[Sustain] [Transpo] Continued: Biofuel & Algae Debate

[John-Marc Chandonia]

I think this would benefit from an in-person discussion, possibly
at the next Transpo or Sustainability meeting.  Writing all this in
email is too slow, and I can't keep up:
 
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:05:08AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
> 1) On algae: It will take massive inputs of other nutrients besides 
> solar rays and atmospheric carbon to grow algae in sufficient quantities 
> to meet liquid fuel needs. (See point 6 below.)

Depends how fast you want them to grow.  I'm talking about net input;
of course you need some seawater or other medium for them to grow
in.  But you can then recycle most of that; if the only thing you're taking
out of the system is hydrocarbon, the only necessary inputs that you
can't recycle are carbon (from the air) and water (from seawater).

At this time, the technology is still immature, so it makes sense
to develop it under conditions that make it easier, so the resulting
oil will cost less.  I'll respond to your point 6 below.

> 2) On cellulosic ethanol: There is no such thing as a 'free byproduct' 
> in nature and agriculture. Those plant stalks need to be returned to 
> (composted back into) the soil from which they came.

Both you and Sue have a misconception that using the stalks to produce
cellulosic ethanol somehow prevents you from doing that.  You can
break the cellulose down into sugar, ferment the sugar, distill out the
alcohol, and then recycle the leftovers back into the soil.  This
is currently done with leftovers from brewers and distillers; the most
important nutrients, such as phosphate, are not destroyed in the
process.

> Taking plant matter away from soil in this way is known as 'mining' 
> soil. Currently, through industrial agricultural practices begun in the 
> false 'green' revolution, this is causing such a collapse in land 
> quality all over the planet, that we will soon be producing less food 
> per capita on the Earth, than is needed for adequate nutrition. Piling 
> biofuel soil mining on top of this already growing catastrophe would be 
> insane.

If you're talking about inedible parts of crops we currently plant,
a biofuel plant in proximity to the farm wouldn't result in any more
mining than is currently taking place.  If we were to harvest crops
specifically for biofuels (e.g., switchgrass), this is a valid concern
to take into account.

> 3) On the conflict between biofuels and transit: My argument is crystal 
> clear. If the general public is given any shred of hope to cling to, 
> that enables them to believe they can continue to drive their personal 
> automobiles, they will, hands down, choose personal automobiles over 
> mass transit.

Studies have shown that transit ridership rises if it's cheap and/or
convenient (e.g., in Europe, Japan, and on Spare the Air days in SF).
If you're arguing that "general public" mean everybody would have to
prefer cars, that's just a strawman.  It is impractical to bring mass
transit to the current suburbs, and biofuels will not become cheap
enough for those people to sustain their lifestyle either--economics
will eventually force them to move (as in "End of Suburbia").

As I said before, the amount we're investing in mass transit, and in
biofuels, are each so small that it makes no sense to pretend spending
on one precludes the other.

> One need only look at the devastation that has been 
> wrought by the activities of Monsanto corporation to see the truth of 
> this.

Monsanto's current exploits have nothing to do with the argument over
whether biofuels might be part of a sustainable energy solution or not.

> 5) On fuel density: There is enough solar, wind, wave and tidal capacity 
> (if built) to run a global electrified mass transit system. Under such a 
> scenario,  the pursuit of liquid fuel density is simply unnecessary and 
> therefore extremely wasteful.

You still need liquid fuel for some applications (e.g., airplanes).

> I am referring primarily to conservation of energy.

OK, look up how much energy you get from sunlight (e.g., per square
foot), look at the conversion efficiency of algae, and the energy
density of the resulting oil.  The numbers work out.  See the slashdot
reference I gave you before for some calculations.

> used. A quick search on the internet showed me that the inputs being 
> considered for algal fuel production are fossil fuel power plant wastes 
> ('nuff said), and sewage wastes (imagine the toxins, heavy metals, etc, 
> that would end up in the algae oil from this latter process, later to be 
> burned into the air we breathe).

The two main sources I've seen are power plants that spew carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and sewage from pig/cow farms (which do
not necessarily contain heavy metals, unless you've been feeding them
to the pigs).  Both are good places to build algae plants because the
algae would break down the pollutants and at the same time produce
usable energy.  This would be economical now, while the technology is
developed to the point where you could run it just off of atmoshperic
level carbon dioxide.  I don't buy the argument that remediating a
current source of pollution is somehow encouraging more of that pollution;
the demand for pig meat has nothing to do with whether we might produce
biofuels from pig poop.  Current methods of pig farming may turn out
to be unsustainable in the long run even with bioremediation, but as
long as we have them, it's better to use the waste for biofuel rather
than letting it pollute the environment.

> Another ominous note that I saw sounded 
> out there, is that biofuel algae will be genetically engineered to 
> greatly increase yield. Imagine massive amounts of genetically 
> engineered biofuel algae released into the biosphere.

We're talking about biofuel plants on dry land (e.g., in a desert with
lots of sunlight), with algae that need seawater to survive.
Therefore, I'm not too worried about mutant algae escaping into the
biosphere.  In most cases, I'm much less worried about genetically
engineering microorganisms such as bacteria than I am about genetically
engineering crops; the reasons why have to do with technical reasons
that are outside the scope of this discussion, but I'd be happy to
explain this another time.

JMC
-- 
John-Marc Chandonia (jmc at sfgreens.org)
http://sfgreens.org/