Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Biofuels have definitely diminishing in political popularity. Not long ago, it seemed that it was all any politician could do to talk about biofuels. While Barak Obama did support "next generation of biofuels" in his speech at his nominating convention, John McCain avoided the term all together. He did, however, declare that both wind and solar were critical technologies worthy of further development. (Not to mention the drill, drill, drill for more oil! part). Republicans such as our 43rd president are (or were) fond of mentioning biofuels as potential renewable fuels, specifically and appropriately, lignocellulosic biofuels. McCain's omission is no accident. Current reticence towards reference of the subject is likely the product of a report citing the corn kernel and sugarcane based ethanol industry as a cause for increased food prices and discussion of a lack of sustainability, net energy loss, and increased greenhouse gases.
To dismiss plant derived biofuels at this point would be myopic. Sugarcane and corn derived biofuels are nothing more than a gap filler before more sustainable biofuels come online. It seems impossible to get past the opinions of the negatives of existing platforms, which are temporary. It is safe to say the same for solar and wind power. There are drawbacks or negatives, but they are not technology killing issues. We need to stay the course and invest resources in research, technology, and their development.
But to address the recent swing in opinion, would this answer the call of a need for public relations and genuine assurances, a CERTIFIED SUSTAINABLE BIOFUEL label? Most of the food we buy in the US is labeled with information regarding content and most items in general come with a label declaring 'made in' location. The National Organic Program issues production standards for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping of items to be labeled CERTIFIED ORGANIC. Why not create similar and necessary standards for biofuel production? Important factors include (1) energy balance, (2) greenhouse gas emissions, and (3) impact on food supply and land-use. I suggest these type of standards be made mandatory and look something like this.
Among several developing frameworks, I am intrigued by this list described in a recent issue of Biomass and Bioenergy,
1. The greenhouse gas balance of the production chain and application of the biomass must be positive.
2. Biomass production must not be at the expense of important carbon sinks in the vegetation and the soil.
3. The production of biomass energy must not endanger the food supply and local biomass applications (energy supply, medicines, building materials).
4. Biomass production must not affect protected or vulnerable biodiversity and will, where possible, have to strengthen biodiversity.
5. In the production and processing of biomass, the soil, and soil quality must be retained or even improved.
6. In the production and processing of biomass ground and surface water must not be depleted and the water quality must be maintained or improved.
7. In the production and processing of biomass the air quality must be maintained or improved.
8. The production of biomass must contribute towards local prosperity.
9. The production of biomass must contribute towards the social well being of the employees and the local population.
Comments
Right but didn't the 'certified organic' stuff instantly turn into the usual of big business trying to water down the requirements so that they could jump in with half-a-loaf organic procedures and blow the real organic producers out of the market? certification comes with a price...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | September 7, 2008 1:01 AM
Good plan, but I'd be happier if the greenhouse gas balance of a biofuel is negative, not positive. Brazillian ethanol plants that burn plant material to provide energy might come the closest to this as 2-3% of the carbon in the material might be sequested as ash.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | September 7, 2008 7:40 PM
Not gonna happen. I don't think we can even assess/answer half of those criteria/questions in a reliable and standard way.
Posted by: travc | September 8, 2008 7:19 AM
Nice, Sam... certainly we need to elevate higher ecological "octane" biofuels from the damaging ones (rainforest biodiesel). Sustainable biofuels will depend on the relative environmental conditions through the growing and processing with full lifecycle accounting. For example biofuels from degraded land being restored to prairie, sequestering carbon (building soil), holding erosion, recharging ground water, providing habitat, and producing biomass from biodiversity. Low Input High Diversity biofuel (Tilman et al, Science 2006) should get high marks on a sustainability scale that would continue to yield for decades. Although as the soil improves, the relative score might go down. Relative water return and specific habitat may also change. Sustainable fisheries and forests also need to use local best practices and some could be rated higher (even restorative) than others. David Mackey from whole foods discusses levels of sustainable foods in this discussion with Michael Pollen.
Finally consider that biofuels are often just one of the outputs from photosynthesis down the ecological and industrial entropy chain. Biomimicry teaches us that biomass can do a lot of work before finally resting as a fuel made from pulp. Why not deliver soil improvements, forage, timber, habitat, recreation space, water holding capacity, climate control, structural material, and/or beautiful greenspace, before fermenting and processing the left over to fuel (methane, ethanol, or biodiesel) and burnable biomass. The ash is then returned as fertility to the farm. As our great grandparents did on farmsteads in the USA (or our parents did just a couple decades ago in China), get the most work out of that carbon before releasing it back as CO2, don’t burn it before you have at least fed it to animals or eaten something of it. Low entropy natural systems stretch out that electron pair from photosynthesis a long way and that should be our guide as we retool for a sustainable planet. This biological system will compete with distributed wind, solar, and tidal electric systems driving plug in hybrids cars and regenerative fast electric trains. The question is the right balance of a biological and electric system through time and space. We are lucky to have such biodiversity in bioenergy and biofuels, and it is our responsibility to maintain it at all levels and for future generations.
Justin Borevitz
Posted by: Justin Borevitz | September 8, 2008 8:30 AM