Biofuels and coal - May 21
Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Europe's Overseas Push into Biofuels
Leigh Phillips, Business Week
Companies are buying tracts of land in Africa, Russia, and Ukraine to produce biofuels in a move that could harm farmers in developing economies
Massive tracts of land in Africa, Russia and Ukraine are being bought up or leased by richer countries to ensure access to food and for production of biofuels—a development that could result in unrest as locals begin to lose access over their territory.
An area roughly the same size as the amount of farmland in Germany is in play and at a cost of tens of billions of euros.
This phenomenon, a product of the twin food and fuel crises of last year, is threatening local communities whose traditional use of such lands is being undermined by the food and energy security needs of others.
This all comes from a warning issued on Monday (11 May) by the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), an agricultural research centre funded by an alliance of 64 governments around the world.
(13 May 2009)
Why farm-state pols rage against the EPA’s biofuel stance
Tom Philpott, Grist
Why are farm-state pols howling against recently proposed EPA rules on biofuel and greenhouse gas emissions?
As I reported last week—echoed by Time’s Michael Grunwald—the agency made extremely generous assumptions regarding the GHG footprint of crop-based fuel. What’s more, the proposed rules actually enshrine the titanic biofuel mandates farm-state pols worked into the 2007 Energy Act. Sure, corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel emerge as net GHG emitters under the proposed EPA rules; but those “first-generation” fuels are grandfathered in under the Act. And cellulosic ethanol gets a big thumbs up (even though it remains, as ever, five years away from commercial viability). In other words, the proposed rules have no direct effect on the biofuel industry.
So why don’t these guys shut up? Why for example, is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) trading pointed letters with the EPA and denouncing the agency’s use of science? Why did House ag committee chair Collin Peterson (D.-Minn.) just introduce legislation that would prevent the EPA from applying life-cycle GHG analysis to biofuels? Why go to such lengths to reverse rules that don’t harm the industry you’re trying to protect?
In a remarkable rant delivered at a House committee meeting this week (MP3 here via FarmPolicy blog), Peterson delivered some insight into his rage.
First, he vented a bit. “I’ve had it,” he said with an air of angry resignation. “You [the EPA] are going to kill off the biofuel industry before it gets started.” At points, he aired Nixonian suspicions of ethanol critics’ motivations: “I don’t trust anybody anymore! ... Why are we being picked on? Because some people don’t like corn ethanol.”
Eventually, he got to the point: “What I’m upset about is not so much what’s going on today, but the interaction of this [i.e., the GHG footprint of biofuel] with the climate change bill.” He added that discussion of the GHG performance of biofuels should essentially be taboo: “You’re putting us in a position to talk about something that we shouldn’t be even be talking about.”
(15 May 2009)
New book: Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass
Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts
Press Release, National Academies Press
WASHINGTON -- Liquid fuels from biomass and coal have the potential to reduce petroleum fuel use and CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the next 25 years, says a new report from the National Research Council. Even with abundant resources in biomass and coal, however, substantial investments in research, development, and commercial demonstration projects will be needed to produce these alternative liquid fuels in an environmentally conscious way, and at a level that could impact U.S. dependence on imported oil.
"A lot of work remains to be done before these alternative fuels can make up a significant share of the U.S. transportation fuel market. Making the transition will require financial investments and technological developments," said Michael P. Ramage, retired executive vice president of ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Newer, more efficient technologies and strong policy measures will be needed to drive market penetration. These fuels will not be cost competitive at current oil prices. They could be competitive with the higher oil prices we've seen in recent years, although it will take focused research, development, and policy efforts to get there."
Coal, which can be converted into gasoline or diesel, exists in sufficient reserves in the U.S. to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of coal consumption, mainly for electric power. It should not be assumed, however, that there will be enough coal mined to support the demands for both electrical power and transportation fuels. Providing coal-based liquid fuel for transportation would require significant increases in coal mining activities. The U.S. transportation sector consumes 14 million barrels of oil per day. If coal mining activities in the U.S. increase by 50 percent – an additional 580 million tons of coal mined each year – up to 3 million barrels of fuel per day could be produced. To achieve this, two or three new coal-to-fuel plants would need to be built each year over the next 20 years, the report says.
Without geologic storage of the CO2 produced in the conversion process, life-time greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based fuel would be about twice that of oil. With geologic storage, CO2 emissions would be nearly equivalent to those from oil. Coal-based fuel with CO2 emissions equivalent to petroleum-based fuels will be possible by 2020 only if geologic storage of carbon dioxide is demonstrated as safe and viable in the next five to six years, says the report. To do this, several commercial-scale facilities -- demonstrating geologic carbon storage alone or in combination with the coal-to-liquid fuel technology -- should be operating by 2015. As a relatively abundant resource, coal-based fuels could be cost-competitive with gasoline at oil prices around $60 to $70 per barrel. However, if a carbon price were set, the costs of coal-based fuels could rise significantly.
According to the report, biofuels – primarily ethanol in the short term – should be produced from dedicated grass crops, agricultural and forestry residues, and municipal solid wastes rather than food crops such as corn grain or soybean, which can induce competition between food and fuel. The report estimates that the U.S. could produce 550 million dry tons of biomass annually by 2020. Assuming significant market penetration and construction of ethanol plants, this amount of biomass could be used to produce up to 1.6 million barrels per day of gasoline-equivalent ethanol by 2030, leading to a potential 15 percent reduction in oil use for light-duty transportation.
The net carbon impact of biomass-derived fuels can be close to zero, because biomass crops consume CO2 from the air while growing and sequester carbon in the soil, thereby offsetting the CO2 released during fuel production and combustion. If the CO2 released from the conversion process is geologically stored, then biomass-derived fuels can have negative CO2 effects, with the biomass removing more carbon from the environment than is released during the fuel’s life cycle. The costs of producing biomass-derived fuels can be higher than petroleum fuels, comparable to oil prices of approximately $100 per barrel; however, if a carbon price is set high enough, the cost of biomass-based fuels could decrease due to the potential for net negative CO2 effects, the report says.
Transitioning to biofuels involves several challenges in addition to the costs. The fuel most likely to be produced from biomass over the next decade is ethanol, which cannot be distributed in the existing petroleum gas pipeline system; ethanol distribution currently occurs via railways or barges. The need for a significantly expanded infrastructure could limit the penetration of ethanol into the U.S. transportation fuels market. In addition, the report says, the supply of biomass can vary across the country, affecting the cost of biomass-produced fuel and magnifying logistical issues of fuel production and distribution.
Although a relatively new technology, several combined coal-and-biomass demonstration plants are operating in Europe. This technology could be an important part of U.S. energy strategy, the report says, as it combines the environmental benefits of biomass with the relative abundance and lower costs of coal. According to the report, if the 550 million tons of biomass estimated to be available by 2020 were combined with coal (at a 60:40 ratio of coal energy to biomass energy), 60 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent could be produced each year, which equates to approximately 45 percent of annual U.S. gasoline usage. If CO2 produced in the conversion process is geologically stored, the greenhouse gas emissions of this combined fuel over its life cycle could be close to zero.
These combined coal-and-biomass plants are not yet available in the U.S., but if geologic carbon storage is developed by 2015, the first combination plants could be built by 2020, the report says. Assuming a 20 percent growth rate in construction, by 2035 the U.S. could produce 2.5 million barrels of gasoline equivalent per day from combined coal-and-biomass sources.
This is the first of a series of reports to be released from the National Academies' America's Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future. Upcoming reports are ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES, REALISTIC PROSPECTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE UNITED STATES, and an overarching final report entitled, AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE: TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSFORMATION.
The America's Energy Future project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corp., Intel Corp., and the W.M. Keck Foundation. Support was also provided by the National Academies through the following endowed funds created to perpetually support the work of the National Research Council: Thomas Lincoln Casey Fund, Arthur L. Day Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, George and Cynthia Mitchell Endowment for Sustainability Science, and Frank Press Fund for Dissemination and Outreach. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. A panel roster follows.
(20 May 2009)
Previously covered in an EB post last year. I shouldn't make a hasty judgment, but I have a sick feeling that for all the industrial and academic credentials behind this book, it gives a misleading message, for example in its taking carbon sequestration seriously, or in making definite statements about the coal supply.
The rule-of-thumb is that conventional experts and big institutiions are the least likely to make sense of rapid, revolutionary change.
The book seems to be available for reading online. -BA
What do you think? Leave a comment below.
Sign up for regular Resilience bulletins direct to your email.
This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial. Complete Guidelines.