Reducing Biofuel Conflict

Something that usually pops into my head whenever I hear people expressing concern on the issue of food supplies being put at risk by biofuel production is that that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Yes, one of the best ways to get high yields of biofuels from a process is to use the part of the plant that actually produces food (such as using corn kernels in fermentation for ethanol). And sure, there is a risk of land that would have been used for food being used to grow biofuel crops. But this issue isn't so much a matter of one or the other as such arguments seem to believe. Biofuels can be produced from a wide variety of sources, which often includes by-products of food production, meaning that both food and fuel can be produced from a single harvest instead of having to be selective about which one should be given precedence.

A good example of how biofuels and food can be produced at the same time, instead of competitively, is corn. While the kernels are almost ubiquitous in our diet now, running from direct ingestion of corn to its use as feed for meat animals, a large portion of the corn plant doesn't get eaten- or used for other applications, for that matter. The stalk, the leaves, the corn silk, and the cob that the kernels are attached to are not able to be digested by the human system, or various other biological systems, due to the cellulose content (which, for that matter, the kernels have a fair amount as well). Cellulose, commonly known as plant fiber, is what makes up a majority of the mass of plants, and has recently been subject to R&D to make it economically viable for a biofuel feedstock. The reason it was not already used as such (no, not lack of foresight) was the fact that cellulose is difficult to break down in general. It is only with recent developments in enzymatic chemistry that such production is able to begin on a large scale- in fact, this article from a few days ago is about the first biocrude startup to successfully begin large scale production "at scale, at parity", and apparently to the great surprise of skeptics since it was done on time, at scale, and within budget. This plant seems to specialize in wood biomass, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could process other sources of cellulose as well.

Another aspect of non-conflict is the fact that many plants have been found that can be used for biofuel production that can be planted on marginal or non-arable land. This type of terrain includes nutrient-poor and dry soils, as well as muddy grounds that are difficult to plant and cultivate, and areas with a troublesome hardpan layer. Some plants are even capable of changing the conditions of the land to make it easier for other plants to grow, such as the wild radish, which is able to break up hardpan layers beneath the topsoil. “The crop matures in 80 days from planting, is cold-tolerant and can be grown without interfering with normal crop rotations... It’s not an earth-shattering oilseed crop. It produces no meal but can be viewed as an organic fertilizer.” It is also able to provide forage for wild animals that might otherwise consume more important crops. This combination of passive utilitarian aspects and an extra use as an oil crop makes it seem very useful and important to my perspective. There is also the plant known as "jatropha, a tropical plant that is resistant to drought and pests and produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil. 'It can’t take a bad freeze and needs dry roots,' Breitenbeck said. 'But it produces seed in about two years.'" This plant seems to me like something that could be used to try and reverse desertification. While I have no doubt that it would be a slow process, if it could at least halt the advance of the process, it could prove invaluable to the long term survival of certain environments that are at risk of becoming arid wastelands. And if it can help with the fuel problem in the process, than it seems capable of killing two birds with one stone.

I was mentioning in my last post a company called Bluefire, which takes waste streams from dumps and is able to produce fuel sources from them, such as methane given off by decomposition of organic waste in dumps and sources of cellulose that can be converted to biofuels. But there are more ways that waste products can be used. I already mentioned the use of corn stover (the usually unused parts) for cellulose, but there are other waste streams that can be used. For example, soy oil was originally a byproduct of making meal from the soybeans, but with the advent of biofuels, "as demand changed, the oil became the primary product and meal became secondary." The oil could be used to make biodiesel with an esterification of lipids, which are present in many plants and animals. While may seem rather morbid, cast off quantities of fats from animal sources are viable sources of stock for the production of biodiesel.

I'm sure that there are other ways that various waste streams could be used as well. But ultimately, I guess the lesson that should be taken from this is one that was a way of life in the past. The native tribes of North America all followed this practice, and we should probably try to find a way to incorporate it into our lives again, from individuals to companies (practically, of course). That is the practice of using all parts of something that has to be killed to provide for our needs. While I am sure that this becomes harder to do as it gets applied at a larger scale, if we can find a way to make it a point during production, it would probably help solve a variety of our problems, besides just alleviating streams of waste.

Can Coal Be Clean?

Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.

Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.

While there wouldn't be a need to import most of the materials for Fischer-Tropsch fuels, and they can arguably be made cleaner than many current petrol based fuels, I would be remiss to overlook the aspect of how coal is obtained (though the making of such fuels from biomass would be a nice way to take care of garbage disposal at the same time). One of the greatest impacts coal has on the environment, while it has a more localized effect than the spreading of emissions, can be the mining of the coal from the ground. Whether it's shaft mining, strip mining, or the charmingly named "mountain top removal," there is usually some sort of impact on the surrounding area. Shaft mining, while there seems to be a relatively minimal effect on the ecosystem, can be dangerous work. And while one may think that the shaft is usually left behind after the work, most modern projects fill in the shaft after they leave to prevent some sort of collapse on the surface when the tunnel supports give. Strip mining leaves a massive gouge in the earth, which nature will be slow to reclaim due to the solid rock surfaces left behind with development, and often the rock that they can't use just gets dumped into nearby areas, managing to kill off another area, or perhaps blocking a source of water for a region and spreading the devastation further indirectly. Perhaps the one way this could be made productive is if someone found a way to make a city in the walls, kind of like the ancient city of Mesa Verde. But then, mountain top removal is just destructive, and unfortunately cheap enough that companies will use it anyway. So, even if we found a way to make synthetic fuels with coal feedstock, there would be the issue of how we would obtain it without causing more direct destruction than the insidious elements from the burning of fossil fuels could hope to match. In fact, it may compound the issue, as there would be less living plant biomass to take up the CO2 being produced.

Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.

Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041

Where to begin...

Since this is my first post, I figured that a subject directly relating to the class may be an appropriate start. Why is it that oil has become such an integral part of political proceedings? I suppose I'd be inclined to say that it did during the course of WWII, when it's strategic importance was fully tested. It was a source of fuel that could drive multi-ton vehicles in just about any situation, even in colder climates where other fuel sources might have become too viscous to flow through the engine. It was easy to transport, and as long as certain basic safety measures were in place, it was relatively safe and stable. I am inclined to believe one of the major points here is the matter of how much horsepower could be produced with a good engine. Being able to keep aircraft aloft, even with heavy loads, became a major selling point for the fuel source during the cold war era, when there were 24-7 flights of bombers prepared to divert their holding pattern to hit the heart of the Soviet Union. But since then, a few alternative sources of transportable energy have been researched and produced, including better electric motors and batteries, biofuels, and to a lesser extent, hydrogen based power. While they each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks, there has not been enough research into most of them to improve their viability and effectiveness. Is this due to oil's dominance, in minds and established infrastructure, or perhaps there are individuals who try to halt development to maintain oil's dominance? I suppose it will only be a question that can be properly answered in hindsight, when all the factors can be analyzed together. In the meantime, oil still holds the primary role as the worlds energy source, even as it is known to be running out.

A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.

To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.

 So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
 Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.