 can be a carbon-neutral energy source, but the overall process of producing them is far from carbon neutral, given the substantial amount of fossil fuels expended in growing, harvesting, processing and distributing them.)
GROWTH INDUSTRY: Biofuels (or agrofuels) can be a carbon-neutral energy source, but the overall process of producing them is far from carbon neutral, given the substantial amount of fossil fuels expended in growing, harvesting, processing and distributing them.
Image: Hemera collection
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: What are “agrofuels,” and why are organizations like Friends of the Earth critical about their use?—Bill Wilson, Boise, Idaho
Agrofuels, also known as biofuels (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel), are fuels derived from plants instead of from oil or other fossil fuels. What makes them appealing to environmentalists and others, at least in theory, is the fact that they can be a carbon-neutral energy source.
Plants take in and store carbon dioxide (CO2) during the process of photosynthesis. When plants die, whether through natural causes or when humans harvest them, this stored CO2 is released back into the atmosphere in an age-old cycle that doesn’t contribute any additional greenhouse gas into the system. But when we extract and burn oil and other fossil fuels, we are taking CO2 that would have otherwise remained locked up deep below the Earth’s surface and releasing it into the atmosphere, essentially overloading the planet’s carbon balance and leading to more global warming.
But as things stand today, the overall process of producing agrofuels is far from carbon neutral, given the fossil fuels expended in growing, harvesting and processing the crops (petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, diesel fuel to run tractors, etc…) and then distributing them (via carbon-spewing trucks, trains, ships and airplanes). Of course, growing such crops organically and processing and distributing them without fossil fuels would help close the gap between today’s reality and the dream of carbon-neutrality.
Another major hurdle for agrofuels is the fact that harvesting crops across millions of acres for fuel instead of for food would leave many hungry mouths to feed in the U.S. and elsewhere. Researchers are hoping to overcome this conundrum by generating agrofuels from less land- and input-intensive “crops” such as switchgrass, sugarcane, wood waste or even algae. The latter “feedstock” is especially promising because it can be grown in non-traditional agricultural settings including indoor labs and even on off-shore ocean platforms. But regardless of the wow factor, producing small quantities of fuel from such experimental crops costs hundreds times more than getting oil to gas pumps, so researchers have a long way to go before agrofuels made from these nouveau source crops can make inroads into the mainstream.
Given the issues with producing agrofuels domestically, suppliers are increasingly looking to source them abroad, essentially trading one set of foreign fuel producers for another. But according to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), “Land grabbing by large companies and agro-businesses to the detriment of local livelihoods, forests and other ecosystems, with gross violations of human rights, have been witnessed in many countries where agrofuels are produced.” FOEI adds: “The production of agrofuels…is generating serious environmental damage and eroding the people’s ability to control the production, trade and consumption of food, given that more and more agricultural land is being devoted for energy crops.”
As recently as five years ago environmentalists were hailing agrofuels as a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the face of increased global warming and skyrocketing oil prices. But as the agrofuels industry starts to grow up, many are wondering whether or not pursuing such a baggage-laden alternative is really worth the trouble, especially in light of more promising developments in other sectors of the renewable fuels sector.
CONTACT: Friends of the Earth International, www.foei.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentI'm holding out for bait-and-switch grass...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read somewhere else that it takes 1.4 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of bio-fuel.Could anyone verify that number for me? If this is true then it's proves there are people (politicians) who really are not interested in solving problems but just making themselves look good by doing anything no matter what the cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgriculture, all be it a necessary one, is the biggest environmental travesty there is. There is nothing 'natural' about that greeen field of wheat or corn. A paved parking lot actually has less negative impact
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"all be it" could mean something, albeit spelled differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese same politicians attract millions in campaign donations from companies like Monsanto in exchange for the $billions in biofuel subsidies. Repugs are as bad as the Dem's with the handouts. The US is one of the most corrupt nations on earth - get used to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no major 'green' organizations that promote biofuels as being even a small part of the final green energy mix.
Since nuclear based synfuels are clean and green with zero environmental impact and already cost a fraction of petrol, the only thing in the way of clean transportation fuels are Big Oil lobbyists buying politicians.
Good question and one that it is very difficult to calculate a full answer to, but suffice to say it currently consumes far more energy than it produces. New more efficient fermentation technologies are far better, but still inefficient. As the article points out, newer technologies are also focused on non food raw materials which minimizes the competition with our dinner plates. All said, it is still a work in progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think if you use crop waste, like corn stalks, you can certainly get net energy out. The corn obviously requires energy input in fertilizer and fuel, but you'd pay for that anyway. If you can ferment the waste then you get net energy, but the question of course being if it is even close to cost-competitive, and what your opportunity cost is since you'd normally use that material as silage or plow it back into the soil as an amendment etc. Fermenting cellulose is also not 0 energy or necessarily cheap either...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the US there is no food/fuel problem as we have too much capacity and not enough market. Other places though could have problems. Most bull about ethanol is big oil propaganda which never includes value of the better feed/food quality dried mash/DDG's, corn oil or stalks, cobs which along with far more eff processes/plants make ethanol a far better fuel with far less subsidies than oil, coal get. So both the EROI and ROI are better than oil if you use the same biased method.
As for small producers being at a disavantage, not really as how much does it take to put oil seeds into an oil press? Or better turn waste veg oil into biodiesel?
But as another poster said, using waste biomass to make fuel is the way to go. Between yard and diasters like the pine bark beetle, other forest, garbage, factory, etc wastes can be turned into syn gas, H2-CO, which can be made into about any HC. Any waste heat can be used to make electricity.
Or burned in a combined heat and power generator making electricity and heat right in homes/buildings.
I also can charge my EV's from it, solar, wind at far lower than utility prices in most of the US. Would use ethanol in my unllimited range generator if it was available in Fla but it isn't for some reason.
Biofuels are needed both for energy and jobs but wastes are the right source for them in most countries.
Though once people figure out how cheap, eff EV's are when done right, oil will get hit fairly hard in 5 yrs.
"In the US there is no food/fuel problem as we have too much capacity and not enough market."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell that to my grocer and gas station owner who both raised prices 3 weeks in a row due to "shortages."
Jerry of course makes everything up as he goes along - a DIY'er of information along with his other amazing claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever out in Everglade County there is no doubt Jerry and his daddy before him are the acknowledged experts in biofuels. Been making them for 2 generations now and they are the best tasting BioFuels anybody has tasted in a hundred mile.
In general, you consume more energy to produce biofuels than their usable energy content. Exceptions are waste cooking oil and waste animal fats which are biodiesel, biogas from human and animal wastes which is methane, agricultural wastes converted into methane through anaerobic digestion (the bacteria are doing the work for you so no need for large energy input)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince most of the biofuels used today are from food crops, they are a waste of money and energy.
This is an issue (bio-fuels)that I have researched for several years now and have come to the conclusion that algae offers the only realistic way for humanity to continue to enjoy liquid fuels in perpetuity. The statement "producing small quantities of fuel from such experimental crops costs hundreds times more than getting oil to gas pumps" is marginally accurate when considering "research" costs which are very high in any endeavor. Algae produced what we now call fossil oil in geologic antiquity and will, I predict, in the future produce all of our oil. In a greenhouse paradigm algae produces between 10 and 20K/GPA depending on who you read. It has positives that other bio-fuels lack. It takes minimal fossil fuels to produce and could take none if the source of electricity was "renewable". It is a drop in fuel compatible with our present refining system and can be used as diesel fuel with minimal processing. It can be used to make all of the liquid fuels that we presently enjoy and is carbon neutral. While ramping up will be expensive once the original investment is amortized liquid fuel will be much cheaper than even today costs let alone predicted future costs of fossil oil. It requires no major fertilizer input and would use far less water than any other bio-fuel. It is also the fastest growing plant on the planet even surpassing bamboo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all know that at some point fossil fuels will be depleted or so difficult to extract that a renewable source of liquid fuels will be absolutely necessary. Failure to respond now to an obvious future scenario will lead to untold suffering and will amount to a crime against our progeny. Ethanol, though well meant at the time it was mandated, has turned out to be a bad idea as the energy gain is an illusion and it's use of corn has caused food prices to rise globally.
Developing an algal based fuel economy will be a massive undertaking but it will produce countless production and maintenance jobs (non-exportable). The hundred million dollars that it takes to drill one offshore oil well, which will produce oil for a limited time, at best, could build a lot of green houses (none of which need utilize arable land-scrub land will do nicely, thank you) which will convert solar energy into liquid fuels as long as they are maintained.
The problems are, of course, political. Also vested interests who should be leading the way are blocking it to maintain their present power and income. It's hurting us and will, in the end, hurt them too.
Nope nuke based liquid synfuels are far cheaper than even petrol, the plants are already built and tested (Shell Qatar GTL), and have zero environmental impact. Algae based fuels are an also ran.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* If you make believe nuclear waste has no environmental impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell it does have NEGLIGIBLE environmental impact, one coke can full for an American's lifetime Electricity consumption, a coke can that is contained and AIN'T gonna affect anyone, vs 69 tons of Coal Solid waste dumped recklessly into the environment and over a thousand tons of gaseous emissions which every person on Earth is forced to breath.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is Agave which is a care-free growth plant and biofuel from it will be the best option. It can be grown in vacant lands in developing countries. Already Mexico is doing it on a large scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more way of producing power locally is through biogas routing. Opuntia and Water Hyacinth(in combination with animal dung) can be inputs for biogas generation on a massive scale and then power production. Already machinery is available for this process.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
* If you make believe nuclear waste has no environmental impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it with you low information types and nuke waste?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately all the world's nuclear waste which would fit on a football field is perfectly contained unlike the future tens of cubic miles of deadly solar waste and is waiting disposal in Gen IV reactors like India's first of 5 for 2020 due for service this year.
Compare that to the hundreds of cubic miles of deadly toxic forever mining waste dumps leaching into ground water all over the world.
Are you making believe, or just ignoring, the duration of toxicity of nuclear waste? I not so selfish as to worry only about my life span. A burden is created for hundreds of lifespans. I'm not saying it's necessarily worse than hydrocarbon oxidation byproducts, but it's certainly not benign. Worry about your own "low information type" and learn about atomic half lives, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to learn about atomic half-lives, and then you would know that the waste with long half-lives have very low radiation levels and VERY LOW hazard - LWR spent fuel has a probable lethal dose of 1 oz after 600 yrs, if converted to a digestible form and eaten (very difficult). That's about the same as copper, @ 0.7 oz. Scary that FOREVER copper waste, eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to learn about the toxicity of the 100X greater Solar & Wind waste, tellurium, selenium, silicon tetrachloride, rare earth toxic waste, cadmium, arsenic, iron mine tailings, to name a few. Most of which lasts forever.
So I guess you are one of those ecotopians who fantasize a return to a primitive culture of maybe maximum 500 million humans on the Earth, living joyous lives of Eco-happinness, throwing seeds on the ground, singing and dancing watching wheat and oats springing up everywhere. Yep, of course the billions who will die won't include you. You're special, better than all the others.
dwbd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou couldn't be more wrong, but then again anyone whose prime focus is projecting their own shortcomings on others is not giving themselves a fighting chance. Greener Solar PV and Wind power ideas for bulk power generation are fantasy from the start. Who (from a scientific/engineering point of view) thinks otherwise? At the same time, need does not change things like nuclear waste danger. As far as specialness "better than all others", I guess this is what you use to dismiss all those working on billion dollar underground sequestration projects for what you would describe as benign refuse. I doubt you will get much traction with your "primative culture" initiative.
The statement that eco-fuels are hundreds of times more expensive than fossil fuels is false. Pyrolysing biomass to produce eco-diesel is currently economical and biorefineries are running in Canada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn tropical climates an acre of land cropped three times per year produces thousands of litres of eco-diesel.And the biomass used does not have to be food, as any organic matter is suitable. See www.eprida.com