Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   U.S. Brazil, Ethanol
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 1 of 17 (387841)
03-03-2007 3:54 AM


I read a short article on the NY Times website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03ethanol.html...
Article writes:
WASHINGTON, March 2 ” President Bush, hoping to reduce demand for oil in the Western Hemisphere, is preparing to finish an agreement with Brazil next week to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to administration officials...
Article writes:
...Administration officials are hoping to complete a memorandum of understanding that calls for cooperation between the countries on research and common standards for biofuels, as well as on helping other countries replicate Brazil’s expertise in producing ethanol from sugar...
... American officials expressed a similar enthusiasm for making ethanol and ethanol-producing equipment on a huge scale. The biggest area of cooperation, they said, will be in helping countries identify and remove obstacles to building their own ethanol production capacity...
..."We want ethanol to become a global commodity, and for that to happen, Brazil can’t be the only producer,” said José Luiz Oliverio, vice president for operations at Dedini Industries, Brazil’s leading manufacturer of equipment for sugar cane and ethanol mills.
This was an intriguing yet troubling article. Ethanol use will lessen the dependence upon fossil fuels, especially petroleum.
It also has the possibility of strengthening the economies of several Central and South American nations. But even this benefit in the face of NAFTA leads one to perplexion.
Also, reading over these statements in particular, and from what I noticed there was no mention of the increase in clearing forests for farm land to grow the sugar cane? or how many acres would need to be cleared to accomplish their goal of ethanol becoming a "global commodity"?
The article was bereft of information concerning the loss of biodiversity.
So, a little searching and up popped this: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/050701_fuel_ethanol_...
So, to put it simply, where do others stand on this issue? Does anyone have any more information regarding this topic? Possibly Quetzal? who I beieve, but may be wrong, is currently residing south of the US border?
Edited by Admin, : Shorten links.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Doddy, posted 03-03-2007 8:29 AM BMG has replied
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 03-03-2007 10:54 AM BMG has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 17 (387864)
03-03-2007 8:08 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 3 of 17 (387867)
03-03-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BMG
03-03-2007 3:54 AM


So, a little searching and up popped this: bioscience | AIBS
The problem is the US reliance on corn to make the ethanol. If you think about it, not much of the corn plant can be used to make ethanol, so it's not surprising to me that this wouldn't be viable. The entire stalk of the cane can be used for sugercane, so in areas where that can be grown it is the better option. But plants like switchgrass would be even better again.
Once Cellulosic ethanol becomes commercially viable, ethanol can then become a main fuel source worldwide. Either that or use synthetic methanol as fuel - made by reacting carbon dioxide with hydrogen (from water) in the Fischer-Tropsch process.

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BMG, posted 03-03-2007 3:54 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2007 10:06 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 6 by BMG, posted 03-04-2007 5:32 PM Doddy has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 17 (387874)
03-03-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Doddy
03-03-2007 8:29 AM


Once Cellulosic ethanol becomes commercially viable
From your Wiki link, the current effective cost is US$120 per oil-barrel-equivalent. I don't know about you, but I find that pretty exciting. I'd always imagined these fuel sources were at least an order of magnitude more expensive. I'm sure with some SERIOUS investment and research, this can be slashed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Doddy, posted 03-03-2007 8:29 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 17 (387878)
03-03-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BMG
03-03-2007 3:54 AM


Microscale vs. Macroscale
Hi Inflixion,
Thanks for posting this. Biofuel production is an interesting topic - and one that has some relevance for my current projects (more on this below).
For those who are unaware of what biofuels really are, they are ethanol or diesel fuel equivalents produced through processing of various plant species. About 600-700,000 barrels of biofuel are produced globally each year. In large scale production (mostly Europe and North America), crop fields are planted specifically for the production of fuel: wheat, corn, or sugar beet, and rapeseed (for biodiesel), among others including soybean, are all used in this process. In small scale production (used in certain areas of the developing world), sugarcane, sugar beet or African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is used either directly or as post-process waste for production of ethanol and biodiesel.
Although not a bad system, there are some limitations inherent in large-scale production and use of the type envisioned in the article including:
” Energy yield. Biofuels yield only a fraction of the energy that an equivalent amount of gas does. For instance, bioethanol yields ~21 mj/l, whereas gas yields around 31 mj/l. This loosely translates into a requirement that more ethanol is needed to produce the same amount of “go-juice” than can be produced by gas.
” Scale. Intensive monoculture is required to produce any reasonable amount of crops that can be directly converted to fuel. For instance, the highest yields produced in Europe from fully mechanized sugar beet production gives about 50 metric tons/ha. Conversion of beets into ethanol yields about 0.11 m3/ton, or about 110 liters/t. This is NOT sustainable without massive inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, mechanization, etc). Corn yields about 170 l/ha, soybean around 450 l/ha, etc. This is primarily why the basic cost of the final product is considered so high. You get a very small net energy produced per unit cost. Doing the math, we'd have to convert a HUMUNGOUS (that's a scientific term ) amount of current agricultural land into biofuel production to make even a minor dent in the amount of petroleum used. Since at least some land has to be used for actual food production, the only alternatives would seem to be taking over "currently unproductive land" (like rainforests) to produce the needed fuels.
Contrasting with small-scale production, especially using biowaste or small-scale culture (like rapeseed or E. guineensis), and foregoing the high degree of inputs required by large-scale production, biofuels ARE highly environment-friendly. There is a project in Nicaragua, for instance, where post-process sugarcane waste (after the cane is shredded, mashed, mulched and otherwise beaten to death) is used to produce sufficient ethanol to provide the majority of power for Leon (the country’s second largest city). Since biofuel production is a mature technology, the critical constraint on small-scale production - equipment cost - has been removed. It is now down to the point where a small group of local farmers - especially as an adjunct to an integrated farm program - can afford to purchase the equipment needed (it really isn’t all that complicated on small-scale, just labor-intensive - and cheap labor we gots lots ).
Which brings me to the reason I know anything about this stuff. The Foundation I work for has been actively seeking ways to become energy self-sufficient in our combined development and conservation programs in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Our facilities overall currently use solar power to provide ~60% of our energy requirements (which includes a satellite-based internet, WAN, and other high-tech goodies that make the Foundation unique in the region). Unfortunately, we rely on diesel power generation for the remainder (there are constraints on the amount of solar power we can produce - it IS a rainforest, after all). In addition, most supplies, visitors, etc, are brought in by diesel or gas-powered canoes. I was asked to consult on the environmental impact of a biodiesel project that would become part of our integrated farming program. We were considering importing E. guineensis, as well as investigating some native palm species for generation of biodiesel (including Elaeis oleifera, Orbignya barbosiana and Astrocaryum vulgare). Because of yield (almost 6000 l/ha! - 60 times the yield of sugar beet), the Foundation was really leaning toward the exotic African palm but were concerned about the threat from an invasive. Turns out there’s no problem (ABE: at least under the mitigation schema they propose). They have 30 ha of former agricultural land that is entirely unsuitable for reforestation of which they currently use ~15 ha for their “demonstration” integrated farm (I put demonstration in quotes because the project has been spectacularly successful - it provides almost all of the agricultural produce consumed by both the technical high school and the 2200 ecotourists who visit annually with zero external inputs - one of the only projects that DIDN’T work was the methane capture project for cooking, and that was because one of the damn hogs got loose and rampaged through the system, destroying most of the equipment). They plan on producing about 10 ha of oil palm, which will provide nearly 100% of the fuel needed by all the facilities. The palm grove will not be a monoculture. They will be intercropping with everything from legumes to cacao, plantain and banana, and possibly chonta palm (Guilielma insignis - used for food and construction).
To make a long story short - as long as biofuels projects are limited in scale, there is very little environmental impact, and in fact they can be extremely effective and low cost. However, I have extremely strong reservations about attempting to replace a significant fraction of the world’s petroleum consumption in this manner. Both yield and space requirements - especially for more popular but less productive in fuel terms (and more environmentally damaging overall) crops like corn monoculture - would seem to be more likely to exacerbate deforestation, ecosystem degradation, pollution, etc, than be a help. I agree in principle with the bioscience article you cited. Given the vast deforestation in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand where rainforest has been converted to oil palm production, the examples we have of non-sustainable large-scale commercial production of biofuels doesn't bode well.
Edited by Quetzal, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BMG, posted 03-03-2007 3:54 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 03-04-2007 6:19 PM Quetzal has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 6 of 17 (388115)
03-04-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Doddy
03-03-2007 8:29 AM


The problem is the US reliance on corn to make the ethanol.
No kidding. Of several starting materials to make ethanol from, corn is, I believe, one of the least efficacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Doddy, posted 03-03-2007 8:29 AM Doddy has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 7 of 17 (388120)
03-04-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Quetzal
03-03-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
” Energy yield. Biofuels yield only a fraction of the energy that an equivalent amount of gas does.
With corn being a rather poor producer of biofuels, it makes one wonder why the US route to "energy independence" was paved by way of corn...
Since at least some land has to be used for actual food production, the only alternatives would seem to be taking over "currently unproductive land" (like rainforests) to produce the needed fuels.
I recall hearing something along the lines of rainforests having fairly infertile and unproductive soil. Assuming this is true, wouldn't clearing rainforests for agriculture be an exercise in futility?
Would copious amounts of fertilizer then be needed to increase productivity? further hampering the environment?
To make a long story short - as long as biofuels projects are limited in scale, there is very little environmental impact, and in fact they can be extremely effective and low cost...
...the examples we have of non-sustainable large-scale commercial production of biofuels doesn't bode well.
Which is why I am a bit apprehensive about the US and Brazil partnering in ethanol use and production.
"Large-scale commercial production" is our nation's bread and butter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 03-03-2007 10:54 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 03-04-2007 10:39 PM BMG has replied
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 8:10 AM BMG has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 17 (388166)
03-04-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by BMG
03-04-2007 6:19 PM


Why Corn?
Conservative heartland + corn as major crop = if politician wants to stay in power, he supports corn.
rough equation, yes. We know corn is ridiculous to use for ethanol production, yet it's those important (and powerful, at times) interests that promote corn.
about the only explanation I can come up with. That, and gov'ts tend towards inefficiency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 03-04-2007 6:19 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by BMG, posted 03-06-2007 1:21 AM kuresu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 17 (388195)
03-05-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by BMG
03-04-2007 6:19 PM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
With corn being a rather poor producer of biofuels, it makes one wonder why the US route to "energy independence" was paved by way of corn...
Well, the simple answer is pretty much what kuresu mentioned: corn production in the US is one of the most highly subsidized crops we produce. IOW, rather than pay farmers basically to NOT grow corn (which is the case today), the government will pay them to grow corn for biofuel. It really sucks (another good scientific term) for this as it has one of the lowest yields while requiring some of the highest inputs. In addition, large scale corn production is one of the worst crops as far as leading to nitrification of local watersheds goes. Not only because of the requirement for pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers, but because of the basic natural history of corn itself.
I recall hearing something along the lines of rainforests having fairly infertile and unproductive soil. Assuming this is true, wouldn't clearing rainforests for agriculture be an exercise in futility?
Yes and no. This is sort of the "classic" model, to the point where most high school and undergrad textbooks keep repeating it. It really depends on how it (agriculture) is done. Without getting into the different tropical soil types (oxisols, antisols, etc), the relative truth of this observation depends mostly on the type of forest and where it is located. For instance, varzea-type forest (seasonal flooding) located on sandy soils watered by drainage from the Guyanean Shield (so-called blackwater rivers) are very nutrient poor, whereas the same forest type located on soils watered from the high Andes (so-called whitewater rivers) are nutrient rich. Nutrient-poor soils require much higher inputs for large-scale agriculture. The oil palm plantation I mentioned we're considering will be located in a high-nutrient environment (whitewater varzea).
In any event, it's less a question of nutrient content than it is of moisture retention. One of the main problems with already nutrient-poor soils is that once you clear the forest (which has evolved to very quickly recycle nutrients back into the biomass), it doesn't take long before the soil heats up and loses all of its moisture. The soil bakes literally rock hard, any remaining nutrients are leached with amazing rapidity, and any kind of large-scale agriculture is pretty much contraindicated. Even nutrient rich tropical soils can be leached very rapidly if cleared. However, an agroforestry system where a signficant fraction of the canopy is retained (which retains moisture) can yield an immense amount of production, essentially in perpetuity if combined with intercropping or other sustainable ag programs. Of course, this doesn't work with shade-intolerant plants like corn (or highly mechanized agriculture) - which would be another good reason to pick a different approach to large-scale biofuel production.
{ABE: There are a bunch of other factors, including the physics of raindrop impacts - no joke - that effect moisture retention of tropical soils. But the above is the short answer.}
Would copious amounts of fertilizer then be needed to increase productivity? further hampering the environment?
Yep. If it ain't done right, that's the only approach - and the resultant environmental degradation would be severe, IMO. I find it highly unlikely that this approach would be cost effective - no matter how high fuel costs go.
Which is why I am a bit apprehensive about the US and Brazil partnering in ethanol use and production.
"Large-scale commercial production" is our nation's bread and butter.
Which is another thing to worry about. We're typically fixated on intensive, mechanized, vast-scale monoculture. I can't see any way this could work in the neotropics.
Edited by Quetzal, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 03-04-2007 6:19 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by BMG, posted 03-06-2007 1:38 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 2:19 AM Quetzal has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 10 of 17 (388436)
03-06-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kuresu
03-04-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Why Corn?
We know corn is ridiculous to use for ethanol production, yet it's those important (and powerful, at times) interests that promote corn.
Interesting. This may be straying a bit from the topic but just how "powerful" is the corn lobby?
about the only explanation I can come up with. That, and gov'ts tend towards inefficiency.
An interesting topic unto itself. Have you considered initiating a thread on that thought?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 03-04-2007 10:39 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 03-06-2007 1:41 AM BMG has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 11 of 17 (388437)
03-06-2007 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
In addition, large scale corn production is one of the worst crops as far as leading to nitrification of local watersheds goes. Not only because of the requirement for pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers, but because of the basic natural history of corn itself.
Would you mind explaining further about the "basic natural history of corn"?
The oil palm plantation I mentioned we're considering will be located in a high-nutrient environment (whitewater varzea).
I hope it is considered and eventually successful. Best of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 8:10 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 03-06-2007 8:09 AM BMG has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 12 of 17 (388438)
03-06-2007 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by BMG
03-06-2007 1:21 AM


Re: Why Corn?
honestly don't know about the corn lobby. But if you think about it, why are we using corn to achieve some energy independence?
we know it sucks for that use, so why? I think Q has some answers on that. It just seems to make sense to me. Whenever someone chooses to use the more ineffecient, there has to be a reason, and it tends to be because of controlling or powerful interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by BMG, posted 03-06-2007 1:21 AM BMG has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 17 (388447)
03-06-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
Q writes:
It really sucks (another good scientific term)...
You mean it really gives out a negative pressure differential?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 8:10 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 03-06-2007 8:26 AM Taz has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 17 (388483)
03-06-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by BMG
03-06-2007 1:38 AM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
Would you mind explaining further about the "basic natural history of corn"?
Well, I'll try. I'm not an agronomist or plant biologist. The way it was explained to me was that basically corn is a nitrogen "sink". You've got to remember that what we call corn has no "natural" equivalent. Unlike barley, rice, wheat, manioc, etc, corn is an entirely "created" crop. This essentially means that unlike most other crops there are no associated microbes that help corn with nitrogen uptake (see, especially, plants like the Leguminosae). Which means, roughly, that the only way corn - which requires a huge amount of nitrogen and/or nitrogenous compounds - can meet its requirements is through osmotic action at the root level. Which means, in turn, that the concentration of nitrogen in the soil has to be very high. Finally, this means that the rate of nitrogen leaching in anything but a totally contained environment (say, a laboratory), is extremely high. And all that excess nitrogen goes straight into the local watershed or water table. This is one of the reasons intercropping corn with legumes, for instance, is so effective. Unfortunately, you can't do that with large-scale monoculture (obviously). I'm probably missing some bits, but that's the way I understand it. I seem to remember that there's a eutrophic "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississippi about the size of New Jersey caused by algal blooms fed by nitrogenous run-off from ag production up river. I could probably dig up a reference on that if you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by BMG, posted 03-06-2007 1:38 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by BMG, posted 03-06-2007 9:07 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 17 (388491)
03-06-2007 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taz
03-06-2007 2:19 AM


Re: Microscale vs. Macroscale
You mean it really gives out a negative pressure differential?
A pox on all physicists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 2:19 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024