 | Geopolitical Feedback Loops in Resource and Oil Depletion | The Oil Drum | OPEC says pumping more won't bring oil price down |  |
| ODAC Newsletter, Monday 29 October | The Oil Drum: Europe | The World's Expected Carrying Capacity in a Post Industrial Agrarian Society | |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
http://biopact.com/2007/09/experts-brazil-victim-of-its-own.html
The alternatives are expensive because the US taxes them with a 54 cents/gallon tariff. The EU is equally foolish.
So the rise in oil prices will continue until it has cancelled out the trade barrier of 54c/gallon. Then Brazilian (and world) ethanol production will ramp up to meet the shortfall in oil.
However it does seem a little foolish to jeapoardise the US economy, and so the world economy, just to protect some thousands of farmers in the American corn belt.
Expecting markets to work when you deliberately rig them so they can't is just plain silly.
Ethanol needs to go. It does not clean the air, it costs too much fuel to produce it to be an energy saver, it does not increase gas mileage, and it increases the cost of food.
Biodiesels might be able to replace "some" future oil shortfalls, but there is simply no way to produce enough for expected future needs without causing a couple of billion people to starve to death.
"Ethanol needs to go." Maybe Ethanol made from corn and supported by ridiculous subsidies, needs to go but Ethanol itself is a rather useful fuel. I was driving a 100% ethanol fueled VW fox back in the early 80's in Brazil, Ironically I was working as a commercial deep sea diver on Petrobras Oil rigs shortly before that time. Though you are right about ethanol not cleaning the air.
Check out my friend's presentation:
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf
I currently live in Florida and would love to own and drive that old VW fox here today.
" Biodiesels might be able to replace "some" future oil shortfalls, but there is simply no way to produce enough for expected future needs without causing a couple of billion people to starve to death."
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/biodieselbrazil.htm
Not sure which is worse starvation or this:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1559489.ece
So what are you going to put in your gas tank when gasoline becomes prohibitively expensive? You are welcome to walk, but some of us would rather use ethanol. Corn is not generally used as human food; it is animal food mostly. Animals are very inefficient at converting corn to human food. The "couple of billion people" will starve to death with or without ethanol as they have no money to by any food of any kind. What do you propose? That farmers should give away their corn to the starving? How are they to remain in business? Ethanol is not going away; so get use to it. The anti ethanol crowd at TOD are out of touch with what is going on. As gasoline rises in price with the increase in crude's price, ethanol will become more and more attractive. The only hope those opposing ethanol have is that corn's price rises to such a level (above $5.00/bu.) that ethanol becomes uneconomic. That would mean very high food prices indeed. The fundamental problem is that the market refuses to price corn appropriately in light of its energy content.
As I have been lurking and researching since mid 2005 I figure its about time I start to contribute here as well as lurk.
Practical,
I'm not sure that you are seeing all the sides to the problem with Ethanol. No, its not going to go away, but neither should it be touted as a 'solution' to the problem of peak oil /liquids. Its hardly even a "silver b.b." as I have seen it referred to here. The mono cropping that ethanol creates is inherently dangerous:
Currently in Brazil some of the plantations are the size of "European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems,"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-05.htm
"Financially, once an economy comes dependent on a single crop, it has the distinct potential of being devastate[sic] should pest or disease destroy that crop for even a single season. Environmentally, mono-cropping depletes the soil of various nutrients, permitting scant opportunity for it to replenish itself"
http://www.american.edu/ted/projects/tedcross/xagric3.htm
Add to that the lack of clear proof regarding a positive energy return on most corn based ethanols (sugar cane being an exception and to some degree cellulosic)
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2006/40/i06/abs/es052024...
and now include that ICE only have an efficiency of 15% on average.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
Keep in mind that current crop yields are dependent on the FF fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and without them you are looking at a reduction of crop yields. So you plant more crops. Agriculture in the US currently uses 85% of the available water.
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/eating.htm
If we increase the crop size we will quickly hit peak water.
Also, mining the soil for fuel will simply exacerbate the rate of soil depletion. It takes 500 years to create 1" of topsoil, in prairie lands the soil is being depleted 30x faster than it can be replenished.
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/eating.htm
Add all these together and you have a reasonable argument to keep the land being as a source of food and not of fuel.
So it will still come down to the question, do you want fuel in your tank or food in your stomach?
MS in Ontario Canada
In the coming battle between the 'rightness' of our economic model, and the geological limits to growth, I have a strong suspicion that the geologic limits may win.
Currently in Brazil some of the plantations are the size of "European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems,"
True enough and I won't even mention soy farming, but so do a lot of things we take for granted in our modern American world such as cities, roads, industry shopping malls, fast food restaurants, agriculture, raising chickens, pigs and cows to name a few. You don't seem to be interested in advocating a reduction of the eco-system impacts of all of these other things. Sounds like you are the pot that is calling the kettle black.
It doesn't have to be the way you describe it.
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf
•Why is sugar cane ethanol so efficient?
•First, because of the sugar cane plant itself
•Sugar cane fixes nitrogen from the air
•The farming process
•No irrigation needed
•All energy for industrial process comes from burning bagasse
•Industrial process produces surplus electricity, sold to the grid
•Nutrients from bagasse ashes are recycled
•Nutrients from vinasse are recycled
Great presentation. Repeat after me: There is no sugar cane grown in the Amazon (slde 3). Organic sugar cane has an EROEI of of 12:1. Much better for environment and climate than oil.
It's not going to save the world, but sugar cane-based ethanol does work.
WOW what a welcome to TOD....
"You don't seem to be interested in advocating a reduction of the eco-system impacts of all of these other things. Sounds like you are the pot that is calling the kettle black."
Instantly reducing yourself to an ad hominem attack is hardly the way to engender a positive response. If you had started your response at "it doesn't have to be the way you described it" your whole response would have a different feel to it. As it stands, I have a sour taste in my mouth wrt your response and am less likely to pay attention to any science you have to back up your statements. But I will move past that and do my best.
I did concede that Ethanol will play a part (I even stated that sugar cane was an exception did have a positive energy return!!). As will all forms of renewable energy play their part. But blindly worshiping at the foot of one technology is how we became addicted to oil.
And how, by questioning the applicability of ethanol to ease world peak oil am I not "interested in advocating a reduction of the eco-system impacts of [lot of things we take for granted in our modern American world such as cities, roads, industry shopping malls, fast food restaurants, agriculture, raising chickens, pigs and cows to name a few]"?
How you could infer such a stance from one singe post (my very first here) that I am such a anti-enviro minded person?
May I pose other ethanol related questions? (or will I get attacked personally again for daring to question the role of ethanol?)
So then how do we grow sugar cane in other parts of the world then?
How much sugar cane would need to be grown organically to slip in place for oil?
How are the problems of monoculture farming avoided?
How are the problems of P&K addressed?
Wasn't I talking about corn based ethanol anyways???
MS in Ontario Canada
In the coming battle between the 'rightness' of our economic model, and the geological limits to growth, I have a strong suspicion that the geologic limits may win.
Upon second read I admit my response to you was a bit off base. It's just that as someone who lived the ethanol experience in Brazil I reacted a bit from the gut in defense of that reality. To be honest what I got from your critique was something that upsets me quite a bit, namely what I consider to be a sort of arrogance of those who have created quite a mess both ecologically and economically in their own countries to criticize others who are trying other systems.
That does not in any way mean that I advocate the use of sugarcane based ethanol as a panacea to our energy needs. Nor by the way am I a great fan of monocultures for all the reasons you mentioned and I consider myself to be an environmentalist as well. So my apologies for the bad taste in your mouth due to my response. Having said that I still would like to import the excess ethanol that Brazil has already produced and have access to that technology here in the USA. BTW I'm not stuck on the "the 'rightness' of our economic model," Quite the contrary I believe it needs serious reexamination and some of has to be discarded or at least modified. Cheers.
Enviro Tech,
Welcome to The Oil Drum! I thought your comment was well thought out and summarised the arguments against sugar cane. You missed only one other I'd mention-that sugar cane requires either peonage/slavery to keep the EROEI positive. Its subsidised in South Louisiana and Florida as part of . the hate Cuba embargo, but, only there are the returns high enough to farm sugar cane in any modern society.
Sorry you had a rude introduction. Most of the folks posting here are very decent people who evaluate your arguments and respond politely. But like almost everwhere, we attract some jerks, so it helps if you are insensitive and a bit boorish. Please don't let this dissuade you from posting again!
Bob Ebersole
Bob, You might be describing me and that's ok because I have a pretty thick skin to begin with and sometimes I have a tendency to shoot from the hip. BTW you may also have noticed that after cooling off a bit I apologized to Enviro Tech. However despite what you say about peonage/slavery being the only way to keep EROEI positive I don't believe that is true.
I have lived both in Florida and Brazil among other places and certainly am aware of the perverse social conditions that exist in some parts. They can be addressed and changed if there is political will to do so. Just for the record this is being addressed in Brazil, ironically not so much in the Land of The Free. Though I'm sure it will also happen here eventually.
I've been wondering if sweet sorghum wouldn't prove to be a better ethanol feedstock for the temperate US than corn (maize). It won't compare with tropical sugar cane, but that can't be grown in temperate zones, whereas sorghum can. In fact, sorghum can be grown everywhere that maize can, and farmers can use the same equipment to plant it. (They may need to at least modify their harvesting equipment, as what they want to harvest is the cane and not ears. This should not present an insurmountable obstacle.) My understanding is that processing of sweet sorghum would not be all that different from the processing of sugar cane.
I wouldn't expect an EROI of as high as 12:1, but even an EROI of only 4:1 (which, as best as I can determine, is getting close to what might be expected for sweet sorghum) looks a whole lot better than the <2:1 obtained from maize ethanol.
Strange that no one at all seems to be talking about this.
Yep, it is a problem. But as far as monocultures go, sugar cane is one of the best to have. There are little problems with pests and very little (if any) soild deletion. Also, an european state is normaly quite small.
Yees, that happens if an economy is dependent on a single crop, and you have an agricole economy. Nedless to say that Brazil is far from both. (Do I need to say again that an european state is normaly quite small?)
Yes, sugar cane is an exception.
Not a lot for sugar cane. Sugar cane is mostly planted on bad terrains (but not as bad as Amazon), where nothing else would grow, uses very little fertilizers and pesticides. Also, it doesn't use herbicides at all (unless you are trying to get rid of the cane, but cows are better for that task anyway).
I don't know if there are exceptions, but people don't irrigate cane.
Ethanol from sugar cane works. Get over it. The only problem you can point is that it is not enough.
I believe I DID say sugar cane works... The post before mine referred to CORN ethanol - I intended to respond primarily to THAT. I aplogize if I made that unclear
My post was written in mostly in response to CORN ethanol (plant in switchgrass and whatever else you want for corn that can be grown in temparate climates)
and for a point of reference, one of the smallest EU states is Luxemburg with a size of 999 sq miles. I know, there are other farms out there with crop fields ranging in this magnatude, but "just because others do something, doesn't make it right".
MS in Ontario Canada
In the coming battle between the 'rightness' of our economic model, and the geological limits to growth, I have a strong suspicion that the geologic limits may win.
Despite sugarcane having a higher energy return, people I know who lived in Brazil when it was started have not painted it as a giant rosy picture at the time. Also their production of sugarcane, and more soy to replace supplies from the US going to biodiesel are pushing other crops deeper into the rain forest for arable land.
Also they have a hell of a lot fewer cars which means they DRIVE a lot less than we do; we already outproduce them in ethanol (with no end in sight to our biofuels thirst, oh, unless a nice recession pushes the price of oil way back down for awhile).
http://www.sfbayoil.org/sfoa/myths/index.html
The market may not price corn "appropriately" but it also does not price petroleum with any intelligence at all.
The market has no clue about the value of corn.
The market has no clue about the value of petroleum.
The market is a rigged casino game.
Ultimately no one wins -- not even the House.
The so-called free market is all about war.
Eventually everyone is sucked up into the war as the House self-destructs.
How can we know or express tha value of anything without degrading it into a "commodity?" This label destroys the thing we supposedly value so much.
Only when things are understood as gifts can they truly be valued and used wisely.
We're not doing so well on the wisdom thing.
I am with Practical on the ethanol debate. A lot of anti ethanol from people that don't live in the corn belt.
The U.S. corn belt was a near mono culture of corn and soybeans long before ethanol came along. In Iowa we are working on 70+ years of hybrid corn production.
The fear that a huge ethanol boom would cause farmers to plant corn year after year with no bean rotation has not come to pass, at least in 2007 in Iowa. The reason is biodiesel demand for bean oil has kept bean prices high as well. There is a slight reduction in bean acres but many farmers will make good money on beans this year because input costs are less, corn prices are low, and altering the ratio of corn to bean acres just a bit influences the pricing which never gets discussed much in projections.
What farmers know (and knew years ago) is that as energy prices rise the cost of farming and food rises. It always does, it just takes a few years for increased costs to work through the system. All prices are rising, not just food, so don't single farming and ethanol out as the driver for costs.
This time around the farming community (world wide IMHO) is buffering itself from those prices by converting some of the output into high value energy products.
I agree that currently they are not totally competitive with Petroleum but give them a few years to optimize the system and get off petroleum as much as possible. Farmers are looking for ways to cut input costs which is the fastest way to make the EROEI of biofuels more positive. No till farming, chicken manure, ladybugs, etc. are all being employed on multi thousand acre farms.
The hunt is on for driving costs down and each person has a different approach. What works will be kept, what doesn't will be abandoned, but it will take years of high energy prices to prove what method is best. A return to low prices would penalize the unconventional approaches.
Ultimately the farming community will be producing much of its own liquid fuel as well as feedstock for fine chemicals. It has already started with Dupont and others converting glycerine (from biodiesel) into base chemicals.
The readers of TOD want change, well it is happening right before our eyes. Unfortunately the reality of change is not as painless as our vision to reduce oil, but it is change. It took the world 100+ years to become an oil culture. We can't just change everything in a decade or so.
It will take a long time to find a new way. It will be painful and hard work for many of us. We will make lots of mistakes along the way. There is NO easy answer or solution to peak oil. So we can complain that others are doing the wrong thing(s), or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work finding solutions.
It is your choice, but you might find that implementing your solution (ask Alan Drake) is damn hard work with little gain for years. So before disparaging others attempts remember they are doing the best they can with the tools they have.
What have you (the posters on TOD) built and marketed that gets us off oil?
I'd rather walk, or bicycle. I can't wait until we run out, or at least low. My town is entirely accessible by foot or bike, but everyone drives. My neighbor drives her fat kids 1800 feet to school. One day I took out my 7 iron and bounced the ball into the parking lot.
As for food, I can probably live off the flesh of all the pigeons who now call my solar panels home. Damn things!!!
Long live the Interstate Bicycle System. You don't need electrified railroads, you need a bike and no cars. If it rains, wear a jacket.
Arrgh! %#@&*!!!! Ahh! it feels soooo good to smash my head against my keyboard over and over again!
Gosh Imagine an ethanol electric Prius Hybrid pickup truck.
I for one could really use such a vehicle if the price of the ethanol at the pump were comparable to the current price of regular unleaded.
Can Toyota and Brazil make that happen for me here in Florida.
Can we impeach the entire Federal government now please?
Ok, time to wake up and head back to the mines.
The markets have always been deliberately rigged by the most powerful players for their won benefit, to whatever extent the markets could be rigged.
This is true now, and will be true tomorrow.
The market does not know the value of anything at all -- oil, water, soil, air. the market cannot know because it has no brain.
The market is made by some powerful people - already wealthy people - for their own benefit at whatever "Real" or true costs the other people and the planet have to bear.
Including all manner of terrible things -- especially the very profitable things like war. The more brutal the war, the more profitable: rape, torture, and senseless murder of civilians seems to be especially profitable.
The end game of capitalism is war. The market as we have known it is about economic rapacity.
What is the value of oil? What is the value of ethanol? If we knew, how would we even begin to express that value?
Nobody owns anything. The planet owns us.
Oil, water, air, and soil are to be carefully husbanded with an eye to preserving them for as long as possible, while learning as much as possible from the ways they feed and energize us.
We have no clue about how to do this, so our real game ends up being war. We traffic in blood and slavery and tears because we are afraid to even begin to understand the value of anything -- our lives, other people, the planet.
Hi beggar,
Interesting thoughts, thank you for sharing them.
Thomas Edison, 1910:
"Sunshine is spread out thin and so is electricity. Perhaps they are the same, Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.”
“Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.
“There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen...."
What if Edison had teamed up with Eistein based on Einstein's 1905 proof of Quantum Mechanics using the PhotoElectric Effect. Sunshine and electricity might cost nearly the same.
Using ultra-light rail technologies, recommended by DOT (PB-244854) as a permanent solution to oil embargoes, requires only 200 watt-hours to transport 4 people or 1200 pounds of cargo a mile. Morgantown, Heathrow, Swedish clip
Solar collectors, 6-foot wide, over that mile of rail can gather 2.5 million watt-hours a day, or power for 12,500 vehicle-miles.
There are alternatives. We just have to act on them.
BillJames,
Even conventional freight rail is good. The Freight Rail Association (or some such) is running ads on the radio saying they move "one ton of freight 400 miles on one gallon of fuel". Pretty impressive and yet we still move most consumer goods by truck from coast to coast.
Are you sure about the 200 watt-hours per mile figure? That seems a bit high. Compare this to the following:
One gallon of gasoline contains approximately 35 kilowatt-hours of potential energy. If an infernal combustion engine has an efficiency of 15%, it gets 5250 watt-hours out of a gallon of gas. Say this is employed in a motor vehicle, which gets 25 miles to the gallon, then the motor vehicle consumes 210 watt-hours/mile (5250 watt-hours / 25 miles = 210 watt-hours/mile) in mechanical energy. If the vehicle is carpooling, with four passengers, this number is reduced to 53 watt-hours/mile*person.
Surely an electric train, with an electric-to-mechanical conversion efficiency of ~80% can outperform this sub-optimal motorcar?