Comments on: About those two studies dissing biofuels

By: sesli chat

sesli chat — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:51:28 +0000

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 02/ 09/ about-those-two-studies-dissing-biofuels/ #comment-26850

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:51:28 +0000

I am quite aware of it and have been for over a decade. That’s one reason I’m not a fan of biofuels. It’s not a good use of biomass.

By: Jonas

Jonas — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:02:40 +0000

By the way, I’m surprised to read that someone who is working on climate solutions, hasn’t referred extensively to bio-energy with carbon storage.

Had he been an expert, he would know that you can get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels by implementing biomass + CCS systems.

Lifecycle CO2 emissions per kilowatthour from different energy sources:

-coal: +850grams of CO2eq/kWh
-gas: +350grams of CO2eq/kWh
-coal + CCS: +150grams of CO2eq/kWh
-solar photovoltaic: +100grams of CO2eq/kWh
-wind: +30grams of CO2eq/kWh
-non-CCS biomass: +30grams of CO2eq/kWh
-nuclear: +20grams of CO2eq/kWh
-hydro: +10grams of CO2eq/kWh
-biomass + CCS (e.g. in an IGCC plant): -1000grams of CO2eq/kWh (yes, that’s *minus*, hence “negative emissions”)

So there. Biomass+CCS cleans up the atmosphere and removes CO2 from the past. It’s the most radical tool in the climate fight. The only solution that has a reasonable chance of making an impact.

How come the author of this blog isn’t aware of negative emissions systems?

By: Jonas

Jonas — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:55:46 +0000

This debate was over before these papers were published.

If you use the original biomass as a biomass feedstock instead of burning it (as is done currently), your carbon debt from above ground biomass is gone.

The next step is to create carbon negative biofuel systems, by stuffing the soil with biochar.

In short, biofuels are the most effective tool in the climate fight. No other form of renewable energy can go carbon-negative. Bioenergy can.

Time for a new biofuel policy.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:42:37 +0000

Earl Killian — Since that IEA report, researches in The Netherlands have further studied the matter. They conclude that the bioenergy potential of the entire planet is over 1500 exajoules, after deducting the land required for human and animal food and for forestry.

As reasonable estimate for the energy needs in 2050 is about 800 exajoules. I estimate that about half that will be provided, world-wide via biomass. THe United States is blessed with great potential for both solar and wind. Other countries are not so fortunate, but have a bioenergy potential considerably larger than that of the United States.

In general, my adivce is to keep reading Biopact, daily, to see what is coming. As for ag waste potential, this might leave out forestry wastes, but certainly leaves out municiple wastes. However, North America’s biomass potential is exceed by but that of South America and also by Africa’s. So maybe importing some will be part of an energy solution for awhile.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:30:57 +0000

David B. Benton, when I looked at biopact.com to find the source of your earlier 1400 EJ claim, I found they cited an IEA report, which I read. However, the IEA thought 200-400 EJ was the likely amount (the full range was 40-1100 EJ with 1100 EJ being “most optimal”, or the way I interpret such things, “most unlikely”. The IEA’s 200-400 would need to be reevaluated in light of the two articles just published in Science.

Since the sunlight reaching Earth is 2780 times even 1400 EJ, it seems that sunlight is a better place to look for energy (as I argued on 1/17 in reply to your biopact.com post then).

Yes, waste products can be converted to ethanol, and Coskata’s technology may be a good way to do that. And using waste biomass is a good thing compared to dedicated biofuel crops, provided that the ash content of the biomass is returned to the fields to prevent depletion. But if you look up the Ag waste biomass currently available in the U.S. according to NREL, you find it is something like 157 million tons. That’s nice, but it is only enough to make gasoline into E08. I’m all for it in the short-term, but we should recognize that it isn’t the long-term answer we’re looking for.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:49:27 +0000

The question is what if any taxpayer provided grants, subsidies or credits should be given to any technologies on the horizon. Corn to fuel is heavily subsidized. Those who blame President Bush are in error. He favors switch grass. Those who want to get off corn had better talk to Democratic leaders Harkin and Durbin and Obama and Clinton and the governors and representatives of every corn belt state. There is only one leader who has been consistently and openly opposed to corn ethanol subsidies. That leader is John McCain.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:30:24 +0000

And an earlier entry in which a new process has been ceveloped to produce ethanol for one dollar per gallon from any biomass whatsoever: clarification sludge, animal wastes, forestry wastes, etc. No cropland required.

So much for the ‘no biofuels’ argument…

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:01:20 +0000

Of course, one could attempt to keep up regarding bioenergy by following

http://www.biopact.com/

where today’s post has some quite intereting news regarding the trend in coal prices, leading to the idea of replacing (some) use of coal by biomass.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:23:45 +0000

Some of the comments here indicate that there is still a biofuel “obsession” among people who believe themselves to be environmentalists or concerned about climate change.

WAKE UP!!!: Electrify transportation! Electric motors are 3 times as efficient as internal combustion. Solar panels and wind turbines are coming down in price and about one or two orders of magnitude more efficient at turning natural energy into mechanical energy.

Biofuels may have a marginal role but should be heavily regulated to make sure they don’t exhaust the soil, water resources, etc. It is most often better to use biomass to generate electricity or heat than turn them into biofuels. The biofuel blinders that some people wear, thinking that they are helping the planet, has set a market up that is dangerous for the planet.

So: WAKE UP!!!