So a Friend Asked: When will we have sustainable biofuels?

Sustainable biofuels depends on your definition of sustainable.

If you define sustainable as net-energy positive (more energy in than out) than we are there with even basic corn ethanol. The majority of corn ethanol plants produce more liquid ethanol btu's of energy than they cost all the way back to the farm (meaning every drop of energy from the farmers tractor on). When ethanol is considered a net energy loser is when they don't consider the other products made along side corn (brewers mash, corn oil, and other products sold after ethanol is produced). Also sometimes the cost of transporting ethanol to market by truck will make it a little bit of an energy loser.

For the most part corn ethanol is seeing a 20 to 40% increase in btu's of energy created. This is never talked about though as in the late 70's it was an energy loser and the same old expert from the 70's (a guy named Pimitel) still pimps the old out of date methodology that has been disproven. The national news always interviews this dude as the counter-opinion of the biofuels industry.

Beyond corn ethanol on net energy return you've got a whole host of other sustainable definitions. Is the corn a genetically modified organism? Is it a permaculture or monoculture farming style? How much water does the farming deplete fromt the natural aquifer below the farm? What about fertilizer and pesticide wash off of the field? These are the sticky wickets that cause a debate.

And then beyond this technical jargon filled debate is the Climate Change debate. Namely the CO2 reduction opportunity of a biofuel. If the biofuel can't substantially reduce CO2 emmission in the lifecycle of the fuel some don't consider it "sustainable" though it would be renewable and cleaner than petroleum.

Beyond corn ethanol though there are a slough of other biofuel products. Biodiesel in particular is extremely sustainable under any metric or debate. The only issue is that environmentalists hate soy bean farms (but somehow hippys love soy). But regardless if its soy, canola, or waste fryer grease biodiesel is 70% less CO2 (for its whole lifecycle) and has no real concerning emmissions issues. This metric being the goal post set by California recently in their "Low Carbon Fuels Standard" set to combat green house gases in their state.

I would go into cellulosic ethanol or some of the other advanced biofuels like "gas to liquid diesel" but it might be a little to much for you. It will make you sorry you asked.

Unless of course you want to hear more. Then my wife will thank you for distracting me enough to stop boring the crud out of her with this stuff.

Mark

(NOTE: This was an answer to a Facebook question asked in my profile)

Some more of my thoughts on Food vs. Fuel

Please consider a few thoughts I regularly mention when presenting on biofuels and the food-versus-food debate is brought up by someone who simultaneously thinks that biofuels are a net-energy loser but somehow agriculture is more energy positive without it.

Propose the question: "Where does ethanol come from?"

Corn carbohydrate.

Or to be exact something likely to be processed into corn-syrup (a process that takes energy as well) and then sold as a cheap filler to real food. This processed food being most aptly described recently in the book In Defense of Food as being a "food-like-substance".

The only thing sustained by corn-carbohydrate in the US is diabetes. Corn protein on the other hand is highly sought by any agricultural process feeding animals. The corn mash is the real value of corn and it is preserved in the process passed along as a value added good to feed lots.

Ethanol allows a growing corn market with a safer off-take partner in our vehicles appetites versus that of the low-price-leader junk food manufacturer. It also provides more high protein for the market with a wider future market mix for this agricultural input. In short, I don't weep for Lil Debbie's price pressures at my local 7-Eleven.

The next step, sustainability, is to improve our process. Reduce the inputs of petroleum fertilizer, water, and ultimately CO2 emissions while increasing our productivity. To reduce the inputs while maintaining or growing crop yields is the definition of wealth creation. This is the crux of business sustainability and the 'Lever of Riches' presented to us by the new clean tech movement afoot. Making more with less and improving the overall quality of life for those at every step of the value chain.

In the past the focus has always been on more. More calories, more weight, more yields. Now we must focus on quality and ethanol gives us a floor to work with. A floor for the transition from MORE to BETTER.

I realize that there are many who see no value in American mainstream Agriculture. They only see mono-crops, GMO's, and a spendthrift approach to consuming inputs in the ever expanding welfare state of Corporate farming. I on the other hand tend to look at modern American agriculture similarly as to how I consider the Egyptian pyramids. A giant monument of what human ingenuity can achieve. Overlooking the issues of human bondage and destruction these monuments to Pharaoh ego represent. Between the pessimist and optimist positions there is a huge middle ground of progress that can be achieved.

Food versus Fuel is the definitive issue of this middle ground. Where today is not a position of optimum results but it is definitely worth building upon. Progress can be had and I believe that ethanol moves us further towards a total better result than a farm and energy policy that doesn't include it.

Congo uses Palm for Economic Development

The Republic of Congo plans to set aside part of its arable land for biofuel production. Congo has 8.2 million hectares of arable land, with less than 15 % of this land being cultivated. Three companies have asked for about 1.75 million hectares to plant palm trees for biodiesel.

Reported from the World Energy Global News Summary


Notice the 8.2 million hectares of farm land with under 15% in production. The interest in biofuels likely attracting foreign agricultural management, technology, and know-how to Congo. This is the first story of its type I've seen around Palm Oil. Usually its not called "arable land" but rain forest in a story.

We also see this in corn production in the US. With the additional market floor for ethanol it has given rise to more corn planted, harvested, exported, produced into food, and of course more ethanol. This side of the story is rarely discussed in stories about biofuels. Fortunately they don't call idle farm land in US set-aside "prarie" or "range land" when discussing using it to produce energy.

Usually the story pointing to any biofuel feedstock production assumes not a larger over all yield from a nation's resources but a zero-sum game as one of something means less of something else. Its to bad we don't see the truth about how the future of sustainable technology must focus not on cutting the pie in smaller pieces but instead a bigger pie with fewer inputs relative to the growing pieces.

That has been the past of the technology and should definitely be our focus for the future. There is also a large direct relationship between the wealth of a nation and its preservation of nature and environmental quality. No doubt a more productive Congo would be an overall greener Congo (though this is a very argumentive assertion on my part as many very green friends of mine have had this debate for years).