National Biodiesel Board blasts EPA
http://www.midwestagnet.com/Gl...48627&nav=menu1585_4

Posted:www.biofuelsdigest.com

- In Washington, National Biodiesel Board public affairs head Manning Feraci said that the EISA Act required the EPA to conduct a lifecycle analysis of biofuels as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard's implementation, but said that "This does not require the EPA to rely on faulty data and unrealistic scenarios that punish the U.S. biodiesel industry for wholly unrelated land use decisions in South America."

Faraci's comments came as a flock of biofuels friends and foes descended on the EPA for a day of public hearings

quote:

The Illinois Corn Growers Association called the international land use effects methodology "deeply flawed"

Yup, unlike producing Ethanol from corn...


-Ken

Is anyone here following cellulosic ethanol? Weren't they going to harvest switchgrass or something like that?

How would you counter this argument that keeps coming up?



The Seattle Times

Editorials / Opinion

http://community.seattletimes....offset=0#post_552943

Originally published Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 4:03 PM
By Duff Badgley
Guest columnist

Washington should scrap biofuels mandate

Washington state should rescind its mandate that state vehicles use 20 percent biodiesel, argues guest columnist Duff Badgley. The law actually causes more harmful greenhouse gases because of conversion of natural lands to grow biofuel crops.



THE city of Seattle and King County have abandoned their crop-based biofuels programs. So must Washington state.

The state must rescind its myriad laws requiring public and private use of biofuels. These laws force use of crop-based biofuels — the only biofuels available for mass consumption. Hoping and waiting for so-called "second generation" biofuels is denying the global devastation biofuels are wreaking now.

Overwhelming peer-reviewed, published science shows crop-based biofuels do two things:

• Cause hunger and starvation, affecting hundreds of millions of humans. This why the United Nations has called these biofuels a "crime against humanity."

• Cause rain forest destruction, releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and greatly worsening our climate crisis.

Whether the crop used for biofuel feedstock is grown in Washington or Canada or Malaysia doesn't matter. The devastation caused is equivalent. The idea of creating a homegrown Washington state biofuels industry is fatally flawed.

"If you use farmland in North America to grow biofuels, you're forcing a farmer somewhere else to clear-cut forest to grow food crops. You've effectively cut down a rain forest," wrote David Tilman in the February 2008 issue of Science. He's the lead author of the study, "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt."

"We looked at all of the current biofuels that are being made around the world and asked if they were causing native ecosystems to be turned into land that would be used to grow the crop. Essentially, all of them are doing that."

The study found the conversion of natural lands to produce food-crop-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States releases 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse-gas reductions these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.

Tilman's study and many others establish land-use change as the mechanism by which crop-based biofuels greatly worsen climate change. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, King County, the city of Seattle and climate scientists worldwide agree crop-based biofuels force adverse land-use change.

Fleet vehicles at the University of Washington show how current Washington biofuels laws are so harmful and must be rescinded.

Current state law — RCW 43.19.642 — requires state agencies to use 20 percent biodiesel to operate their diesel-powered vessels, vehicles and construction equipment.

This state law is widely ignored or minimally complied with. Washington State Ferries have received a two-year exemption from it. Complying would have cost $8 million extra.

But the University of Washington is already fully complying. It has been forced to burn crop-based biodiesel because that is the only biofuel available. Its diesel fleet vehicles are currently burning B-20, a 20-percent blend of American soy biodiesel made by Cargill. Cargill is the world's largest private corporation, with vast holdings in the rain forests of Southeast Asia and Brazil. It is also protested around the world for its environmental practices.

Last year, One Earth Climate Action group protested UW's use of canola biodiesel made by Imperium. UW was then burning fuel that was 2-percent biodiesel and planning to go to 5 percent. Our protest started direct communications with UW President Mark Emmert and Josh Kavanaugh, director of fleet services.

Kavanaugh agreed to delay the increase because of his concern that biofuels worsened climate change. But this year, state law forced Kavanaugh to increase the amount of crop-based biodiesel his fleet burns by tenfold, to 20-percent biodiesel. State law increased the climate damage from biodiesel used by UW fleet vehicles by a factor of 10.

The governments of the Northwest's biggest city and its most populous county have quit crop-based biofuels. The state of Washington needs to do the same. It needs to scrap its biofuels mandates now.
Duff Badgley was the 2008 gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party. He is the founder of One Earth Climate Action Group.

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

quote:

Originally posted by clean and green:
Is anyone here following cellulosic ethanol? Weren't they going to harvest switchgrass or something like that?

Yes I went to the advanced biofuels workshop in Denver.. It was all about the cellusoic ethanol.. Fantastic stuff. So much research going into genetic engineering and what not to create the perfect little bugs to make this happen. Also looking at using hardwood chips, municiple waste, algae biomass (not oil) etc. From the biomass yyou get products such as iso octane isopropanol isobutanol, methanol, ethanol to name a few.. all valued products..the waste organic material going to animal feed.
Really interesting stuff going on out there..some smart people

That article by Seattle times is just bull ****. Another fantastic example of scare tactic American press..

-Biofuel crops such as camelina can be grown on saline soils which normal food crops cannot. This can actually improve soil conditions.

- "cause hunger and starvation".. no poor distribution causes this. If growing up (or still) you have ever worked at a grocery store you will see first hand how much food gets thrown out. Not to mention food that goes bad in warehouses or transit. We have sufficient food on this earth to feed us all. Just some are more greedy than others. Not to mention war torn countries that struggle to even have an economy due to the instability. I dont see how these problems relate to a 'lack of food', rather other issues preventing it getting to these places.

-growing biofuel crops is carbon neutrol. CO2 used for photosynthesis is then released again when its burnt.

-By having a biofuels market farmers then have another place they can sell there crop for insurance. What if the canola market is saturated one year.. what if a farmer loses his crop at 80% completion due to drought, storms. Now instead of ploughing this into the field or incinerating he now has a market for it.

I would love to see what alternative solutions for liquid fuels these so called critics have to offer. Sure biodiesel/ethanol has related issues. What doesn't. Perhaps if they can figure out contained fusion energy systems we would reach the holy grail.. until then this is the only alternative liquid fuel we have which can act as 'drop in' fuels for the combustion engines we have TODAY, and tomorrow.

quote:

Yup, unlike producing Ethanol from corn...

Making ethanol does not decrease the food value of the corn it's made from. The result of fermentation is dry distillers grain. Most corn grown in the US is fed to cattle, and most dry distillers grain is also fed to cattle (some is also fed to poultry and hogs). There's no reduction in food produced from ethanol production, but there is a substantial increase in farmer's (i.e. Cargil and ADM) profits when they can find more markets for their crops.

Much the same story is true for soy - it is primarily grown for high protein meal, which finds its way into human and animal feed. The oil needs to be removed to make the high protein meal more valuable, but there is a limit to the amount of soy-oil salad dressing and soy-oil based house paint that can be sold. Soy-based biodiesel was a god-send to the soy MEAL industry. Without a market for the oil it would have become a waste product, driving up the price of the meal. No-one is growing soy just for fuel - it can't pay. Similarly, no-one is growing ANY oilseed crop in the US just for fuel - the meal always needs to have a market or the economics don't work.

The ideal fuel source would be a food crop that includes some "waste" portion that can be used as fuel. Soy is close. So is corn. Most other ethanol sugar and starch feedstocks are also pretty close. The biggest problem with trying to grow our fuel is the enormous amount it would take to replace present and future consumption. THAT's the unsustainable part. If we want to grow fuel crops, as our only fuel source, then we will be limited to some fraction of the fuel we're used to. If we want to grow all of our fuel, without damaging the ecosystem, then we will be limited to some fraction of the fuel we're used to. If fuel becomes expensive, then personal transportation will be limited to some fraction of the population who can afford it.

One approach that has a chance of providing a large portion of our fuel needs is to use whatever portion of EVERY crop can be used for fuel. To make that a market reality would require higher fuel prices as an incentive. Waste potatos are currently left to rot, yet could make ethanol. Waste apples, same thing. All waste fruit, same thing. Anything with starch or sugar is easy to turn into ethanol. Anything with oil in it is easy to turn into biodiesel. Cellulose can be turned into (expensive) fuel using (expensive) enzymes. Almost any hydrocarbon can be pyrolized into feedstock for syn-fuels, but they're going to be more expensive, partly due to the cost of gathering up all that material. It's so tempting to simply buy it from countries that don't care about the ecosystem, and will tend to be cheaper that way. Economics drives all of the decisions. Policy and politics are the only ways to combat those economics.

Cheers,
JohnO

Biofuel production, usage, and government mandates shouldn't only be considered for the good old environmental reasons. There is another small issue out there that everyone slamming or questioning biofuel production tends to quickly forget, we are running out of easily accessible crude oil in the world.

The worlds the largest populated countries are only recently starting to catch up with the U.S.in fuel usage. Add to this the fact that much of the worlds crude oil is located in countries that don't always play well with others, and you can now set aside all the environmental reasons for and against biofuels. It's simply irresponsible not to take some kind of action and continue blindly down the same road believing that we will never run out of crude oil to produce our fuel. But no one is in a rush to move away from the 100 year old internal combustion engine.

I'm not for destroying huge chucks of forest to increase crop land for biofuels production, just realistic when it comes to the big picture. There is plenty of good research going on with cellulose and biomass techniques for Ethanol, but until we can convince farmers to grow something besides corn and soybeans we are stuck on this present path.

Incentives should be focused at producing high yielding and multipurpose fuel crops on existing farm land, along with removing tariffs on other imported feedstocks. Most farmers I know would happily grow crops such as sawgrass, sugar cane, or higher yielding oil seed crops if it were profitable. Unfortanutly they currently are not, but corn and soybeans are.

Electric cars, trains and mass transit are great solutions, but no one is lining up to trade in their SUV. Until the crude tap gets cut off that is.

So don't hate the players, we gotta change the game.

-Ken

The two most common biofuel feedstocks, corn and soybeans, are grown as animal feed for the industrial meat business producing pork, poultry and beef. Additional land is being cleared to produce more animal feed for the industrial meat business. Biofuel is a potential byproduct from this process. Processing these feedstocks to make biofuels, makes the byproduct 'seed cake' and 'spent mash' more digestible as animal feed. Thus the animals get more nutrition from the 'byproduct' than the original feedstock, and less is expelled as waste. We can get food and fuel from the same crop.

Granted that the feedstock grains and legumes could be exported to feed the starving millions instead of being used to feed meat animals. However that practice has been 'acceptable' for decades, is not likely to change, and is totally external to the biofuels issue.

The world's poor are not starving because of biofuels but rather due to a variety of causes including local corruption which 're-directs' food aid. Most importantly is the simple fact that 50% of the world's growing population no longer lives in rural areas where they fed themselves, but now live in sprawling mega slums where food has to be shipped in at ever increasing transportation costs due to rising petroleum prices.

Food vs Fuel?

Comes up a lot.
The first thing on the food side is that we need to start getting our global population growth in check.

http://www.overpopulation.org/Africa.html

quote:

Uganda
The population growth rate is 4%. It's fertility rate is 7.1 children per woman. The finance minister recommended four children per family. Large families and many dependents are often cited by local people as significant obstacles to rising out of poverty.

Note, that is an AVERAGE of 7 children per woman... some must have more.

And, while pointing fingers, the USA has one of the highest population growth rates among industrialized nations with a fertility rate (births per woman) of 2.10.


Map Showing Global Fertility Rates

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=31
Global Fertility Rates:
1 Mali 7.34
2 Niger 7.29
3 Uganda 6.81
4 Somalia 6.6
5 Afghanistan 6.58
6 Yemen 6.41
7 Burundi 6.4
8 Burkina Faso 6.34
9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.28
10 Angola 6.2
...
125 United States 2.1
...
157 China 1.77
...
203 Spain 1.3
204 Italy 1.3
...
220 Hong Kong 1

Hopefully you aren't arguing that Africa is going to run out of food if we start using more biofuels. And, are also worried about the impact of global warming on the African agriculture.

Fix the problems that need to be fixed. And, it isn't sending more Catholics to Africa to wipe out local religious culture and spew babble about the sacrilege of using contraception.

Slash and Burn Agriculture

Certainly an issue to watch out for.

Of course, the USA already did that a century ago, and Europe did it several centuries prior to that, so perhaps we shouldn't be the ones pointing fingers.

However, keep in mind that any early excess in carbon dioxide production is a temporary "startup cost". Followed by a sustainable cycle.

Petroleum usage, of course, just continues to spiral upward with it's carbon release.

quote:

The first thing on the food side is that we need to start getting our global population growth in check.

exactly... stop sending 'aid' into the overpopulated areas; let them find a sustainable balance with their environment.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
exactly... stop sending 'aid' into the overpopulated areas; let them find a sustainable balance with their environment.

Aid that should be sent is internal agriculture and infrastructure help.
Or, help making factories to make their own agriculture and infrastructure.
& Education including macro-population-control.

This goes far beyond sending factories so they can make OUR clothing.

Perhaps helping average out food supplies for extraordinary years (help with 100 year drought, extreme floods, etc), but not every year.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

The first thing on the food side is that we need to start getting our global population growth in check.

exactly... stop sending 'aid' into the overpopulated areas; let them find a sustainable balance with their environment.

No doubt that if you stopped sending aid into Overpopulated areas AIDS and Famine would reduce population numbers to a sustainable level. I could see some people finding that solution to the overpopulation problem unacceptable.
Sometimes you just have to make the "Tough" decisions. Especially when these decisions do not adversely affect you or your family.

quote:

No doubt that if you stopped sending aid into Overpopulated areas AIDS and Famine would reduce population numbers to a sustainable level. I could see some people finding that solution to the overpopulation problem unacceptable.

Then they can go to Africa and work on the ground to make it 'acceptable' in their mind. Give the people appropriate technology to feed themselves and the population will find a healthy balance.

Entice them into mega slums where they have to work in sweat-shop factories to make our cheap toys, and now they can't feed themselves and they become susceptible to plagues.
Almost 50% of the world's population is in mega slums within a few meters of sea level. Slowly rising sea level will solve a lot of the problems since it will be too slow to do anything about it.

Pol Pot tried something like you seem to be suggesting in Cambodia in the 70's. It was not a huge success.

Almost 35% of the worlds population live in slums and not nearly all of them are within a few meters of sea level and in danger rising sea levels.

quote:

Pol Pot tried something like you seem to be suggesting in Cambodia in the 70's. It was not a huge success.

I suggested nothing of the sort, so cut the cr@p asswhole, stick to what YOU know, don't try to put words in other's mouths, it's impolite.

...and WTF does it have to do with biodiesel?

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

Pol Pot tried something like you seem to be suggesting in Cambodia in the 70's. It was not a huge success.

I suggested nothing of the sort, so cut the cr@p asswhole, stick to what YOU know,...

Why should I be the only one in this exchange to stick to what he knows?

Sorry,

I led the discussion into a minor digression.

However, the entire food vs fuel discussion, and for that matter, carbon dioxide buildup and global climate change discussion is based on the tenuous situation we currently have to feed the global population, and provide for global energy needs.

When fed, bacteria and yeasts multiply, then they die off once they have exhausted their food supply.

I've always imagined that the average human was smarter than the average bacterium.

What will happen 20 years from now if the global population doubles? Will we return to the food vs fuel discussion?

Another question.

Why should there even be a discussion of importing "rain forest" oil to the USA?

Shouldn't we be able to grow our own fuel crops right here in the USA?

quote:

Originally posted by keelec:
I've always imagined that the average human was smarter than the average bacterium.

Smarter yes.. But at the end of the day we're just another organism that will live and die as millions of other species once have on the Earth. Our time in the history of planet Earth, humans will end up being a tiny blip in the timeline of things. Like any other organism we need food, energy source. We consume resources until there is none left and die off. Look at bacteria in a petri dish, when the food source is high (in our case lots of oil) they breed exponentially, things get scarces they start slowing down. Look at the human population boom after 1850 approximately the time oil started gaining traction. Dont know what this has to do with the article.. but keelec got me thinkin...i guess food vs fuel taken from a 3rd party view of us as just another organism on the planet that consumes, reproduces our genetic code then dies off..