Post by thread:[EE]:: Peak Soil - Why cellulosic ethanol,biofuels

This longish (about 13,000 words), extremely interesting and more-convincing-than-I-expected article argues that cellulose bio-mass based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but has a severe cost far in excess of its value and causes unaffordable long term damage to the agricultural systems on which it depends. http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1 This is not just a "greenie rave" although it is that as well. I skim vast quantities of material, quite often at not too much beyond headline or chapter header level, increasing the amount I read as interest or apparent relevance dictates. I'm quite liable to go back and skim through this in greater depth and maybe even read the lot if it proves as useful as it promises. (But, most things fail the in-depth test). A reasonable summary paragraph from the article is Fuels from biomass are not sustainable, are ecologically destructive, have a net energy loss, and there isn’t enough biomass in America to make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs like water, land, fossil fuels, and phosphate ores are limited. Before you seek to argue with that it would be a good idea to read or to at least skim the paper. Fortunately, lunar Helium 3 will save us all ... :-) (Russell's comment, not theirs) Russell _________________________ Summarised summary re corn Corn Biofuel (i.e. butanol, ethanol, biodiesel) is especially harmful because: Row crops such as corn and soy cause 50 times more soil erosion than sod crops [e.g., hay] (Sullivan 2004) or more (Al-Kaisi 2000), ... Corn uses more water, insecticide, and fertilizer than most crops (Pimentel 2003). ... The government has studied the effect of growing continuous corn, and found it increases eutrophication by 189%, global warming by 71%, and acidification by 6% (Powers 2005). Farmers want to plant corn on highly-erodible, water protecting, or wildlife sustaining Conservation Reserve Program land ... BUT ... Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from corn residues -- the parts of the plant we don’t eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) – removes water, carbon, and nutrients (Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003). ______________________ "I asked 35 soil scientists why topsoil wasn’t part of the biofuels debate. ... ... " Answers can be imagined, __________________

>This longish (about 13,000 words), extremely interesting and >more-convincing-than-I-expected article argues that cellulose >bio-mass based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but >has a severe cost far in excess of its value and causes >unaffordable long term damage to the agricultural systems >on which it depends. I looked at the editors note heading it, and it seems the article is a treatise on an argument I have heard here in the UK, that converting existing food producing farmland to ethanol producing crops is a bad way to go. HOWEVER there are crops suitable for producing ethanol that will grow quite satisfactorily on ground that is too poor to grow food producing crops, in arid areas, and my understanding of the argument is that these areas should be put to this use, rather than food producing farmland. I don't have any references to documents on this, but may find some time to try and track some down.

{Quote hidden}> >This longish (about 13,000 words), extremely interesting and >>more-convincing-than-I-expected article argues that cellulose >>bio-mass based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but >>has a severe cost far in excess of its value and causes >>unaffordable long term damage to the agricultural systems >>on which it depends. > I looked at the editors note heading it, and it seems the article is > a > treatise on an argument I have heard here in the UK, that converting > existing food producing farmland to ethanol producing crops is a bad > way to > go. HOWEVER there are crops suitable for producing ethanol that will > grow > quite satisfactorily on ground that is too poor to grow food > producing > crops, in arid areas, and my understanding of the argument is that > these > areas should be put to this use, rather than food producing > farmland. > I don't have any references to documents on this, but may find some > time to > try and track some down. I've met that argument of course. You'll find that, while the "soil too poor to be useful" argument notionally addresses some of the issues raised by this paper, it doesn't address them all. Without attempting to reprise what can be read in much more competent form in the paper, issues such as irrigation, general effect on biota and overall ecosystem from fertilisers, destabilisation of topsoil, and quite a lot more still needs addressing and the author would argue (with some apparent merit) that the idea still falls short of the mark. However, even if such arguments were overcome, there's the cute concept of "ground that is too poor to grow food producing crops, in arid areas". Arguably (and I'd lean towards being convinced) there is no such land in existence that can be more profitably utilised for eg ethanol production. If you can grow a cellulose based product on it you can find a food crop that will grow there as well and expect a greater net 'real' return. AFAIR there was a link about this posted on this list a while ago - quite possibly by me :-). AFAIR candidate crops for "as bad and as dry as it comes" were listed. And fwiw, if people *can* grow fuel based crops on land suitable for food growth and make short term personal profits from this and there is no 'big picture' oversight, what do you expect would happen. This of course immediately raises the 'the land is mine and I can do what I want with it' arguments and there will be at least one usually-a-lurker seeing this line of argument as leading to a commo pinko left wing socialist anti-capitalist sellout. BUT it doesn't have to be as long as the *total* costs of actions taken by individuals are factored into the mix. You are then welcome to make whatever use of your capital that you wish as long as you bear not only all the benefits but also all the costs of your actions. Of course, when the total costs are debateable (which often happens when we are looking at systems with very long term multi-generational lifecycles) and/or when government subsidies and/or protection warp 'the invisible hand' realities, then true costings don't occur. As an example, this is the situation in the nuclear power industry, which is gearing up worldwide for another push towards the light*, with massive effective subsidies, unprecedented government protections which other industries would dearly love to have, and a complete inability (and unwillingness where it is possible) to genuinely cost the genuine lifecycle costs of operating the business. [[Any business that has a revenue producing phase of a few decades and a subsequent maintenance phase of a few tens or more of millenia where the remains of the plant must be genuinely securely maintained at a high level of security, has an inordinately difficult time showing a DCF positive net present value. This doesn't seem to deter anyone involved from seeking the available short term gains and leaving the fallout (pun very intended) to hundreds of subsequent generations.]] Ethanol crop soil destruction seems minor in comparison:-) But, it may not be :-( Russell * possibly very very very bright light :-) (yes yes, I know, that was a joke. As in "fine and warm and very very bright")

I always treated biomass as essentially a solar collector. It has some inputs other than sun, and requires post-processing to convert to energy, but some studies show that it's still better than the 7% we get out of an average solar cell, which requires a great deal of energy to create, but no post processing later. Still, there are better solar collectors than 7%. Reminds me of the dust bowl. -Adam On 5/14/07, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote: {Quote hidden}> This longish (about 13,000 words), extremely interesting and > more-convincing-than-I-expected article argues that cellulose bio-mass > based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but has a severe > cost far in excess of its value and causes unaffordable long term > damage to the agricultural systems on which it depends. > > http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1 > > This is not just a "greenie rave" although it is that as well. > > I skim vast quantities of material, quite often at not too much beyond > headline or chapter header level, increasing the amount I read as > interest or apparent relevance dictates. I'm quite liable to go back > and skim through this in greater depth and maybe even read the lot if > it proves as useful as it promises. (But, most things fail the > in-depth test). > > A reasonable summary paragraph from the article is > > Fuels from biomass are not sustainable, are ecologically > destructive, > have a net energy loss, and there isn't enough biomass in America > to make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs > like > water, land, fossil fuels, and phosphate ores are limited. > > Before you seek to argue with that it would be a good idea to read or > to at least skim the paper. > > Fortunately, lunar Helium 3 will save us all ... :-) (Russell's > comment, not theirs) > > > > > Russell > > > > > > > _________________________ > > Summarised summary re corn > > Corn Biofuel (i.e. butanol, ethanol, biodiesel) is especially harmful > because: > > Row crops such as corn and soy cause 50 times more soil erosion than > sod crops [e.g., hay] (Sullivan 2004) or more (Al-Kaisi 2000), ... > > Corn uses more water, insecticide, and fertilizer than most crops > (Pimentel 2003). ... > > The government has studied the effect of growing continuous corn, > and found it increases eutrophication by 189%, global warming by 71%, > and acidification by 6% (Powers 2005). > > Farmers want to plant corn on highly-erodible, water protecting, or > wildlife sustaining Conservation Reserve Program land ... BUT ... > > Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and > soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from corn residues -- the parts > of the plant we don't eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) – removes water, > carbon, and nutrients (Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003). > > ______________________ > > "I asked 35 soil scientists why topsoil wasn't part of the biofuels > debate. ... ... " > > Answers can be imagined, > > __________________ > > > > > > > >

Russell, I haven't had time to read through the article you posted, but I came across this fact the other day and thought you might be interested to know. Lightning storms are part of the nitrogen cycle of the earth, and it accounts for approximately 5-8% of the nitrogen fixed in the soil. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/NitrogenCycle.html I'm still pondering the phosphorous issue. It seems like it all eventually ends up in the water, and could be recovered from algae growth or extraction of lake and sea floor sediments? On 5/14/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > cellulose bio-mass > based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but has a severe > cost far in excess of its value and causes unaffordable long term > damage to the agricultural systems on which it depends. > > culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

> I'm still pondering the phosphorous issue. It seems like it all > eventually ends up in the water, and could be recovered from algae > growth or extraction of lake and sea floor sediments? Perhaps. It depends in part on how dilute it gets and what value is placed on it. If that's the sole remaining source then the value could be quite high. On average, and this varies rather widely, there is notionally several kg of Uranium within digging depth on a "1/4 acre" residential section. Extracting it, let along profitably, is another matter. Gold is perhaps easier. But not by a lot. Sea water contains vast amounts of gold all up, but totally uneconomic quantities per given volume. The level is so low that it is exceptionally difficult to assess it accurately but a\n average figure of around 10 parts per trillion seems about right. May be 5+ times high in places such as the Bering Sea which are fed by high gold areas. Reasonable reference here http://www.goldfever.com/gold_sea.htm Best hope for economic extraction is probably to engineer a microorganism that retains gold and drinks a lot. At say 10 ppt by volume that's about 140 microgram per ton(ne). At current gold prices of about $US650/gram http://goldprice.org/news/uploaded_images/gpsentiment240507sm-700412.gif that about $US1 of gold per tonne of seawater. It's sobering (to me) that the total expected gold content of seawater is only about 8 times more than all the gold that mankind has extracted from various sources throughout history - ie sea water is rather low grade ore. Total gold extracted in history is thought to be about 5000 cubic metres! 'Quite a lot'. Russell

>> current gold prices of about $US650/gram > $650/ounce, I think... (not clear WHICH kind of ounce, though.) Whoops - yes :-). That makes the gold content of seawater about $US0.04 / metre^3. Anyone who finds this thread in the slightest way interesting really should read or skim the original article (I've only done the latter). They say that some people think that most of the world's "placer gold" (at 98% pure) was concentrated and deposited by microorganisms, and they explain why. *IF* this is the case, then the prospects of developing some creature to do it from seawater look higher. This sort of development attempt is liable to be what destroys us all as a side effect :-). (Placer gold occurs in hollow tubes about ?1 (?100) micron across. This structure is not obvious to the eye. I wonder if the brine concentrated byproducts of desalination plants have a greatly increased gold content. Russell