Biofuel Backfire?

       Studies indicate that good intentions for the fuel crisis are causing more harm than benefit. According to Jason Hill, a leader of the study at the University of Minnesota, we are rushing into a good theory without considering all aspects and possible consequences. The process of creating biofuel crops from farmland may actually increase the output of greenhouse gases. At least, the benefits would not be significant until far into the future. The study calculated time for benefits from ethanol production to be about 167 years. 

          Some background info:

-          U.S. production of ethanol has increased by over 4.9 billion per year since 2000.

-          In the United States, ethanol provides nearly 5% of transportation fuel. (Renewable Fuels Association.)

-          2007 federal legislature has promoted doubling ethanol production in the next 10 years.

-          The main crops used for alternate fuels have been corn, palm oil, sugar cane, and soybeans. 

       Because they are carbon neutral (the carbon released is balanced by carbon taken in naturally by the crops), these fuels do have great potential. It is the process of obtaining them which is presenting the challenge. Clearing land to create biofuel plantation is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the air. It means overturning the soil and leaving vegetation that isn’t burned away simply to rot. A side effect is that the earth has fewer “natural sponges” to take in the carbon. Plantations don’t take in nearly as much CO2 as rainforests or grasslands. The effects are harsher in some areas than in others. In a study in Indonesia, for example, researchers found that clearing one rainforest released such a large amount of carbon that a net reduction wouldn’t be likely for over 400 years.

            How are scientists approaching the problem? Many encourage exploring the benefits of municipal trash and crop waste further. These areas present a daunting task of supplying necessary technology, however. Some farmers in the United States have been replacing soybean fields with cornfields in response to the ethanol demand. As a result, other areas of the world are clearing more land for the soybean demand. It’s a cycle that continues with no serious net reduction in carbon emissions, if any. Though considered carbon neutral, biofuel systems also must take into account the additional emissions from transportation and production. 

              

Heavy equipment works the site of the First United Ethanol, LLC plant in Mitchell County near Camilla, Ga., Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2007. First United Ethanol LLC, founded in 2005 by farmers and businessmen from 13 counties looking for ways to enhance the value of Georgia farm products, is building a dry mill ethanol facility capable of producing 100 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol per year. The $170 million facility is expected to use 36 million bushels of corn. (AP Photo/The Albany Herald, Don Stalvey)http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-biofuel8feb08,1,7253036.story?ctrack=2&cset=true http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ex=1360126800&en=93ca489d8380138f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

       A hydrogen fuel cell car seems to be a step in the right direction in the battle against greenhouse gases. What sounds most appealing is that there is no by-product of CO2 when a hydrogen fuel cell creates energy. The cell releases mainly H2O.

However-

1.  Actually producing the hydrogen CAN be a source of CO2 emissions. First of all, hydrogen is an “energy carrier.” It’s produced from other energy sources. Hydrogen is not found in nature by itself, and processes such as electrolysis or to separate the hydrogen do release CO2 into the air. SMR (steam methane reformation) uses high temperatures and pressure to break hydrocarbon into hydrogen and carbon oxides which are then emitted as greenhouse gases.

2.  Transportation of hydrogen poses another problem. Hydrogen isn’t as compatible as oil or gas for our pipelines. Creating new methods of transportation means more costs and more fuel used for the production.

3.  As mentioned in the class blog, the United States does not the overall infrastructure to support these hydrogen fuel cars. Switching companies over would be a huge project, demanding lots of energy and expenses. (It may cause many to lose their jobs). Besides, not all companies can be expected to make the change. Do we have the resources to support hydrogen and gasoline systems?

4. Production of the actual cars requires separate own costs and energy/fuel demands.

5.  A fuel cell’s performance, similar to a battery’s, decreases over time and needs to be replaced. Continually producing the materials for the vehicle which eventually leads to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

6.  Processes to obtain hydrogen are not completely efficient. So, more energy is necessary to create the hydrogen than what we’re getting out of it. Again, the efficiency is not 100% when the fuel cell powers the car motor. The buildup of inefficiencies and their effect on our resources has a chain effect to CO2 emissions.

7. Aside from CO2, hydrogen fuel cells release H2O which is a main greenhouse gas. The amount is not hugely significant, but it is a lot higher than the water produced from burning gasoline. 

Sources: 

http://fuelcellsworks.com/JustthebasicsonHydrogen.html 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2840191.stm

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/174fuel_cell/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4199381.html

Continued Debate Over Ethanol

       One of my New Year’s resolutions being to actually look at the newspaper more often, I picked up The Chicago Tribune recently and found one of the cover stories addressing a class topic: ethanol as as alternate fuel source.

       According to the article, by reviewing the statistics from 2007 compared to previous years, one can see a clear increase in corn prices due to the “Ethanol Boom.” In 2002, for example, the net income for grain famers stayed around $30,000. In 2007, though, the number hovered around $110,000. (University of Illinois research) If I’ve figured it out correctly, that’s an increase of nearly 73%.

       However, this increase indicates high sonsumer prices for basic food items. This year’s greater than 4% increase in food prices compared to the previous 2.4% increase has sparked debate on the overall good of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. According to The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the blame rests mainly on those federal laws which encourage the use of ethanol for fuel. One lobbyist for GMA, Scott Faber, is quoted, “The government has intervened in a way that would make Stalin blush.” As I blogged a little earlier, a new energy bill is in motion, calling for the mixture of motor fuels with 15 gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. Many see this bill as an aid to our national security.  In the words of Mark W. Leonard of Iowa, quoted in The New York Times, “We need to quit sending money to people who want to blow us up.”

       The views from the farmers’ end appear mainly optomistic, suggesting that the improved yield of 160 bushels per acre two years ago compared to the current 200 bushels per acre may ease some of the tension. An Illinois farmer featured in the article (Chicago Tribune), Len Corzine, sees the improving techonolgies as a possible means to lessen the gap created by the demand for ethanol. Still, others argue that this view is a false hope because it means assuming that patterns for supply and demand will stay relatively similar in upcoming years.

Sources:

The Chicago Tribune. “Ethanol Boom a Mixed Bag” by Joshua Boak. (12/26/07)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18food.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th

http://www.public-domain-photos.com/landscapes/fields