Bad News for Biofuels

SW's Energy Gap: "The budget that has come out of the House is so larded down with pork in the form of earmarks that what is left-over for the biofuels program at The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado is just enough money to cut severance checks to the ninety some scientists and engineers working on the program and close up shop.Considering the fact that we have reached the peak in global petroleum production, the major oil companies are busy raping consumers while Congress is handing out multi-billion dollar tax breaks to the very same assholes, this would seem to be a bad move."

•  big business raping the masses?

  i'm telling you my dear that it can't happen here.

  by mediaprisoner on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:59:39 PM PDT

•  maybe...

  ...they want to make sure that we have plenty of "incentive" to allow them to drill in ANWR, off the beaches of Florida and California, and anywhere else they damned please?

  by randym77 on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:05:45 PM PDT

•  Yet another terrible and crappy budget...

  I wish we could vote out about 60-70% of the House...and of course, 50% of the Senate...

  This will come back to bite them all in the ass though....cause eventually we'll either run out of oil, or run into uber expensive oil, or global warming will destroy half the damn planet...

  by Elise on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:06:07 PM PDT

•  perhaps a short temr setback...

  let's face it, nothing of substance will likely get done by Congress this / next year.  and anything that does get done will hopefully be undone by a Dem-controlled Congress, one serious about Energy Security.

  So let this fiddlers play while the city burns.  The fire department is on the way, and they have a much better band.

  by Doolittle Sothere on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:11:54 PM PDT

  •  Yes but these scientists and engineers

    human capital, that it has taken the nation over twenty five years to accumulate will have been lost and dispersed.

    by SW on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:18:07 PM PDT

•  More documentation please

  links etc. We need more than your blog entry SW

  by peeder on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:13:46 PM PDT

  •  I'll try to come up with something

    but this is a primary source.  The people at NREL have told me that they have been told to clear out their offices and get their effects together.  The Director, Dan Arviso is headed to Washington to see if things can be hammered out in conference with the Senate but it doesn't look good.  Things are very shaky for the wind program as well.  Again the problem is an unprecedented level of earmarks which, when subtracted from the lab's operating budget literally leaves nothing for the research.  The pigs have gone wild.

    by SW on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:15:08 PM PDT

•  Should we support ANY internal combustion?

  It doesn't matter what you burn in them, petrol or biofuel, they will all generate greenhouse gasses.

  Right now, best immediate option if one has to have an independent vehicle is one of the very high gas mileage hybrids.  I'm thinking that in the long term fuel cells are the future (don't they just output water?) or maybe even pure electrical if someone can come up with a quantum improvement in battery storage technology.

  by dan c on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:29:43 PM PDT

  •  Net impact

    The net greenhouse gas impact of a fuel produced by agricultural methods can be zero. Energy is captured from sunlight and stored by plants, which produce vegetable oils, which are in turn converted into diesel fuel.

    A hydrogen fuel cell, while it itself might produce only water as an output, requires the consumption of fuel elsewhere to produce the hydrogen. Hydrogen will, at best, become an energy storage and transport mechanism, not an energy creation mechanism.

    by silence on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:37:57 PM PDT

    •  More Precisely ...

      So-called "biofuels" are what is referred to as "carbon neutral."

      The carbon in the carbohydrates that plants produce is taken from the atmosphere ... Plants "inhale" carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen, remember?

      When those carbohydrates are burned, the carbon they contain (re-) combines with oxygen (i.e., it oxidizes) to (re-) form carbon dioxide, yet again.

      Hence, "carbon neutral" ... The use of biofuels results in neither a net loss nor a net gain in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      This, of course, includes wood. Those who heat with natural gas or oil, take note.

      by gwhayduke on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:58:03 PM PDT

      •  BioFuels are not sustainable.

        Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel cycle
        Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One
        Of course that's for corn, which is getting most of the research/subsidy $.
        Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae
        This paper says you need ethanol and vegetable oil to start the algae production.
        Hydrogen fuel cells require massive hydrogen production (from water) and it appears that the US goveernment is only supplying funding to schemes that use coal and oil as the energy source for this. It's just another boondoggle for the cronies.
        The Oil We Eat is a succinct description of the problem of industrialized agriculture: it is oil-based. The world population is as large as it is today because cheap oil has enabled survival by producing adequate amounts of food. That era/curve would now appear to be peaking. Unless we grow our biofuel using stoop labor, we will not be sustaining our current level of transportation, or even diet. There are websites devoted to this topic: Anthropik and deconsumption will get you started.

        by Halcyon on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:32:19 PM PDT

        •  I'm agnostic

          concerning the merits of biofuels.  That's what science is for.  That's why you do impartial research.  Not industry sponsored research.

          by SW on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:42:05 PM PDT

          •  I was merely pointing out that

            biofuels are not renewable as currently produced. What renewable energy projects are/were being done at the NREL? Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal? It's a great loss, for sure. The whole biodiesel paradigm is just another form of burning carbon-based fuels. Saying that plants are produced via solar energy is leaving out how you plant the seeds, fertilize and water, harvest, transform into usable fuel, and transport and market. The sun is going to do all of that? Uh uh. This is why we need to save the oil and natural gas that are left to produce the technology that can make solar cells and wind mills etc. If we burn it up in our SUVs.....

            Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

            by Halcyon on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:56:56 PM PDT

        •  And I Said Nothing About Sustainability ...

          My comment was solely a proper definition of "carbon neutral."

          As for the sustainability of liquid biofuels, I've read reports of studies that have reached conclusions on both sides of the ledger, so as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out.

          However, regardless of whether or not liquid fuels can be produced economically, at least as insofar as energy is concerned (i.e., can liquid fuels be produced with a net energy gain, with all inputs taken into account), the real questions is ... Even if they can, can enough liquid fuels be produced to maintain our "American Way Of Life," even with vast increases in the efficiency of the machinery we use that consumes these liquid fuels?

          I suspect that even if liquid fuels can be produced economically with regard to energy inputs, the answer to this question is no ... at least not at our current levels of consumption (read "population").

          Possible solutions are left, as always, as an exercise for the student ...

          by gwhayduke on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:43:25 PM PDT