Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them This week we're taking on the question of input and output. Can we--and should we--balance the production of biofuels with food production? And to add complexity, I'm asked to forecast our transportation needs down the line and predict whether sustainable biofuels will play a role. Tall order, eh? Well one thing at a time...
A recent world bank report leaked to The Guardian suggests that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%. But really, have biofuels acted independently? Doubtful. While it's possible their production has contributed to the high costs we're seeing today, the principle culprit is likely investors' over speculation in other markets.
So let's reexamine the question about our energy future. I really like Jame's metaphor from Monday on the solution: Replace the idea of a single bullet with buckshot. While last week I wrote about cellulosic ethanol as a real contender, the important message to emphasize is that each proposed alternative might offer part of the answer. We'll need to employ a cocktail of alternative energy ideas to rid ourselves of the addiction to petroleum based fuel.
As for balancing biofuels with food production, remember that not all biofuels are created equal. I am fond of cellulosic ethanol because it's close to becoming available and can be grown on prairie lands with little input from farmers. Unlike a corn based ethanol source, this breed would not serve as a large competitor to food crops. Consider this recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). As Time reports:
In the biggest such study to date, scientists led by Kenneth Vogel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln performed long-term, large-scale field studies on raising switchgrass as an energy crop. Farmers in 10 fields of 15 to 20 acres each in Nebraska and North and South Dakota grew switchgrass over five years, and kept track of how much fuel and fertilizer they used during the trials. Vogel and his colleagues showed that switchgrass yielded 540% more energy as a biofuel than the amount of energy used to grow, harvest and process it. (Corn ethanol yields just 25% more energy.) Greenhouse gas emissions from switchgrass fuel would be 94% lower than emissions from petroleum fuel -- almost carbon neutral. Previous studies had come up with similar numbers in small-scale trials, but this was the first study on the level of a working farm.
In other words, farmers should not need to replace food with fuel on prime land. Vogel's research demonstrates that switchgrass should succeed as an energy crop on marginal land with a comparable output. That said, my gut feeling is that biofuels are a short term solution--one part of the equation. And right now it is too early to predict the size of their role in the grand scheme.
The thing is, we must come up with some other way of doing energy now. It's no longer just about a green environment... our cultural perspective has changed. For the first time, we're seeing shifts in behavior driven by fuel prices. As far as cars, bigger is no longer better, while compact and fuel efficient is sexy. As oil is nearing $150 per barrel, there's an economic incentive to make certain choices and we can either structure that in government through tax incentives or its going to happen regardless. We've passed peak oil and possibly peak coal... It's a brave new world.
Things have to fundamentally change or we won't move. Figurative and literally.
Environment
Comments
The problem with the buckshot vs bullet analogy is that buckshot is a short range option that is rather wasteful of the material used (assume lead shot - therefore polluting as well) and only effective against clearly vulnerable soft targets. The soft targets could be dealt with by other methods but not as cheaply in terms of effort.
Bullets, on the other hand, have the potential for greater accuracy and wider effectiveness (though more destructive for some soft targets perhaps) over longer distances.
Horses for courses.
In the early days of buckshot type firearms development we had the Blunderbuss. Apparently they were quite likely to blow up in people's faces.
Perhaps there is indeed a suitable analogy but not quite of the type envisaged here.
As for cars it may be a question of parochial perspective.
In the US big seems always to be better.
Not so in the EU where there are family size cars (maybe 'compacts in US terminology) that are able to achieve 60mpg (UK miles and gallons) with reasonable to excellent performance using diesel fuel and petrol is not far behind.
An overarching desire to attempt to build in totally risk free safety aspects has resulted in larger and heavier vehicles over the past 20 or so years. Prior to that the trend was towards safety but with the other eye on lighter and more fuel efficient and lower demand for materials.
But then trucks (rigid and semi) were allowed to get larger and the zero safety risk culture came in to make all vehicles bigger, heavier (and look the same). Without that I would imaging we could easily have seen high performing vehicles offering 60 to 70 mpg and 'economy' models at about 100mpg by this time.
Such is progress.
However, don't confuse economic necessity with sex.
Posted by: Grant | July 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Grant said: However, don't confuse economic necessity with sex.
Actually, when I read Sheril's comment that, "compact and fuel efficient is sexy." It made me think of how sexual selection would come into play. After all, our perception of sexiness comes from our perception of what attributes make one a suitable mate, right? And if driving a big, but safe, gas-guzzler was sexy when it was economical before, then it can also be that driving a compact and fuel efficient car could be sexy now.
;)
Posted by: Curt | July 16, 2008 11:19 AM
The problem, at it's most basic form, is where to get energy. Biofuels are basically solar power concentrators, so a longer term solution is obviously to cut out the middle man and just convert sunlight to electricity for electric cars. The problem, again, is that there are really only two sources of abundant energy on earth: the Sun, and the hydrogen and uranium on earth, which can release energy in nuclear reactions. So, we're left with solar farms, either on Earth on in space, or some form of atomic power which, to be truly abundant, would need to be in the form of fusion.
I do think biofuel has it's place in a sustainable world but I think a far more efficient solution is to replace gas-powered cars to plug-in hybrids, and then worry about the many and varied forms of generating renewable power, to which the "buckshot" strategy may be more appropriate. We are already straining the Earth with our current agricultural practices, slapping biofuel crops on top of that could easily break this camel's back.
Posted by: Santiago | July 16, 2008 1:17 PM
Al-Dardari, who you cite in support of this also says in that same interview, "The question of biological energy is simply a crime against humanity."
Is cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass much of a net win even with a "buckshot" approach? I'm doubtful. The reason to move to sources like switchgrass for biofuels is to avoid competing with food crops since, the claim goes, switchgrass can be grown on marginal land. Yet even this means looking at every part of our environment as something to be manipulated for short-term economic ends. What of biodiversity? Do we need another monocrop converting more large swaths of land into one single purpose?
Posted by: Trinifar | July 16, 2008 2:02 PM
"In other words, farmers should not need to replace food with fuel on prime land."
I don't buy that. Participants in the economy can, and should, do what's best for them. If Farmer A rips out all his/her corn and plants switchgrass instead, and then makes twice as much money, Farmer B WILL notice, and follow suit.
This is where the entire biofuel experiment went wrong. It really has a "Great Leap Forward" feel to it, and now poorer nations are paying the price (literally). Biofuels are the major contributor to rising food prices.
Economics dictates that suppliers will follow the money. If they can make more money growing switchgrass, they will. This can only lead to one thing: Less land available for food crops, which will restrict the supply of food, which will cause (or contribute to) price increases.
If we're causing the price of tortillas in Central America to quadruple, we probably need to re-assess our needs. Food before transportation; that's my motto.
Let's learn from Mao's mistakes, and not create our own Great Leap Forward.
Posted by: MikeM | July 16, 2008 2:24 PM
you state that
and provide a link with an interview with the Deputy Prime Minister of Syria who is a respected economist - but in the article he also seems to have an ideological issue with the US and it's financial system. I could provide you as many links as you want with respected economists who say that speculation has a very minor role in the recent commodity price increases (and vice versa). I just don't believe that anybody knows for certain what the cause is. For you to make this "likely" statement seems like quite a leap on a blog written and managed by scientists. You also make a statement at the end about peak oil being here - could it not be possible that this is the primary reason for recent commodity price increases?I'm also very sceptical of all the statements about cellulose biofuels not competing with food. As farmers are allowed to grow what they want, what would stop them from making the switch from food crops to fuel crops? The problem is not growing food to be used for fuel, it's taking land previously used to grow food and using it to grow fuel. isn't it? am I completely missing something here?
Posted by: Pete | July 16, 2008 2:33 PM
Santiago,
Don't forget geothermal and tidal as sources of energy that are not obtained from the sun. While they are not available everywhere, and not practical in some places, they are still quite abundant.
Posted by: Egaeus | July 16, 2008 10:05 PM
I have to agree with Pete that the brief mentions of the role of speculation and the notions of peak oil (and coal) seem rather facile. Simply providing a link and a generalization is hardly information that can be of use in addressing these complex issues. The implications of having reached peak oil itself are not simply motivations to conserve and seek alternative energy solutions, but imply consequences that ramify throughout the world economy, with the potential to bring industrial civilization to its knees. Indeed the ability to undertake buildouts in energy infrastructure may well (most certainly) be severely handicapped by the coming financial and hydrocarbon crisis. Scienceblogs is, so far, years behind the 8-ball in addressing what may arguably be the most significant, if unfortunate, event in human cultural evolution since the origins of agriculture. Let's see some serious and informed analysis.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | July 16, 2008 11:37 PM
"But really, have biofuels acted independently? Doubtful. While it's possible their production has contributed to the high costs we're seeing today, the principle culprit is likely investors' over speculation in other markets."
I'm sorry, but even looking at the two links you mention, I just don't see where you get "likely" from. You seem to have a bit of a thing for biofuels, but you haven't really made a good case to back up this assertion that they don't impact food production.
Posted by: Martin | July 17, 2008 8:10 AM
James Surowiecki wrote a short piece in The New Yorker a couple of weeks ago discussing how Congress loves to blame commodity speculators for high oil prices. Here's the relevant paragraph:
---
Futures contracts can be used by oil sellers (like OPEC ) or oil buyers (like the airlines) to hedge their risks by agreeing to sell or buy oil in the future at a set price. Speculators, by contrast, mostly use futures contracts to gamble on oil prices, and have no interest in buying or selling real barrels of oil. These gambles can be tremendously lucrative, but they don’t directly determine the real (or “spot”) price of oil. That’s set by the people who are buying and selling actual barrels of petroleum. Although speculators could directly distort oil prices by turning their futures contracts into oil and then taking it off the market to drive up prices, a look at oil inventories shows no sign that this is happening.
---
Since reading this, I've now noticed that most CEOs (notably, airline CEOs) have also jumped on this speculator bandwagon.
Full article here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/07/07/080707ta_talk_surowiecki
Posted by: Ginny | July 17, 2008 8:22 AM
I think that one of the key points here is that we really are entering a new world, where simple economics will force us to develop new sources of energy. The sooner we do that the better. My only hope is that we can implement alternative energy sources before we burn every last bit of fossil fuel, such as turning all our coal into gasoline as the Germans did in WWII. This means that we need to implement currently available alternative technologies right now and on a large scale. Biofuels may really help out in the short term. However, biofuels generated by crops should only be viewed as a means to buy us time before better technologies make it to market. Biofuels made from landfill material and from crop/pulp waste represent an ongoing source for energy. I too eagerly await a cheap electric car, but let's not discount the fact that biofuels may make a nice contribution. I also look forward to this blog exploring other potential areas of energy production beyond biofuels.
Posted by: tuatara | July 17, 2008 9:29 AM
Speculators make GREAT scapegoats. Who can love a speculator, anyway? We blame speculators in order to turn attention away from ourselves. It's not our fault, you see - despite knowing since the 1970's about the coming oil problems - it's just those evil speculators. Politicians ESPECIALLY love to blame speculators. Again, it gives their constituents someone else to blame (instead of blaming the declining value of the dollar, war in the Middle East and unrest in other oil-producing regions, rising industrialism in third world countries, foot-dragging on fuel economy in the U.S., OPEC, and the finite supply of a precious commodity).
Even airlines are blaming speculators these days, since they'd rather have their passengers blame someone else (and who of us will blame ourselves for any of this?). But we need to look at the evidence. We don't need scapegoats, we need rational thinking. Speculators are not the problem. WE are the problem. If we'd been smarter (especially in our choice of politicians), less apathetic, and oriented more to the long-term, we wouldn't be in this mess.
One more thing. Switchgrass can be grown on "prairie lands," of course, but do you think that land is not being used now? If it's not being irrigated for growing corn, then ranchers are raising cattle on it. That's also food. And if you're talking about putting even more land to "use," then that's going to be even more damaging to our ecosystems and stressed wildlife. There's no free lunch. If we're going to use sunlight - directly or indirectly - for our energy needs, how about all that empty space on our residential roofs? My roof isn't exactly a wildlife preserve, anyway.
Posted by: WCG | July 17, 2008 9:35 AM
I revisited this subject because the week's topic asked about biofuels and food production. The question is related to the World Bank report leaked to The Guardian stating that they have forced global food prices up by 75%. I didn't buy it, and the Wall Street Journal affirms that this estimate was over stated.
Over speculation may play a role, as Senator Joseph Lieberman was quoted in The New York Times:
Regardless of causes, we need to provide many forms of viable energy alternatives that will pave the way now for third and fourth generation ideas down the road toward a more sustainable global future.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 17, 2008 9:38 AM
In other words, farmers should not need to replace food "with fuel on prime land."
Do you really think this will happen? If prices for switchgrass turn out to be tempting, how do we guarantee farmers won't, er, switch to greener pastures?!
Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2008 9:22 AM
Sheril,
Why do you think that Senator Liberman should be regarded as an expert in commodity markets? There's no evidence for this, just a bunch of hot air and scapegoating and quoting a politician of all people just reinforces this point.
Fact is, all participants in the futures market are speculating to some extent or other. If a lot of people think that prices will go up and so start buying futures contracts ("speculating" that the price will rise), who is harmed? If the price goes up and the earlier buyers were wrong, then they lose a lot of money and the people that sold them the futures contracts make money.
For every speculator that's buying futures contracts, there is someone selling. Are they evil? When the banks collapse, people freak out and blame the people who sold bank stocks yet don't deal with the actual problems in the banks. When food prices go up, they blame the people who bought futures contracts yet don't deal with the fundamental issues. No matter which way price moves, someone profits and someone loses. It's ignorance or pandering to blame the market participants.
Posted by: Adrian | July 20, 2008 5:52 PM
If the price goes up and the earlier buyers were wrong, then they lose a lot of money and the people that sold them the futures contracts make money.
Oops, meant to say that if price goes _down_ and the earlier buyers were wrong...
I think at a minimum you should try to show that the prices are wrong, either too high or two low. Politicians complained about the short selling of Bear Sterns, WorldCom, and Enron but you know what, the short sellers were right. The people that were harmed were those who bought when the prices were too high and the remedy for that is more speculation and an even more efficient market. Overregulating these markets won't prevent collapses and it won't prevent oil prices from going up, it will just make the rise all the more traumatic when it inevitably happens.
Posted by: Adrian | July 20, 2008 6:38 PM
The fact is that the oil supply is tight. Any disruption or threat of disruption in supply sends prices upward. Yes, they may be down slightly at the moment, but the trend must necessarily be upward. Oil at $200 is not hard to imagine in the near future, and that may ultimately prove to be cheap. At $300, also not hard to envision, start thinking economic meltdown. If the grocery store is where you obtain your food, think again. Hoping for garbage pickup? Snow removal? School buses? Schools? Road repair? Grid repair? Access to health care? Access to your job? Job still there? Think again.
The problem with the environmental community and to a certain extent the scientific community, is that they see the energy crisis primarily in terms of, well, the environment--global warming primarily. Sheril seems now to have seen, not the error, but the real terror of a world where energy is less abundant, even scarce, at a time in which the thirst for energy is unabated. This is the world we have created, through no fault of our own. It's the way things happen, and probably always will. Energy is the currency of life, and we have tapped a bank account of virtually free energy which now is becoming overdrawn. Welcome to the downslope of Hubbert's Peak. Welcome to biological overshoot.
We applaud efforts at conservation and new technology that works beyond imagination. The reality can be seen on any routine plane ride. Look down. Parking lots full of cars and trucks running on refined petroleum, highways jammed, smoke from coal burning plants emerging on the horizon, long, long coal trains, ships in the river headed out to sea, planes plying the airways (at least for a year or two more), scoured mountain tops. The world runs on hydrocarbons and nothing is prepared to substitute for the enormous superstructure that industrial civilization has erected on the back of ancient sunlight. That's the real world, not the "maybe-plug-in-hybrid-solar-powered-green-cellulosic-sustainable-super-thingie" that I have yet to see fill a moderately sized parking lot.
At last count, there are, uh, a gazillion parking lots. Good luck everybody. As Kurt Vonnegut pessimistcally suggested: the game is lost. Or, as Marvin Harris stated, arguably more courageously, the logical choice to bad odds is to try harder, even if the outcome seems remote. Indeed.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | July 21, 2008 1:12 AM