Biofuels have yet to be proven viable, and mechanization may not be a great strategy in a world of declining energy." And, "…only a small amount of biomass (is) unspoken for" by today’s essential economic and ecological activities. To top it off, she points out, "Crop production is reduced when residues are removed from the soil. Why would farmers want to sell their residues?" Here’s an Oh- god-she-nailed-it zinger: "As prices of fertilizer inexorably rise due to natural gas depletion, it will be cheaper to return residues to the soil than to buy fertilizer." Looking further along than most of us, Alice has among her conclusions: "It’s time to start increasing horse and oxen numbers, which will leave even less biomass for biorefineries." - JL

Part 1. The Dirt on Dirt.

Ethanol is an agribusiness get-rich-quick scheme that will bankrupt our topsoil.

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

[RC]

1. Finally the truth is starting to come out about ethanol

"Ethanol is an agribusiness get-rich-quick scheme that will bankrupt our topsoil."
And raise the price of food out of reach for a lot of people.

[TheWraith]

2. Not this crap again.

Fearmongering mixed with bad science. No, ethanol isn't the solution to all the world's problems, but there's more than enough reasonable arguments against it without pulling out this sort of complete fabrication, which does nothing but make everyone associated with the issue look clinically insane.

[Vogon_Glory]

3. My Cynical Mind Is Asking Me...

My cynical mind is asking me whether these well-meaning "food for the poor" advocates are being played for patsies by the petroleum companies, who are subsidizing them on the sly to protect their sales of high-priced, polluting fossil fuels. While I suspect that these "food for the poor" advocates are sincere, I wouldn't put it past some of their financial contributors to be doing work for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or even possibly the Saudis, just as many of the Green Party's financial backers gave to Nader and company at the behest of the GOP.

Sure, a lot of these bio-fuels crops are less efficient that fossil fuels. But when you consider that the kerosene for the lanterns or the gasoline for the tractors in the Paraguayan or Zambian corn field came through a long supply line from the oil fields in Saudi, that fossil-fuel efficiency diminishes.

[tech3149]

4. whether your growing for food or fuel the current agricultural model

is not the most cost effective and the least sustainable possible alternative. Tilling the soil for mono culture planting requires a lot of work, energy and promotes runoff. To restore soil health, you have to plant fallow every other season and monitor ph and mineral content closely. Then there's the use of pesticides and herbicides that end up being used to keep the harvest crop alive. These end up killing more than is intended making the soil health less sustainable. Then you have to use more chemical fertilizers and testing to try and keep the soil healthy. Fearmongering, I don't buy. Bad science I'll agree with. Soil is a living, breathing thing. It ain't just dirt with the right chemical balance.

I've been around farmland the better part of my life, but I'm no farmer. Would you care yo delineate all the fabrications you refer to?

[4dsc]

5. What no comments from our ethanol shills??

I wonder where jpak and jonniewxk are for comments here??

[jpak]

6. Not a shill - just want the facts to be presented honestly - this has been posted before

and refuted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x91566

[4dsc]

7. Not refuted at all

A note for those reports that state "ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production", they are dead wrong!! Read on why!!

What of the claims from the pro-ethanol literature such as: Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline (3). If these claims were true, then would they actually need ethanol subsidies? Ethanol could put oil companies out of business if this claim had merit.

In fact, however, such claims are false. These claims are based on the use of two different accounting methods designed to show ethanol in a positive light. The energy balance for ethanol is calculated for the entire life cycle, and that for gasoline is calculated on the basis of a barrel of crude oil ready to be refined. We can calculate gasoline based on an entire life cycle to obtain a true apples to apples comparison. It takes only about 1 barrel of oil energy input to net 10-30 barrels of oil from the ground, depending on the source. So, this step has an efficiency of at least 1000%. Once the 85% energy efficiency is factored in for refining gasoline from the oil, the positive energy balance for gasoline ranges from 850% to well over 1,000%. That’s why gasoline costs significantly less than ethanol on a BTU basis. The claim that gasoline is less efficient is just another piece of propaganda used to make the public believe ethanol is better than it is. It would be interesting to see a closed-loop ethanol plant, in which the ethanol they produce provides the energy for the plant. It would not take long for the charade to fall apart, as it would become apparent just how dependent they are on fossil fuels.

I have not even addressed the environmental impacts of growing corn to produce fuel. This is usually given a "free pass" when considering the economics of corn ethanol. Consider a recent report by Lester Lave and Michael Griffin, from Carnegie Mellon University. They write:

Corn farming is rough on the environment. Soil erosion due to wind and water is rampant. Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs produce algae blooms that result in "dead zones," including one in the Gulf of Mexico that is so polluted it cannot support aquatic life. Furthermore, building the ethanol processing plants will take 3–4 years, and gas stations would have to commit to providing ethanol. And, because ethanol uses only the starch in corn, not the oil, protein, or other components, converting corn into ethanol is attractive only if there is a market for the byproducts. Opinions differ, but some estimate that byproduct markets could saturate well short of 11 billion gallons of production.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/grain-derived-ethanol-emperors-new.html

[Chemical Bill]

8. I don't like your math.

> It takes only about 1 barrel of oil energy input to net 10-30 barrels of oil from the ground, depending on the source. So, this step has an efficiency of at least 1000%. Once the 85% energy efficiency is factored in for refining gasoline from the oil, the positive energy balance for gasoline ranges from 850% to well over 1,000%.

Try adding the energy needed for each step of the process, plus the petroleum inputted for the processing, and then divide by the petroleum fuel derived.

Bill

[GliderGuider]

11. Try this, then.

The "petroleum fuel derived" is all of the refinery output, and that amounts to about 85% of the feedstock volume. It's not just the gasoline, it's also diesel fuel etc. Counting the EROEI of the gasoline on its own without considering the energy in those other products would be like, say, counting the EROEI of ethanol without considering the DDGS...

Here's how I figure it.

Say the EROEI of oil at the refinery gate is 30:1. That means you used one barrel to extract and transport the 30 that end up at the refinery. After refining you end up with 30*0.85 = 25.5 barrels of finished goods. So those 25.5 barrels cost you a total of 5.5 barrels (1 to extract and transport, 4.5 to refine), for a positive energy balance of 25.5/5.5 = 4.65 or 465%.

Crude oil with an EROEI of 20:1 gets you 425%, oil with an EROEI of 10:1 gets you 240%, and poor old tar sands syncrude at 3:1 gets you a positive energy balance of 175%

The accepted EROEI of corn ethanol (including the allowance for DDGS) is 1.3:1. since there is no refining required (all you get is ethanol), its energy balance is 130%, equivalent to that of syncrude with an EROEI of 2:1.

One of the problems that social energy theorists have identified is the effect of declining net energy on a society. As the net energy of a society's primary energy source declines, they must divert more and more energy into simply producing energy. As the marginal energy output declines, so does the productivity of all aspects of society that depend on it. Since our global civilization is critically dependent on transportation, the decline of net energy from the 530% of early Texas and Saudi crude to the 130% of ethanol heralds a parallel decline in our civilization's ability to function.

[Chemical Bill]

15. I doubt you have peer review behind this. n/t

[GliderGuider]

18. And that matters how, exactly? Need a PhD to check my arithmetic?

[Chemical Bill]

20. You don't need a PhD.

To assume that petroleum is free and without consequence is what got the world in the trouble we have now. It doesn't take a PhD to see that.

Bill

[GliderGuider]

24. There are consequences no matter what the energy source is

What got the world in the trouble we have now is that we built an enormous industrial civilization that is utterly dependent on liquid fuels for its continued operation. No matter what the source of those fuels, the scale of the enterprise guarantees you will have consequences from their production and use.

I've come to the conclusion that the consequences from using biofuels are merely different from those of petroleum, not necessarily less severe. In fact, the scale of the requirement for them virtually guarantees that the biofuel sources we will have available within the next ten years will present us with even graver consequences than petroleum use. Of course petroleum is about to start running out and the consequences of that will be enormous, but the pressure that will put on biofuels will further amplify their negative consequences.

The consequences I see as most serious are rising global food prices, declining topsoil fertility and declining water tables, but perhaps most importantly an increase in the disparity between rich nations that can afford both food and fuel and poor nations that will increasingly be able to afford neither.

[4dsc]

19. Simple

All you have to remember is that you don't MAKE GASOLINE, you REFINE OIL!!

You don't refine corn to MAKE ETHANOL!! That's where most ethanol shill's get it wrong.. Thus you cannot honestly make the comparison..

[Chemical Bill]

23. Crack much petroleum, do you?

It's done in large distillation columns. Rather like ethanol is distilled. Of course the ethanol has no need for 2,2,4-trimethylpentane.

Gasoline is also said to be blended. I don't advocate blending it with OJ or 7-Up. It takes much less gasoline to poison you than it takes ethanol.

As a matter of fact, MTBE, the petroleum based (synthesized from petroleum) oxygenator that was added to gasoline before being phased out recently, poisoned some wells here in Rhode Island. A town needed to provide bottled water to it's residents. The oil companies could have used ethanol as an oxygenator, but they made less money off of the deal, so the chose to add the poison MTBE.

Shout all you want, but I don't think the descriptive english is what is the trouble here.

Bill

[hunter]

25. In many ways ethanol is a worse additive than MTBE.

I expect we'll be seeing some problems with ethanol that are every bit as bad as the problems with MTBE.

I agree with you that MTBE was used more to stretch gasoline supplies than to reduce air pollution. Basically it was a quick and easy way to turn natural gas into something that could be blended with gasoline.

But your description of modern gasoline production techniques seems way off to me -- the days of "large distillation columns" processing raw petroleum are long past. Gasoline for the most part is a carefully formulated synthetic product, much like plastics, fertilizers, or any other synthetic product made from fossil fuels. The product mix of an oil refinery are very carefully thought out and a wide variety of of chemical processes are applied in the production. Simple distillation of petroleum is for the most part an archaic process. Petroleum is too valuable to utilize in that fashion.

[Chemical Bill]

26. Thanks for the correction, I'm old.

OK, gasoline is synthesized from petroleum. That is more of an argument against the previous poster than my remembered process.

However, I don't see how ethanol will cause more problems than MTBE. I'm sure that the people of Pascoag, RI don't care at this point, as their water with MTBE was a bad enough experience. Do you have any links about the dangers of ethanol in drinking water?

Bill

[hunter]

27. It's hard to say how dangerous MTBE is in drinking water.

The issue was deliberately clouded.

But it tastes funny and shouldn't be there.

Ethanol is surprisingly toxic in aquatic systems, but neither ethanol or MTBE seem to be exceptionally potent pollutants at the present levels.

The larger problem with ethanol is that it absorbs water and increases the corrosiveness of gasoline. It also raises the vapor pressure considerably, so much so that gasoline with ethanol is allowed a higher vapor pressure in retail gasoline mixes. Both these factors increase the amount of gasoline escaping into the environment, and gasoline itself is a toxic brew in both the air and water.

[Chemical Bill]

9. I do agree that corn isn't the best source for biofuel.

Why don't you join me in advocating for more efficient producers?

Bill

[GliderGuider]

12. Advocating for more efficient sources for ethanol is like

advocating for better training for US troops in Iraq. It's nice, but it doesn't address the real problem.

[Chemical Bill]

21. Talk about dishonest.

Advocating for better sources of alternative fuel is exactly the same as advocating the return of the troops from Iraq. Iraq's about oil, and I say bring the troops home. To say otherwise about me is beyond insulting.

Bill

[GliderGuider]

22. I have a different view of alternative energy from you, which causes me to draw different analogies

I intended no personal insult to you.

My conclusion is that ethanol or any other single or combination of alternative fuels likely to be available within the next ten to fifteen years will not solve the liquid fuel crisis that is about to descend on the world due to oil depletion. The problem we are about to face is not, in my estimation, solvable through substitution. This is because the scale of the problem and the scale of the probable replacements are out of balance by over an order of magnitude, and also because the net energy of the proposed substitutes is so much lower than the petroleum fuel they are trying to replace.

In a sense your analogy does hold up even to these conclusions, though. Having the US develop sources of alternative fuels may allow you to keep running some portions of your own economy, effectively withdrawing it from the "Iraqi catastrophe" of global oil depletion. That will be helpful for the US of course, but just as your withdrawal from Iraq would not stop the catastrophe over there, your (partial) withdrawal from the declining global oil market will not prevent that catastrophe from unfolding either. As far as the world is concerned, American actions to insulate yourselves from the global crisis will do nothing to fix it, which is what prompted my comment.

[jpak]

10. I believe the peer reviewed research papers published in Science and PNAS

The net energy yield of ethanol is positive by ~25%. That's not "dead wrong".

The Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone" developed decades before the current ethanol hoax/crisis/famine/crime-against-humanity.

Increased discharge of the Mississippi River as the result of global warming will increase the size of the "Dead Zone" - no ethanol required. Ethanol production, however, reduces GHG emissions by 12% relative to gasoline consumption - its part of the solution to GW and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

Closed-loop methods can also reduce fossil fuel inputs (and GHG emissions) used in ethanol production.

Organic farming methods, conservation tillage and restoration of historical riparian wetlands in the Mississippi River basin can further reduce agricultural nutrient inputs to the Louisiana Shelf.

These can also sequester CO2, maintain soil fertility and reduce crop vulnerability to weather extremes - and sustainably produce corn for ethanol as value-added product (just the same as high-fructose corn syrup, corn oil/gluten/germ etc.).

So yeah, refuted...

edit: and oh yeah this too (prairie grass ethanol feedstock)...

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Back_to_the_future_prairie_grasses.html

Back to the future: Prairie grasses emerge as rich energy source

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Back_to_the_future_prairie_grasses.html

<snip>

This week a new contender burst on the scene: diverse mixtures of native prairie grasses. A University team led by David Tilman, Regents Professor of Ecology, found that these grasses yield more net energy than either ethanol from corn or "biodiesel" fuel from soybeans. Grass-based fuel can even lead to a net decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide, whereas ethanol and biodiesel increase it.

The study is based on 10 years of work at the University's Cedar Creek Natural History Area. Written by Tilman, postdoctoral researcher Jason Hill and research associate Clarence Lehman, it is the cover story in the Dec. 8 issue of the journal Science.

For many years, renewable fuels from plants ("biofuels") have been seen as beacons of hope because the carbon dioxide released in burning them can be absorbed by the next year's crop. But in a report earlier this year, Tilman, Hill and others showed that corn grain ethanol and soy biodiesel do little to offset carbon dioxide emissions because it takes so much fossil fuel to produce them.

The new work demonstrates that it's not monoculture crops like corn, soybeans or even switchgrass, but rather the "sea of grass" that fell to the plow in the 19th century that harbors a bright hope for the 21st. Mixtures of native perennial grasses and other flowering plants require little energy or fertilizer to turn into fuel, yield up to 238 percent more usable energy per acre than any single species and can even lower atmospheric carbon dioxide by storing it in their roots or in soil.

<more>

[hunter]

17. I remember when jojoba plantations were going to save the world...

That was a long time ago, back when Jimmy Carter was President.

[razzleberry]

13. ethanol, better than petroleum ...n/t

[hunter]

14. Yum. Whiskey.

A shot of petroleum, and you'll mess your pants.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. You got something against messing your pants?

How else can you tell if you had fun?

Other than the police report, that is?

--p!