Dangers of the Next Generation Biofuels
While a large section of the alt energy industry - especially the bio-energy industry - is optimistic about the next-generation biofuels being in a position to provide transportation fuels in a sustainable manner, a diverse alliance of organizations published an open letter recently in the U.S. and internationally warning of the dangers of industrially produced biofuels (called agrofuels by critics). The letter explains why large-scale industrial production of transport fuels and other energy from plants such as corn, sugar cane, oilseeds, trees, grasses, or so-called agricultural and woodland waste threatens forests, biodiversity, food sovereignty, community-based land rights and will worsen climate change. With the new Obama Administration slated to take office Tuesday, the letter's originators warn that if Obama's "New Green Economy" runs on agrofuels it may trap the U.S. in a dangerous "Green Bubble" of unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry.
"This no longer about corn ethanol-turning any plants into fuel is simply not renewable," stated Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-author of the letter and Global Justice Ecology Project agrofuels specialist. "All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply. Yet these unsustainable technologies are commanding the vast majority of renewable energy tax incentives, at the expense of genuine cleaner energy solutions like conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, and ocean power. Additionally, because agrofuel crops rely on fertilizers, 44% of which are imported, they cannot even satisfy the calls for U.S. energy independence."
Now, that's a rather forceful statement. I think their arguments merit more introspection. For instance, take cellulosic ethanol. Even if the entire world's cellulosic feedstock were to be converted to ethanol, from some estimates I made earlier, it would only replace a max of 30% of the total world's transportation fuels. Now, we are never going to be able to use all the available cellulosic biomass, so the total replacement is going to be much less than 30%. In fact, according to some of the studies made by large consulting groups, by 2030, it is likely that cellulosic ethanol will only form less than 20% of the total transportation fuel. Now, if this is all we are going to achieve by massively turning all cellulosic feedstock into ethanol, is the effort worth it?
Possibly, the only silver lining could be algae. Algae are the only feedstock that can completely replace all fossil fuels (at least in theory). And algae do not even have most of the negative effects that the second-gen feedstock have. So, perhaps, just perhaps, it will be algae that will save the world. It should however be pointed out that energy from algae is in the research phase and no company is really producing oil on a commercial scale from algae. But we always have hopes for the future, don't we?
"This no longer about corn ethanol-turning any plants into fuel is simply not renewable," stated Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-author of the letter and Global Justice Ecology Project agrofuels specialist. "All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply. Yet these unsustainable technologies are commanding the vast majority of renewable energy tax incentives, at the expense of genuine cleaner energy solutions like conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, and ocean power. Additionally, because agrofuel crops rely on fertilizers, 44% of which are imported, they cannot even satisfy the calls for U.S. energy independence."
Now, that's a rather forceful statement. I think their arguments merit more introspection. For instance, take cellulosic ethanol. Even if the entire world's cellulosic feedstock were to be converted to ethanol, from some estimates I made earlier, it would only replace a max of 30% of the total world's transportation fuels. Now, we are never going to be able to use all the available cellulosic biomass, so the total replacement is going to be much less than 30%. In fact, according to some of the studies made by large consulting groups, by 2030, it is likely that cellulosic ethanol will only form less than 20% of the total transportation fuel. Now, if this is all we are going to achieve by massively turning all cellulosic feedstock into ethanol, is the effort worth it?
Possibly, the only silver lining could be algae. Algae are the only feedstock that can completely replace all fossil fuels (at least in theory). And algae do not even have most of the negative effects that the second-gen feedstock have. So, perhaps, just perhaps, it will be algae that will save the world. It should however be pointed out that energy from algae is in the research phase and no company is really producing oil on a commercial scale from algae. But we always have hopes for the future, don't we?
Labels: biodiesel, biofuels, research
PermaLink - Dangers of the Next Generation Biofuels
