VentureBeat: Why cellulosic ethanol will not save us?
Numair Faraz
· 3 years ago
Excellent points. Proposition 87 will be wonderful for the venture capital industry, and for energy-focused VC funds; it's a lot more questionable whether the money will do anything to help solve the problems that exist. As usual, residents of our state would like to point the finger at a big corporation, rather than at themselves ... Proposition 87 isn't going to lead to a reduction in the waste of resources that seems to have become ingrained in the American, and Californian way of life ...
Mark Wendman
· 3 years ago
Good Morning Prof. Patzek,
It is a stretch to say that Ethanol will save us, although it makes for a easier counterpoint in your handwaving. Maybe you wish to be saved, although that would make for silly press.
Soon to come efficiency improvements in Cellulosic Ethanol will assist in opening up a larger and more productive source of feedstock, both in GM modified corn and in pure cellulosic feedstocks.
Your compatriot Robert Rapier has prematurely dismissed Genetic Engineering Methods to enable viable cellulosic ethanol. Rapier largely misses the technical implications of GM methods applied to ethanol production and specifically cellulosics viability / cost reduction.
Ethanol will not "save" anyone, it will though permit a relatively seamless transition of much of the existing internal combustion / gasoline infrastructure to a cleaner alternative fueling, without requiring onerous changes to much of the auto manufacturing design and production.
It is a compromise of sorts, but with potential upsides that you wish to ignore. And with notable and worthwhile advantages even in the short term.
As to claims that
"1. The permanent 50 pe(r)cent increase of all crop yields is impossible. The all-time record yield of corn in 2004, 160.1 bushels/acre, was followed by 147.9 bu/acre in 2005, and an estimated 153 bu/acre in 2006. The real yields have been decreasing instead of jumping up by 50 percent."
AGRIVIDA (www.agrivida.com) is able to apply the in plant GENETIC MODIFICATION of corn to permit Corn itself to produce cellulosic enzymes at limited extra costs, since the enzymes would then largely be free (produced by the plant itself during its growth).
The company has indicated that this increases the ethanol yields by conservatively 20% in early generations of their innovation.
I will defer from indepth analysis of the implications of techniques of Agrivida's applied to pure cellulosic feedstocks. But GM techniques' implications are significant since both the cost of the feedstocks are lower than corn and the arable yields are higher, and if modified by incorporating inplant GM production of cellulosic enzymes, the results will be similarly transformational for higher yield pure cellulosics based Ethanol, not just Agrivida's initial application to hybrid corn cellulosic ethanol.
I suppose that in Civil Engineering you might not be familiar with Genetic Engineering and its potential implications on your benefactor's business.
I am uncertain if you will acknowledge the implications of Agrivida's technology. You might well not understand it.
It seems that Rapier has some conceptual difficulty understanding how this transforms the viability of cellulosic ethanol. Or at least he publicly indicates it is not worthwhile.
Personally I see that Ethanol will complement gasoline fueling for quite some time, albeit that it will grow in prominence.
It is likely Ethanol will give us some breathing room (literally and figuratively) in getting better air quality in dense urban areas of California - notably LA and Bay Area/ San Francisco.
I'd also point out that large scale production of ethanol will be uncomfortable for Gasoline producers, since the manipulation of gasoline prices will be harder to accomplish if there is a significant viable option for a portion of the marketplace, as more E85 Flex Fuel vehicles (or upgradeable vehicles) are fielded by Detroit.
I suppose that if OPEC is worried, so might you. It also belies the seriousness of the ACTUAL potential of ethanol, corn and cellulosics based to compete with gasoline. Sort of blows up Rapiers pricing chart believability.
Tad, have you no consideration for urban air quality issues, that you are not addressing that might see substantial improvement from wider use of E85?
Future improvements for Ethanol will come largely outside of corn ethanol, negating many of your convenient shortsighted arguments.
Bill Burnham
· 3 years ago
I think your call for better thermodynamic economic models is right on. Much of the debate on alternative energy seems to lack a solid foundation in understanding the systemic economic and environmental impacts of alternative energies "at scale". Your outline of what the ethanol system might look like at scale is pretty scary. I expect that the law of unintended consequnces would play an even greater role than your imagine, corn prices hit a 10 year high last week, partly due to expended ethanol production, and that's before the 2 orders of magnitude increase proponents are seeking.
Tad Patzek
· 3 years ago
Bill,
The December corn futures on the Chicago Board of Trade went to a 10-year high, $3.44 a bushel. Thus, the feedstock alone now costs $3.44 / 2.5 = $1.38 per gallon of ethanol.
Gasoline prices in New York harbor were about $1.55 today. Therefore, the energy equivalent value of ethanol was about $1.55 * 0.65 = $1.00, not counting the costs of fossil fuels used in corn agriculture and ethanol processing, and not counting the costs of soil erosion, water pollution, etc.
This estimate does not include the multiple and overlapping subsidies of every step of ethanol production. These subsidies amount to ~$1.20/gallon according to the recent report "Biofuels – At What Cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States," prepared by The Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Geneva, Switzerland.
Hans Noeldner
· 3 years ago
Thank God there are folks like Dr. Patzek to keep us connected with reality! As for accounting, the quotent (human utility per unit increase in entropy) is about as simple as it gets. Admittedly this metric does not directly account for environmental factors like ecosystem productivity, but I submit a relentless focus on entropic efficiency will in nearly all cases accomplish the same thing.
An area which is ripe for this analysis: recreation. For some reason there is very little consideration in our public discourse - even in sustainability and peak oil forums - about the resource intensity of various forms of amusement. Here in the United States, for example, it would appear that Jetskis, motorboats, snowmobiles, ATVs, and other toys with internal combustion engines have become "non negotiable". Given the fact that our nation has gone to war for oil, given global warming, given the general deterioration in the capacity of Earth to support mankind, why do we continue to play on such inefficient contrivances!
Rolf Westgard
· 3 years ago
As Fortune Magazine recently put it, "It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to produce a modest amont of motor fuel." Just to put 10% ethanol equivalent into our 140+ billion gallon gasoline consumption takes half of our corn crop. The recent spike in corn prices is a harbinger of the problems to come. Butanol will be an improvement, but it's still just an additive to gasoline.
gregb
· 3 years ago
The sacrid cow few seem willing to address is population. If we continue on our current course, there is not enough fresh water, healthy soil or clean air to sustain the population base. The magnitude of die off to human beings and other species, which is just around the corner,is beyond comprehension. We are most certainly and by demonstration, unenlightened fallen man. Don't waste your time or energy trying to fix the problem. It is unfixable. Everything you read on energy bulletin, the oil drum etc., is simply a report on the collapse. Anything we do to fix the apparent problem will only create more problems. As far as you want to look back we have had problems , and our attempt to fix them has brought us to this point.
Alice Friedemann
· 3 years ago
Because corn is so profitable, farmers in low rainfall states are switching from wheat to corn, further depleting groundwater and fossil aquifers (i.e. the Ogallala).
In addition, the feedlot industry is asking farmers not to renew their land in ten-year contracts with the NRCS (national resources conservation service) so that more corn can be grown to feed cattle with. The NRCS pays farmers not to grow crops on land that is highly erodible. This land is unsuitable for crops.
Topsoil is the most important mineral any nation has. I have nothing against the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but I am rather fond of civilization, and I hate to see us destroying our nations topsoil for a mirage and making the lives of our descendants even more miserable as fossil fuel energy declines while population continues to increase.
Tad Patzek is one of the few scientists brave enough to speak out on this important issue, even though I know from private communications with other scientists that they agree with him.
Tad Patzek
· 3 years ago
Gregb,
You have made an excellent observation about the monumental impact of population growth on the rate of consumption of the Earth. By 2050, the US population is projected to grow by another 110 - 160 million people. If we continue to use energy the way we do today, we will need an extra 50 EJ of primary energy per year by 2050. If this were to be so, the US would have to capture all world oil from the main Hubbert cycle of global oil production to satisfy our transportation fuel needs. If we were to convert most biomass production in the US to energy, we would be able to produce only about 11 EJ of ethanol. So the huge brick that will smash our collective head is already falling.
The estimates above give the US (pronounced as “usâ€) about 1 year to start seriously limiting our population growth and cutting energy consumption. Whether we will undertake the monumental task of transforming our society to live in more harmony with the Earth, or run over her in our ethanol-powered SUVs, is up to us.
rx__
· 3 years ago
towelling bedspread Mikoyan Atlanta hypothesize!Kimball Newtonian
Betty Pfeiffer
· 2 years ago
I read a comment you made about refining fuel twice to drive a car once (or something to that effect) and I can't find it back. Can you point me to the source? Thanks.
Ted Johnson
· 2 years ago
Great stuff and scientifically professional.
Bernie
· 1 year ago
Interesting stuff, thanks for creating this site
Tad W. Patzek
· 1 year ago
I am glad (and very sad at the same time) that everything I have said and wrote about agrofuels in the last 5 years has come true, and then some. In fact, my often-ridiculed scientific findings (not opinions!) from 2-3 years ago may be viewed as overly optimistic. The thoughts contained in this Venture Beat article have been developed in my OECD paper that has caused such a furor in Europe that you will have a hard time finding it in the US when using Google. All other search engines work just fine and the OECD paper shows up as the second most popular link to my website. For the last 4 years, the most popular link has been my paper on the thermodynamics of the corn ethanol cycle. So here is the direct link to the OECD paper: http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/O... Enjoy and cry - :)
aaron
· 1 year ago
i know i'm kinda digging this up from the distant past, but i couldn't help but to respond to this paragraph in mark wendman's comment:
"Ethanol will not “save” anyone, it will though permit a relatively seamless transition of much of the existing internal combustion / gasoline infrastructure to a cleaner alternative fueling, without requiring onerous changes to much of the auto manufacturing design and production."
this kind of thinking is exactly the root of the problem. why not require changes to auto manufacturing, design and production?
we absolutely need to change these things, along with ending the existing model of 'suburban' living and our culture of consumption in general.
why do we want to transition seamlessly from existing infrastructure to alternative fuel?
it comes down to this: burning carbon based fuel is burning carbon based fuel, why split hairs?... eventually we will need a completely new system, infrastructure and all, so why not start now?
taking those points into consideration shows that mark's comment ignore our real long-term needs, unlike the original article which is spot on in this respect.
Duane Miller
· 1 year ago
I HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH OTHER SCIENTISTS ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT MISCOCEPTION .WHEN WILL WE EVER GET A TRUTH TELLING INTELLIGENT POLITITION,THAT WILL MOTIVATE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.THANKS FOR THE INFO ,THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.
Blue Fire
· 1 year ago
Im not sure where you got your information from but for cellulosic ethanol to occur you would not be cutting down existing biomass you would be manufacturing a plant called swiftgrass which can grow incredibly alrge in a short amount of time and contains high cellulose and yes some land would be used to grow this plant but existing farms would not be taken which people commonly mistake becasue cellulosic ethanol is ethanol derieved from ALL plant material which includes lawn shavings and left over stock from farmers fields.
All Comments
It is a stretch to say that Ethanol will save us, although it makes for a easier counterpoint in your handwaving. Maybe you wish to be saved, although that would make for silly press.
Soon to come efficiency improvements in Cellulosic Ethanol will assist in opening up a larger and more productive source of feedstock, both in GM modified corn and in pure cellulosic feedstocks.
Your compatriot Robert Rapier has prematurely dismissed Genetic Engineering Methods to enable viable cellulosic ethanol. Rapier largely misses the technical implications of GM methods applied to ethanol production and specifically cellulosics viability / cost reduction.
Ethanol will not "save" anyone, it will though permit a relatively seamless transition of much of the existing internal combustion / gasoline infrastructure to a cleaner alternative fueling, without requiring onerous changes to much of the auto manufacturing design and production.
It is a compromise of sorts, but with potential upsides that you wish to ignore. And with notable and worthwhile advantages even in the short term.
As to claims that
"1. The permanent 50 pe(r)cent increase of all crop yields is impossible. The all-time record yield of corn in 2004, 160.1 bushels/acre, was followed by 147.9 bu/acre in 2005, and an estimated 153 bu/acre in 2006. The real yields have been decreasing instead of jumping up by 50 percent."
AGRIVIDA (www.agrivida.com) is able to apply the in plant GENETIC MODIFICATION of corn to permit Corn itself to produce cellulosic enzymes at limited extra costs, since the enzymes would then largely be free (produced by the plant itself during its growth).
The company has indicated that this increases the ethanol yields by conservatively 20% in early generations of their innovation.
I will defer from indepth analysis of the implications of techniques of Agrivida's applied to pure cellulosic feedstocks. But GM techniques' implications are significant since both the cost of the feedstocks are lower than corn and the arable yields are higher, and if modified by incorporating inplant GM production of cellulosic enzymes, the results will be similarly transformational for higher yield pure cellulosics based Ethanol, not just Agrivida's initial application to hybrid corn cellulosic ethanol.
I suppose that in Civil Engineering you might not be familiar with Genetic Engineering and its potential implications on your benefactor's business.
I am uncertain if you will acknowledge the implications of Agrivida's technology. You might well not understand it.
It seems that Rapier has some conceptual difficulty understanding how this transforms the viability of cellulosic ethanol. Or at least he publicly indicates it is not worthwhile.
Personally I see that Ethanol will complement gasoline fueling for quite some time, albeit that it will grow in prominence.
It is likely Ethanol will give us some breathing room (literally and figuratively) in getting better air quality in dense urban areas of California - notably LA and Bay Area/ San Francisco.
I'd also point out that large scale production of ethanol will be uncomfortable for Gasoline producers, since the manipulation of gasoline prices will be harder to accomplish if there is a significant viable option for a portion of the marketplace, as more E85 Flex Fuel vehicles (or upgradeable vehicles) are fielded by Detroit.
Readers - please see this web site
http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php
and an interesting perspective re the actual perception of OPEC as to the implications to their profits from wider use of E85 FFV ethanol
http://www.e85fuel.com/news/102306_opec_release...
I suppose that if OPEC is worried, so might you. It also belies the seriousness of the ACTUAL potential of ethanol, corn and cellulosics based to compete with gasoline. Sort of blows up Rapiers pricing chart believability.
Tad, have you no consideration for urban air quality issues, that you are not addressing that might see substantial improvement from wider use of E85?
Future improvements for Ethanol will come largely outside of corn ethanol, negating many of your convenient shortsighted arguments.
The December corn futures on the Chicago Board of Trade went to a 10-year high, $3.44 a bushel. Thus, the feedstock alone now costs $3.44 / 2.5 = $1.38 per gallon of ethanol.
Gasoline prices in New York harbor were about $1.55 today. Therefore, the energy equivalent value of ethanol was about $1.55 * 0.65 = $1.00, not counting the costs of fossil fuels used in corn agriculture and ethanol processing, and not counting the costs of soil erosion, water pollution, etc.
This estimate does not include the multiple and overlapping subsidies of every step of ethanol production. These subsidies amount to ~$1.20/gallon according to the recent report "Biofuels – At What Cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States," prepared by The Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Geneva, Switzerland.
An area which is ripe for this analysis: recreation. For some reason there is very little consideration in our public discourse - even in sustainability and peak oil forums - about the resource intensity of various forms of amusement. Here in the United States, for example, it would appear that Jetskis, motorboats, snowmobiles, ATVs, and other toys with internal combustion engines have become "non negotiable". Given the fact that our nation has gone to war for oil, given global warming, given the general deterioration in the capacity of Earth to support mankind, why do we continue to play on such inefficient contrivances!
Everything you read on energy bulletin, the oil drum etc., is simply a report on the collapse. Anything we do to fix the apparent problem will only create more problems. As far as you want to look back we have had problems , and our attempt to fix them has brought us to this point.
In addition, the feedlot industry is asking farmers not to renew their land in ten-year contracts with the NRCS (national resources conservation service) so that more corn can be grown to feed cattle with. The NRCS pays farmers not to grow crops on land that is highly erodible. This land is unsuitable for crops.
Topsoil is the most important mineral any nation has. I have nothing against the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but I am rather fond of civilization, and I hate to see us destroying our nations topsoil for a mirage and making the lives of our descendants even more miserable as fossil fuel energy declines while population continues to increase.
Tad Patzek is one of the few scientists brave enough to speak out on this important issue, even though I know from private communications with other scientists that they agree with him.
You have made an excellent observation about the monumental impact of population growth on the rate of consumption of the Earth. By 2050, the US population is projected to grow by another 110 - 160 million people. If we continue to use energy the way we do today, we will need an extra 50 EJ of primary energy per year by 2050. If this were to be so, the US would have to capture all world oil from the main Hubbert cycle of global oil production to satisfy our transportation fuel needs. If we were to convert most biomass production in the US to energy, we would be able to produce only about 11 EJ of ethanol. So the huge brick that will smash our collective head is already falling.
The estimates above give the US (pronounced as “usâ€) about 1 year to start seriously limiting our population growth and cutting energy consumption. Whether we will undertake the monumental task of transforming our society to live in more harmony with the Earth, or run over her in our ethanol-powered SUVs, is up to us.
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/O...
Enjoy and cry - :)
"Ethanol will not “save” anyone, it will though permit a relatively seamless transition of much of the existing internal combustion / gasoline infrastructure to a cleaner alternative fueling, without requiring onerous changes to much of the auto manufacturing design and production."
this kind of thinking is exactly the root of the problem. why not require changes to auto manufacturing, design and production?
we absolutely need to change these things, along with ending the existing model of 'suburban' living and our culture of consumption in general.
why do we want to transition seamlessly from existing infrastructure to alternative fuel?
it comes down to this: burning carbon based fuel is burning carbon based fuel, why split hairs?... eventually we will need a completely new system, infrastructure and all, so why not start now?
taking those points into consideration shows that mark's comment ignore our real long-term needs, unlike the original article which is spot on in this respect.