Researchers: Biofuels Can Be Beneficial
A group of researchers, many from Princeton University, say that biofuels can solve many of the problems related to non-renewable fossil fuels… without creating more problems of their own.
This article from Princeton says the key is making the green fuels from sustainable sources:
“The world needs to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but recent research findings have thrown the emerging biofuels industry into a quandary,” said David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, a noted ecologist and lead author of the paper. “We met to seek solutions. We found that the next generation of biofuels can be highly beneficial if produced properly.”
The paper coincides with climate change policy debates in the U.S. Congress and tackles land use issues that have generated much controversy in recent years. Specifically, it addresses concerns that clearing land to grow biofuel crops or to grow food crops displaced by biofuel crops can release more greenhouse gases than petroleum use. Titled “Beneficial Biofuels — The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma,” the paper will appear in the July 17 issue of the journal Science.
Robert Socolow, a Princeton professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, said that through careful scientific reasoning the authors of the paper discovered accounting rules to determine which strategies for generating biofuels were promising and which were not.
“It is essential that legislation take the best science into account, even when that requires acknowledging and undoing earlier mistakes,” Socolow said. “Future carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will tell us when we’re kidding ourselves about what actually works. For carbon management, the atmosphere is the ultimate accountant.”
The article goes on to say that to balance biofuel production and food issues, biodiesel and ethanol makers need to focus on five major sources of renewable biomass, including perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use, crop residues, sustainably harvested wood and forest residues, double crops and mixed cropping systems, and municipal and industrial wastes. These sources could meet a significant amount of the U.S. demand for transportation fuels.
2 Comments »
Aureon Kwolek
CRITIQUE of: “Beneficial Biofuels — The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma” (Tilman 2009)
David Tilman says that society “cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.” He is referring to Corn Ethanol. Tilman is Not speaking for everyone. In fact, he’s only speaking for a small minority – a handful of academia in ivory towers. What we don’t need is, mis-informed people in ivory towers dictating to farmers and biofuel producers what decisions they’re going to make in the field.
Tilman and his group advocate over-regulation of our biofuels industry. He and his associates are still pushing indirect land use change theory, even though it can’t be scientifically proven. In fact, indirect land use change theory is based on false assumptions and inaccurate information.
Corn ethanol is NOT “done wrong”. It is just learning how to walk – evolving almost faster than you can conduct a study on it.
The next “Big Bang for the Buck” is ALGAE Integrated into Corn Ethanol. Algae is Not on David Tilman’s recommended list of biofuel feedstocks. Imagine that. That ought to tell you something. Algae Integrated with Corn Ethanol will further invalidate Tilman’s assumptions about the industry. Algae-Corn-Ethanol is a blockbuster that will also piss on indirect land use change theory.
Here are 3 possible ways for corn ethanol to evolve:
(1) Implement the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System, using manure, methane digesters, and CHP production power.
(2) Integrate Algae and-or Duckweed into the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System.
(3) Develop a sugary stalk for feed corn without affecting grain production.
This may give us a new generation of corn ethanol with a 5 to 10 fold return, a whole new spectrum of co-products, and the environmental footprint that is totally acceptable.
altprofits
Non-food bio-feedstocks are considered as feedstock for second generation biodiesel. Either by using standard transesterification method, or by using technologies such as biomass to liquid (BTL), such feedstock could be converted to biodiesel.
Advantages of Second Generation Biofuels:
Eliminates competition for food and feed
More efficient and more environmentally friendly
Less farmland is required
Mixture of crops can be used
Useful by-products are produced which can be used in other chemical processes or burned for heat and power.
Disadvantages of Second Generation Biofuels:
Same downfall as the first generation fuels but without as great of an eco imprint.
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment