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.

Shocking Alternatives

Electrical power generation is something that is now considered a necessity for modern life, and it's no small wonder. Most of our modern convenience, and some things that have become necessary, rely on electricity to function at all. Your phone, the television, and hospital systems all require electrical current to make them function. But how is most of that electricity generated? And how much does it contribute to environmental impact, considering that many view it as a way to reduce pollution as an alternative to personal use of fossil fuels?

Let's take it from the top: most power plants rely on steam generation to power the turbines that turn the generator. Hydroelectric is an exception that still relies on water turning a turbine, only with pressure from sheer volume instead of heated water. Most power plants need to heat water to the point that it becomes high pressure steam, capable of turning a turbine fast enough to generate electricity that can be sent out to the grid. Nuclear plants do this with nuclear fission chain reactions, which create a lot of dangerous radioactive waste that is currently unusable for power generation, since there isn't a known way to use radioactive decay as an energy source. There are actually two types of solar power plants, one that heats water by focusing solar energy, and another that is independent of water in the cycle due to use of photovoltaic materials.

The most common type of power plant is the thermal plant, which burns fuel to boil water. Most of these rely on fossil fuels to act as the combustible material, though alternatives are being made that are capable of using biofuels and biomass to provide the heat energy. One alternative in particular that has me excited for this idea is the idea that waste streams could be used to supply the fuel for such plants. If we can use waste to produce energy, it would solve more problems than just the meeting of fuel demands, since the waste is no longer being just dumped in a landfill. And since this line isn't limited to a particular type of fuel, it would be possible to use, say, the stalks of corn that could be used for food instead of the corn kernels themselves. There is already at least one company, Bluefire Ethanol, that has started work on this type of energy stream. They are even able to harvest methane from the decomposing elements in the waste to increase their energy capacity, while simultaneously decreasing the amount that gets released into the atmosphere. There are so many reasons to do this, and it seems so logically sensible, that I am actually rather surprised that there aren't already more such plants, since burning garbage has also been a traditional means of getting rid of it. There are also companies that take in bio-waste from farms, like manure, to burn for energy production, providing another way to take advantage of waste that can accumulate quickly to get something productive from it.

Another type of water-based energy production is geothermal energy, which uses water from underground that has been heated by the fact that it is deeper and under more pressure than at the surface. Due to the pressure conditions, water can often be found at temperatures much higher than the boiling temperature of water at sea level, meaning that no heating is required to generate the steam to turn the turbines. There seem to be a few types of this type of energy production, and from the looks of it, plants that use water that has already been heated inject the water back into the well it was taken from to make the process sustainable, instead of having an underground source of heated water run dry and make the plant useless.

Another popular alternative to these types of power production is wind power, which is perhaps the simplest of all these systems (barring complexities in turbine design) in that it requires nothing more than a good, windy spot to turn the power generator. While I can't say much as to the difficulty of establishing a wind farm (with the exception of the Cape Wind project I covered in a previous post), the simplicity of a pretty much independently operating system for energy generation has a nice appeal for me. No constant input of a dangerous, expensive, or limited resource- just the necessary mechanisms, and a good spot for them to work in.

There may be a few other types of power generation that have escaped my notice, these are the systems most common or likely to become common in the future. Some have distinct advantages over the others, and ultimately, the type of plant that gets installed at a location should be based on what type of resources are most abundantly available in the area- for example, geothermal is most common in the area of Yellowstone Park, due to the large magma chamber under the park that is also responsible for the numerous geysers and hot springs of the region. We have a number of better alternatives to move away from fossil fuel use in the generation of electricity, and when one is found that is well suited for a region, I hope that those who live in the area will try and make the switch as soon as possible.