At least that’s what a new study says. I think it paints with a pretty broad brush, because I do in fact think some can be green. But a new study published in Science, echoing the themes of an earlier study I highlighted, concludes that almost all biofuels in use today will increase greenhouse gas emissions. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts
While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of biofuels, two new studies suggest these gasoline alternatives actually will increase carbon-dioxide levels.
A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them by about one-fifth by some estimates. A separate paper in Science concludes that clearing native habitats to grow crops for biofuel generally will lead to more carbon emissions.
Land-use changes can have big and unintended consequences, such as food shortages and reduced biodiversity. For example, when forests or grasslands are converted for agricultural use, it leads to a large, quick release of carbon when the existing plant life is destroyed and the soil is tilled. Even if biofuels are grown on cropland previously used to grow food, farmers tend to then clear other forests and grasslands and grow the food elsewhere.
“Even if we’re dramatically wrong, it’s hard to get to a result that says you get a benefit over 50 years,” said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and a co-author of the paper on corn-based ethanol.
Not surprisingly, the corn ethanol lobby disagrees:
“We absolutely assert that ethanol production and use is a responsible way to address the environmental, energy and economic challenges the world faces today,” spokesman Matt Hartwig said. He said the group’s researchers will study the papers and formulate a response.
Assertions are great, but I prefer science. And science is winning the war against corn ethanol. But I have my doubts that the political battle will ever be won.
“One thing this also means – if the net is an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, then that means a full life-cycle analysis would show that that the EROEI of corn ethanol is less than 1.”
Not sure how one follows the other. Emissions balance measures mass flows. EROEI measures energy flows.
Emissions balance measures mass flows. EROEI measures energy flows.
EROEI measures energy, but energy that has been consumed to produce other energy. That energy emits greenhouse gases in the process of being consumed.
Now, it is true that some sources emit more than others. For instance, you might have a process with an EROEI of exactly 1.0, but if coal was the input you may find that the process does in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions. But in general, if the EROEI is less than 1 for a “renewable” source of energy, it isn’t renewable at all and net emissions will increase for that energy source.
But in general, if the EROEI is less than 1 for a “renewable” source of energy, it isn’t renewable at all and net emissions will increase for that energy source.
True, but the opposite does not neccessarily apply. So, if a technique increases greenhouse gas emissions, it goes not automatically mean that the EROEI is less than 1 if the additional releases come from processes that are external to the actual energy cycle.
Here, the bit of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by disruption of natural processes. This source of greenhouse gas emissions does not reduce the EROEI despite increasing the emissions, since it not caused by energy consumption. Thus, that process decoples the direct relationship between EROEI and greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes, I see what you are saying, and you are right. I will edit to reflect that. Thanks.
Assertions are great, but I prefer science. And science is winning the war against corn ethanol. But I have my doubts that the political battle will ever be won.
The science/political problem started an iteration earlier — when politics trumped science and the unproven dubious hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming became enshrined as the One True Faith, That Which Can Never Be Questioned, as revealed by the Most Holy Prophet Algore (Peace Be Upon Him & His Lear Jet).
Once we start to make policies based on bad science, no-one should be surprised that some of those policies as self-defeating as they are unstoppable.
The solution is to go back to basics — normal full open scientific discussion of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
I hope biofuels have a future. As stated, the world oil markets are touchy. Lose a couple mbd, and you get price spikes. Add a few mbd….and if one way to add a few mbd is to boost biofuel production, then biofuels are worth considering.
A biofuel production capability makes more sense than an SPR.
We are spending $200 billion a year in Iraq/Afghanie. Surely, we can afford some subsidies for biofuels and energy independence, especially if we withdraw military.
Although I agree corn-based ethanol, unless second-gen plants work out, probably is a loser.
Note to Kinua: Human activity may be causing some global warming, and is certainly increasing CO2 levels, which is also providing a huge boost to crop yields. But far worse would be the Ice Age that is about due.
Most peole don’t know it, but North America was warmer when Leif Ericson same here about 1,000 years ago. He reported a mild climate in New Foundland, and little frost in winter (!).
Timelines indicate we should be seeing an Ice Age.
Acquiring land a little south south of the equator, in a stable nation such as Thailand or Malaysia, might make sense.
Not just corn
Looks like switchgrass is on the chopping block as well.
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/02/08/biofu/index.html
This biofuels thing got picked up by Marginal Revolution (a good, IMO, and fairly mainstream blog … maybe a bit of a libertarian mecca … but what’s wrong with that?)
“The solution is to go back to basics — normal full open scientific discussion of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.”
We did that. Denialists didn’t like the answer, and so asked for a permanent cycle in the “discovery” phase.
This is exactly what I warned against some time ago: the FOOD -> FUEL madness will sour the public on all biofuels. Sad to see it play out in public.
To be viable, biofuels must still adhere to the basic principles of good business, such as adding value to materials when you process them. When you do FOOD -> FUEL you are destroying value.
And while it’s romantic to think we are going to be buying our fuel from Farmer Brown, that’s not good business either. Farming is for high value products (food). The world’s population is still growing. Agriculture has its work cut out to stay ahead of that curve.
For biofuels to work, it has to start with WASTE -> FUEL (adding value), a place where even a steep increase in a short period will not upset existing production systems and lead to a bunch of unintended but actually fully foreseeable consequences.
The other thing to watch here is how there is this coming realization that nothing beats conservation, with due apologies to Mr. Cheney.
We did that. Denialists didn’t like the answer, and so asked for a permanent cycle in the “discovery” phase.
Odograph — you were trying to be cute, so you are forgiven for what seems to be your utter & complete denial of the scientific method.
What you wrote implies that science has “proved” the dubious hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
But science never “proves” anything. Taken at face value (which I hope you did not intend it to be), your statement was a remarkable demonstration of ignorance & misunderstanding of science.
Science relies on observable, repeatable data which either support or disprove theories. Any theory can be disproved — if it does not match any observation (e.g. the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature). But a theory can never be “proved”, since there are always more observations to be made.
That is why Newton’s highly successful theory of gravitation ultimately had to be rejected — it could not explain such things as the motion of the planet Mercury, or the bending of light in a gravitational field.
Ever person who respects the scientific method knows that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is just that — a hypothesis. Even if a scientist provisionally accepts it today, he will have no reluctance about rejecting it in the future in the light of new data.
But True Believer alarmists do not respect science — as your glib comment demonstrated.
But it’s not about “Food versus Fuel”
Ultimately, assuming we displace a lot of food production, it will pop up elsewhere. (Likely in areas which are less sustainable than previous)
What it’s really about is Climate versus Fuel.
And clearly, biofuels aren’t an answer to that issue.
Except for “True waste”.
But there’s hardly any of that to go around to be even considered significant.
==But True Believer alarmists do not respect science — as your glib comment demonstrated.==
And can you say it’s respect for science to continue denying that precautions may be a rational course of action.
Even when there are ZERO national scientific organizations in the world that call against action.
Merely a few partisan hacks, many of which are sponsored by fossil fuel industries.
And while it bears some esoteric truth to continue demanding more research.
That is no reason to demand that we sit on our hands and do nothing until we unlock all of the secrets of the universe.
I don’t sweat the denialists, I just let Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Science, do my talking for me.
But it’s not about “Food versus Fuel”
At this point it is, thanks to our idiotic elected officials. But it should NOT be that way.
What it’s really about is Climate versus Fuel. And clearly, biofuels aren’t an answer to that issue.
You can’t conclude anything, yet, because of the idiotic way this has been implemented so far.
Except for “True waste”.
BINGO!
But there’s hardly any of that to go around to be even considered significant.
But there is a lot of it rotting away all over the place. This is the low-hanging fruit we should be going after. Once we recover 80+% of our waste we’d understand a lot better how well it works, what is realistic, how a sustainable system would work. It’s the obvious starting point, but one that is ignored in favor of pandering to Big Ag.
As we approach Feb 14 how many will argue “flowers versus food?”
There are real issues with food versus fuel, and they should be considered. At the same time we have an amazing ability to neglect older examples.
It’s like we prefer seemingly new problems because they allow us to mine them for their morality and ethics from a clean slate.
As a note, cut flowers (primarily for Europe?) are grown in Africa, with some controversy.
SCIENCE vs POLITICS[or “the facts” vs “the greed”].
let’s hope the ethanol canard foisted on the public takes a shorter period of time to get debunked than was the case for the “FOOD PYRAMID”–remember all those cereal box pictures?
it took 30+ years to turn the”pyramid” upside down and get BIG GRAIN off that ruse. science prevailed after the nations health went south.[carbs, cholesteral, trans fat, et al]–carbs were good, but eggs, butter were bad! cereal[carbs] were the base of the pyramid.. the GRAIN GUYS foisted that one for $, for years.
the latest GRAIN ruse is ethanol. BIG GRAIN won’t yield easily.
how long will it take this time?
fran
Odograph you said,
As we approach Feb 14 how many will argue “flowers versus food?”
That might be a point if the government was mandating flower purchases and subsidizing flower production.
Until then not so much.
Cheers,
TJIT
If the policy response to AGW continues as it has to date I predict the next ten years of government attempts to respond to AGW will have the following results.
1. There will be a strong push for cap and trade as opposed to carbon taxes because it provides profitable rent seeking opportunities
2. The mandate / subsidy nexus will continue and funnel large amounts of resources to counterproductive or ineffective technologies like crop based biofuels and wind power
3. This will keep money away from research or subsidies for technologies that would be helpful. This would include items like improved battery technology and improved electrical transmission infrastructure and technology
5. The policies put in place to reduce CO2 emissions will on balance at best do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions and will likely end up increasing global CO2 emissions.
6. Policies enacted to reduce CO2 emissions will cause more environmental destruction then doing nothing would have.
TJIT
There is one more item to add to your list, TJIT —
7. In 10 years time, anthropogenic global warming will be getting about the same amount of attention as AIDS is today. Just as the Clinton-era fear that AIDS would wipe out a whole generation turned out to have been hopelessly exaggerated, global warming will have dropped off most people’s radar.
The big fear machine will have moved onto something else. Probably whether there will be enough food & fuel to see us through the next long, cold winter.
The biofuel proponents have successfully dampened some of the criticism of corn ethanol by claiming we need it to set the stage for more environmental successors like cellulosic versions. So, they claim, we need to continue the big subsidies to enable the infrastructure developments that will be in place when version 2.0 is online.
But a lot of environmental losses will have taken place by the time version 2.0 is here. And to keep the pipelines filled, version 1.0 will have to stay in place for a very long time as version 2.0 is phased in. So, the planet has to continue taking a big hit of heroin until we can get it on a dose of methadone.
Industry shills like Bob Dineen state that we have now grown so dependent on ethanol that the global warming costs have to be considered “in context”.
I guess we are going to continue to suffer with the “context” our leaders in Washington see vs. the “context” of the biosphere. Will we push ahead to double the output of corn ethanol or will we call for a moratorium on future corn ethanol development?
We need to extend the debate about our addiction to oil to our addiction to all liquid fuels. The answer is not to continue growing the supply but to begin dismantling the infrastructure built on liquid fuels and replacing it with wisely designed systems that largely free us from pumps. nozzles and internal combustion.
Alternative fuels in unsustainable systems only perpetuate and ratchet up the technological dependency on unsustainable systems. Ethanol is a prime example of technocratic muddling — allowing bad design to dictate our future. In this context, we are not free men.
The reason AIDS is less of an issue in America now is that most people feel they, and their children, are safe from it. It is an old, and manageable threat … to ourselves.
Many of us do fund medical aid for the third world. I do, but that is arguably altruism more than self-interest. I don’t do it to protect myself …
Part of the game in comparing AGW to AIDS is to forget what it is. AGW is a threat to our own nation’s welfare, and the welfare of our own future generations.
… it requires a bit of altruism too, but us humans tend to invest more when we have our genes and our tribe on the line.
(re. flowers, it seems odd to give a pass to individual responsibility, and only judge governments. not that I think flowers are a great moral failing … it just comes back to the balance we humans find acceptable between our own goals and our altruism.)
The reason AIDS is less of an issue in America now is that most people feel they, and their children, are safe from it.
Indeed! But that ducks the obvious questions — Why were people so afraid of AIDS 20 years ago? And why do people feel safe now?
AIDS may seem like off-topic ancient history on an energy blog, but it has an important relevant message. The AIDS scare is an example of what happens when political activism trumps science.
For those too young to remember, it is worth checking out how politicians & media conspired to make ordinary people feel that their world was coming to an end. People were scared of AIDS because they were subject to an incessant propaganda barrage — kind of like AGW today.
Example extract from Michael Fumento on AIDS:
The End of Life As We Know It
The fear: “Now No One Is Safe From AIDS,” proclaimed the cover of Life magazine in 1985. That same year, Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Otis Bowen said AIDS could make the Black Death “seem pale by comparison.” Eight years later, current HHS Secretary Donna Shalala told Congress, “We could spend our energy on research and immunization and education and still not have any Americans left unless we’re prepared to confront the crisis of AIDS.”
Replace AIDS with “anthropogenic global warming”, and those kinds of statements would not sound out of place today. The big politically-motivated scare machine trundles on.
So why are we still around to discuss this, instead of all being dead from the fearsome AIDS epidemic? Because all those respectable mainstream sources were wrong! The predicted epidemic never happened. The full story is too long to tell here; the essence is that politics trumped science — kind of like AGW.
AIDS is still around, of course. Most of it these days is reported from Africa, where the UN hands out US taxpayers money to governments who claim they have a big AIDS problem. Reportedly, in some African countries, the deaths of people killed in traffic accidents have been listed as AIDS-related.
One of the great principles in geology is uniformitarianism — if something happened once, it can happen again.
The “anthropogenic global warming” fear machine seeking to control people’s lives today has a lot of similarities to the AIDS fear machine that wasted so many scarce resources in the 80s & 90s — such as supplying expensive drugs to poor Africans instead of providing them with the clean water & good sewage systems that they really needed.
The messages of the “AIDS crisis” for energy today — watch out for politically-motivated fear-mongering; don’t blindly trust authorities; and examine the underlying science carefully.
Indeed! But that ducks the obvious questions — Why were people so afraid of AIDS 20 years ago? And why do people feel safe now?
There were many responses, ranging from the scientific to the personal. It was certainly not only new drugs or only a shift to safer sex, but they seem to have added up.
Your argument that the American pandemic didn’t happen “just because it didn’t” is a little odd for that reason.
I mean, you are the one pointing at Africa, where lack of drugs and riskier practices led to a different outcome.
Thread below was closed so I’ll post here. How much is the capital cost for a new refinery? Would awarding the 4 citgo (Venezuela) refineries in the U.S. even come close to settle the 12 billion dollars? It seems you’d have to include the human capital of all the workers too, basically liquidating the whole company in the U.S.
Isn’t it true that subsidized unsustainable corn ethanol in America is paving the way for Robert’s new top secret ethanol process. If that project is successful, wouldn’t you owe the corn ethanol lobby some thanks for getting more flex fuel vehicle on the road and getting E-85 pumps in place?
Since flowers to fuel has been mentioned, has anyone considered lupins as a biofuel feedstock.
kinuachdrach, your comparisons of the AIDS media coverage and AGW media coverage is not valid. AGW consensus is the sum of hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed studies in a variety of fields. Your AIDS quotations are the opinions of several individuals, and opinions in the media, NOT scientific studies.
The whole “denier culture” regarding anthropogenic global warming is based on the same hysteria you are quoting from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s: media comments by unqualified individuals.
Your position is akin to declaring that “Bamboo is a hardwood! Go into any flooring store selling hardwood, and they sell bamboo!”
Point out the scientifically that bamboo is a grass, and you produce advertisement after advertisement about “hardwood floors” and “bamboo”, and declaring it as proof!
It’s not. Roses are red, so is human blood. But roses do not contain human blood.
The denier culture has a perfect setup. Climate change is interpreted by the “average Joe” as “weather”. So he has an opinion, he can “measure” for himself. The real causes of climate change are quite complicated, but it’s easy to simply give “bamboo is a hardwood”-type explanations. Talk radio: they have made SO MUCH MONEY by stoking the “denier culture” and declaring AGW as a “hoax”…it’s simply boggling.
Would awarding the 4 citgo (Venezuela) refineries in the U.S. even come close to settle the 12 billion dollars?
Capital costs for a new refinery are very high. I think the 4 refineries are probably worth more than 12 billion, but I don’t know the capacities right off the top of my head. But a couple of years ago a 100,000 bbl/day refinery would cost roughly $3 billion. I think those costs have escalated since.
Isn’t it true that subsidized unsustainable corn ethanol in America is paving the way for Robert’s new top secret ethanol process.
Won’t make any difference, for reasons that will soon be obvious.
So..
Did anyone pick up on this aspect of the reports?
==Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions.==
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/07/national/w145539S09.DTL
______
Also, Mark Delucchi from UC Davis had some interesting comments to say about these studies, and biofuels policy.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/new-studies-ide.html
______
==Won’t make any difference, for reasons that will soon be obvious.==
Aka,
“It’s the FeedStock, Stupid.”
So, it’s not ethanol.
Anonymous wrote, from behind a veil of anonymity:
The real causes of climate change are quite complicated ..
Well, congratulations Anonymous; that is a step forward in your understanding.
Climate has been continuously variable for hundreds of millions of years before man came along, for reasons that are indeed quite complex and poorly understood. Those complex reasons continue right up to the present day.
Contrast that with the unscientific simple mindedness of anthropogenic global warming alarmists — it’s all due to human-created CO2; without us, the planet’s climate would (for the very first time in geological history) be completely stable & unchanging.
You clearly don’t believe that unscientific crock, Anonymous — why would you expect any thinking person to accept a hypothesis that you yourself have rejected?
But let’s not lose sight of the topic of discussion. Biofuels have been promoted & subsidized purely on the basis that they will reduce (bad) CO2 emissions — and now they are being hoisted on their own petard.
But we still have the problem that fossil fuels are inevitably going to become scarce some day. Since it will take decades to build the infrastructure for new energy sources to replace the 90% of gobal energy coming from fossil fuels, we really need to get started As Soon As Possible.
Because of bad science (or rather, politically-driven science), we are wasting time on things like biofuels and wind turbines — the useless spawn of the bad science of alleged anthropogenic global warming. It is time to start doing science right.
But a couple of years ago a 100,000 bbl/day refinery would cost roughly $3 billion.
There are a lot of variables, of course, such as the type of crude for which the refinery is designed. For what it is worth, Kuwait has announced recently that the cost of a new 615,000 bpd refinery they are planning has risen to about $14.6 billion.
==Contrast that with the unscientific simple mindedness of anthropogenic global warming alarmists — it’s all due to human-created CO2; without us, the planet’s climate would (for the very first time in geological history) be completely stable & unchanging.==
You think any real scientist has such a blunt view of the science?
If we only factor in natural factors, we should be cooling right about now.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
I’m curious as to what you think is the cause of the recent warming trends, since clearly it’s not solar irradiance levels.
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
==Because of bad science (or rather, politically-driven science), we are wasting time on things like biofuels and wind turbines — the useless spawn of the bad science of alleged anthropogenic global warming. It is time to start doing science right.==
Lemme guess.
You’re thinking Coal-to-Liquids?
greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
Me personally I favor SolarThermalStorage, GeoThermal, Electrificiation of Transport, and Efficiency in general.
tpvalKinuachdrach said
Biofuels have been promoted & subsidized purely on the basis that they will reduce (bad) CO2 emissions
There are many who promote biofuels based on the idea that the people who control the oil (the life blood of our cvilization) don’t really like us very much. From a national security point of view, it is not a very good position to be in.
As to the whole global warming debate, can we agree that changing the composition of our atmosphere is a bad idea and it would be best to not do it if we can.
I think that the GW alarmists and the denialists are both wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. That global warming is a long term (100+ year) problem, but the solution will need to be so huge that we need to start working now on ideas of how to do things differently in the decades to come.
I think that the GW alarmists and the denialists are both wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Glad to hear that your think the anthropogenic global warming alarmists are wrong.
Personally, I don’t know that they are wrong. But I do know that very, very few of them can even pretend to make any kind of credible scientific case for their beliefs. Which makes me wonder.
The only “denialists” that I have come across are the so-called scientists (politicians, really) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In their Third Assessment Report, they promoted the “hockey stick” temperature profile which claimed that the temperature of the Earth had been stable for a thousand years before human industrialization.
The IPCC “denied” the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Of course, the IPCC was wrong. They manipulated data inappropriately, ignored lots of contrary information, and have still not admitted their error. Doesn’t exactly fill one with confidence about the IPCC, does it?
There are a lot of serious people who have doubts about drawing unshakeable conclusions from our extremely sparse data base on temperatures. But that is not “denial”, that is scientific realism.
There are also lots of serious people who have significant reservations about the science claimed to support anthropogenic global warming — but reasoned dissent is not “denial” either.
The “denial” is coming from people who pretend that the climate would be absolutely stable if not for human involvement. That position is simply unsupportable.
As we approach Feb 14 how many will argue “flowers versus food?”
LOL! The difference between flowers in fuel is that America does not use 20 million bbl/d of flowers.