Biofuels Sustainability: Nation's Ecological Scientists Weigh in on Biofuels

The Ecological Society of America, the nation's professional organization of 10,000 ecological scientists, today released a position statement that offers the ecological principles necessary for biofuels to help decrease dependence on fossil fuels and reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global climate change. The Society warns that the current mode of biofuels production will degrade the nation's natural resources and will keep biofuels from becoming a viable energy option.

"Current grain-based ethanol production systems damage soil and water resources in the U.S. and are only profitable in the context of tax breaks and tariffs," says ESA. "Future systems based on a combination of cellulosic materials and grain could be equally degrading to the environment, with potentially little carbon savings, unless steps are taken now that incorporate principles of ecological sustainability."

Three ecological principles are necessary:
1 - Systems Thinking: Looking at the complete picture of how much energy is produced versus how much is consumed by extracting and transporting the crops used for biofuels. A systems approach seeks to avoid or minimize undesirable production side effects such as soil erosion and contamination of groundwater. Consistent monitoring is critical to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable.

2 - Conservation of Ecosystem Services: Maximizing crop yield without regard to negative side effects is easy. On the other hand, growing crops and retaining the other services provided by the land is far more challenging, but very much worth the effort. For example, lower yields from an unfertilized native prairie may be acceptable in light of the other benefits, such as minimized flooding, fewer pests, groundwater recharge, and improved water quality because no fertilizer is needed.

3 - Scale Alignment: How agriculture is managed matters at the individual farm, regional, and global level. Policies must provide incentives for managing land in a sustainable way. They should also encourage the development of biofuels from various sources.

"The current focus on ethanol from corn illustrates the risks of exploiting a single source of biomass for biofuel production," says ESA.

Continuously-grown corn leads to heavy use of fertilizers, early return of land in conservation programs to production, and the conversion of marginal lands to high-intensity cropping. All of these bring with them well-known environmental problems associated with intensive farming: persistent pest insects and weeds, pollution of groundwater, greater irrigation demands, less wildlife diversity, and the release of more carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change. Ironically, one of the touted benefits of biofuels is to help alleviate global climate change, a benefit that is considerably diluted under a high-intensity agriculture scenario.

The Ecological Society of America will contribute more to this timely issue in a few months when it convenes a conference devoted to the ecological dimensions of biofuels.

Like other organizations, ESA is also concerned about the hardship on the nation's poor communities as higher crop prices drive up the cost of food.

It has been said that biofuels have achieved cult-like status and in the rush it is only too easy to overlook the big picture of environmental implications. Iowa alone has planted more than a third of its land surface with corn and, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal government has some 20 laws and incentives to boost ethanol use.

A biofuels infrastructure that incorporates systems thinking, conserves ecosystem services, and encompasses multiple scales can best serve U.S. citizens, the economy, and the environment.

See the Source:
Ecological Society of America

environmental news

Inconvenient Truths about Biofuels and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

“Ethanol is often touted as a solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, but the inconvenient truth expressed by concerned scientists is that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from biofuel production and associated agricultural practices would effectively negate or even reverse any reduction in emissions that could be achieved by significantly expanding the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel.”
Charles T. Drevna
Executive Vice President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
November 8, 2007

Scientists Say the IPCC’s Latest Climate Mitigation Report Fails to Address the “Dangers and Pitfalls” Associated with Biofuel Expansion.

Scientists from Cornell University, the University of California, Berkeley, RSS GmbH’s Munich office, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt recently expressed their concerns in a lengthy letter to IPCC Chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri on deficient or incomplete conclusions about biofuel production and use made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their recent global report.

See the Source:
Letter to IPCC Chairman Pachauri

climate change
global-warming

Biofuel Mandate: Not the Energy Elixir It Was Once Thought to Be

"There's a strong consensus that biofuels will play an important role in the nation's energy future. Energy diversification is critical for our energy security, but we caution against ignoring the consequences of significantly increasing the federal mandate for a product that only now we're learning has a number of drawbacks, both environmental and economic."
Charles T. Drevna
Executive Vice President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)


September 6, 2007 - What They’re Saying…

Run-Off Harms the Chesapeake. “Despite rising food prices, it seems that nearly everyone is turning to corn-based ethanol as their choice for alternative fuel. Hidden behind these headlines, though, is an equally important but less visible cost: water pollution. Corn is a ‘leaky’ crop, losing more nitrogen per acre than most other crops. In the Washington region, much of this excess nitrogen ends up polluting the Chesapeake Bay and robbing fish, crabs and oysters of oxygen. For farmers, the demand for alternative fuels has brought much-needed, and deserved, increases in corn prices. Unfortunately, this summer’s drought will keep mid-Atlantic farmers from realizing their potential windfall, and any unused nitrogen will wash into the bay this winter.”
Tom Simpson and Daphne Pee, op-ed, “How Corn Ethanol Could Pollute the Bay,” The Washington Post, August 26, 2007

Increased Levels of Farm Waste Are Hurting Gulf Waters. “The crop that is bringing prosperity to farmers is making it harder for commercial fishermen in Louisiana to make a living. U.S. farmers this spring planted the most acreage with corn since 1944, after demand for ethanol pushed the grain’s price to a 10-year high. That has increased the level of farm waste flowing into the Mississippi River basin, which scientists blame for creating a pocket along the Louisiana coast where shrimp and other sea life cannot survive. The Gulf of Mexico’s so-called Dead Zone is expected to cover a record 8,543 square miles, or 22,126 square kilometers, this year and stretch into waters off Texas, said Nancy Rabalais, chief scientist for a study team at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. … Corn fuels the zone because it requires more nitrogen-based fertilizer than crops like soybeans, said Eugene Turner, a Louisiana State University oceanographer. Nitrogen and other nutrients eventually reach the Gulf of Mexico, feeding microscopic organisms that deplete oxygen levels as they die and decompose on the sea floor. Shrimp and fish suffocate unless they escape. … ‘The rah-rah sort of drowns out the environmental side,’ [Rabalais] said. ‘If our federal government subsidizes more corn, they’re working against water quality.’”
Tony Cox, “Ethanol Demand Seen Harming U.S. Fishermen,” Bloomberg, July 23, 2007

Little or No Net Savings in CO2 Emissions. “Unfortunately, what passes for mitigation and aversion of global warming often amounts to doing nothing under the guise of doing something. Take the nation's new infatuation with ethanol. Ethanol derived from corn, as it is in the United States, is so energy intensive to produce that it provides little or no net savings in carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the diversion of corn from the food supply to government-subsidized energy production has some unintended consequences of its own, driving up feed and corn syrup prices at home and tortilla prices in Mexico. Ethanol is a boon for corn farmers. As a way to limit global warming, it's a spectacularly inefficient bust.”
Editorial “Climate solution too hot for left to handle,” San Antonio Express-News, February 11, 2007

All Cost, Little – If Any – Benefit. “The United States, in its quest to reduce its reliance on expensive imported oil, may soon consume as much as half its domestic corn crop for fuel production, although the economic benefits have yet to materialize. Ethanol produces one-third less energy than a gallon of gasoline at an average wholesale cost of 33 percent more, according to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. … All told, ethanol has cost Americans an additional $14 billion in higher food prices. … Meanwhile, the U.S. government has yet to discover whether its 51- cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy is efficiently stimulating production of the fuel. One thing the bureaucrats know for sure: It cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 billion last year with possibly more subsidies on the way.”
John F. Wasik, op-ed, “In Ethanol Debate, Don’t Forget Realities,” Bloomberg, July 23, 2007

Food, Other Consumer Goods Prices Are Rising. “A steak dinner, a cold beer, a tank of gas, a bowl of cornflakes. Prices on these items and others are rising, all in the quest to produce more ethanol, the corn-based product touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and lessen the impact of global warming. America has embraced the promise of the renewable fuel, pouring billions of tax dollars into its development. But as Congress prepares to spend billions more for ethanol use and production, people are starting to see higher costs for a wide range of consumer goods. ”
Anna M. Tinsley, “Push for ethanol has ripple effect across economy,” The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 5, 2007

More Energy to Make Ethanol Than What’s Produced. “The big problem with ethanol is in the chemistry, said Henry Groppe, founder of Groppe, Long & Littell, an energy consulting firm in Houston. It takes more energy to make ethanol than the ethanol produces, he said. Corn must be grown, fertilized and harvested, which takes oil-powered machinery. It must be processed, refined and then shipped, which takes more oil. ‘You’re having to use as much oil to produce that gallon of ethanol as the energy that you produce from it,’ Groppe said.”
Loren Steffy, “A test tells the story of ethanol vs. gasoline,” The Houston Chronicle, March 11, 2007

Distribution Problems. “The link is corn -- impact of growing the corn and producing the ethanol, not only in greenhouse gas emissions from farm equipment, but from the trucks, ships and trains that haul the ethanol (nearly all of which comes from Midwest corn) for delivery to refineries. Because of its corrosive qualities, it can’t be shipped through pipelines.”
Editorial, “Corn, ethanol and other subsidized stupidities,” The Sacramento Bee, August 8, 2007

Ethanol Will Not Replace Gasoline. “Corn ethanol will neither replace gasoline nor lower its price. It may even raise gas prices. First, at the pump, ethanol is priced according to what consumers will pay, not what it costs to make. So, according to research by Soren T. Anderson of the University of Michigan, ethanol prices follow gas prices very closely. It’s unlikely that gas will make a U-turn and start following ethanol. Second, even if a ready supply of ethanol does put a bit of downward pressure on gas prices, ethanol’s real cost is much higher than whatever we shell out at the pump. Consumers actually pay twice for this corny goodness: once when they fill up and once on April 15. In 2006, ethanol makers and sellers received subsidies of $1.87 for every gallon of gas they managed to displace, according to Doug Koplow of Earth Track, a Boston-based consultancy. Finally, even if we can stomach these nutty subsidies, illogical incentives to tempt automakers to produce ethanol-friendly cars actually increase the amount of oil we use. Blame a little-discussed loophole: In exchange for producing ethanol-ready ‘flex fuel’ vehicles, Congress lets auto manufacturers make their cars less fuel-efficient than corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards require.”
Lisa Margonelli, op-ed, “Myths About That $3.18 Per Gallon,” The Washington Post, June 3, 2007

See the Source:

BusinessWire

environment

Murky Results for Ethanol Emissions

An environmental engineer from Stanford University using computer modeling software, has compared US air pollution levels in 2020 produced by gasoline fueled-vehicles vs. a fleet that burns an ethanol/gasoline blend of 85/15.

The study indicates that ethanol could potentially add more smog-forming pollutants to the atmosphere than gasoline, by increasing hydrocarbons by 22 percent. This would increase surface ozone, as well as ozone-related deaths. Currently 4,700 people die yearly from respiratory problems related to smog. According to the study, 200 more people would die each year if ethanol use was increased.

In the study published in Environmental Science & Technology, Stanford engineer Mark Jacobson writes: “Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."

See the Source:
Scientific American
Environmental Science and Technology
Environmental and Urban Economics

Find out:
How to reduce hydrocarbons using oxidation converters from CleanAIR Systems

air pollution
current issues

Fueling the Biofuel Conversation

A recent study by the United State Department of Agriculture and Colorado State University, entitled “Net Greenhouse Gas Flux of Bioenergy Cropping Systems Using DAYCENT,” has conducted the first complete analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel production. After testing seven different crops used in the manufacturing of biofuels using the DAYCENT biogeochemistry model, the results show a significant variation in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy generated in comparison to greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuels.

The report reveals that comparing the life cycle of gasoline and diesel to ethanol derived from corn and soybean, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by around 40 percent. These crops are at the low end of the spectrum in comparison to crops of switchgrass and hybrid poplar with a reduction of 115 percent.

Recent controversy has arisen over the actual fuel efficiency of biofuels in comparison to fossil fuels due to the process needed to refine bioenergy crops into liquid fuel, the environmental degradation evolved with growing and transporting crops, and the possible increase in other emissions such as NOx. Some researchers have concluded that taking these facts into consideration, ethanol actually produces a net energy loss rather than a gain.

USDA and NREL researcher, Stephen Del Grosso states, "although fossil fuel inputs are required to produce and process biofuels, hybrid poplar and switchgrass converted to ethanol compensate for these emissions and actually remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere when the benefits of co-products are included. Greenhouse gas savings from biomass gasification for electricity generation are even greater. This research provides the basis for evaluating net biofuel greenhouse gas emissions and highlights the need to improve the technologies used for large scale conversion of biomass to energy and to more fully exploit agricultural co-products.”

"We used extensive observed greenhouse gas flux and crop yield data to verify DAYCENT model predictions of crop yields and net greenhouse gas fluxes from all of the biofuel crop rotations. DAYCENT model results were combined with life cycle analyses of crop production, conversion to biofuel, and fossil fuel displaced to estimate net greenhouse gas emissions," said William Parton, a NREL researcher.

The study was unique in that it offered a complete analysis of different crops, varying in respect to length of plant life cycle, yields, biomass conversion efficiencies, required nutrients, net soil carbon balance, nitrogen losses and other specifics which impact crop management. The net greenhouse gas flux for each crop was calculated by combining the DAYCENT results with estimates of fossil fuels used by agricultural machinery in growing of the crops and the amount of fossil fuels offset from biomass yields.

See the Source:
Colorado State University
USDA – Fact Sheet
Is Ethanol Fuel Really Better for the Environment than Sticking with Gas?

Is Your Tailpipe Really Greener with Ethanol?

On March 30, the CBC reported on an unpublished Canadian federal study that seems to indicate there is no difference in tailpipe emissions between a 10 percent ethanol blended fuel and regular gasoline. Scientists studied four vehicles, testing for emissions under a range of driving conditions and temperatures.

"Looking at tailpipe emissions, from a greenhouse gas perspective, there really isn't much difference between ethanol and gasoline," said Greg Rideout, head of Environment Canada's toxic emissions research. "Our results seemed to indicate that with today's vehicles, there's not a lot of difference at the tailpipe with greenhouse gas emissions."

The report found a reduction in carbon monoxide, but other gases such as hydrocarbons actually increased.

Bill Rees, an ecology professor at the University of British Columbia was surprised by the findings and stated, "People are being conned into believing in a product and paying for it through their tax monies when there's no justifiable benefit and indeed many negative costs."

See the Source:
CBC News