[Sustain] Continued: Biofuel & Algae Debate

[Eric Brooks]

John-Marc and all,

We should definitely discuss all of this in both working groups, however 
people that can't come to the meetings should also benefit from this 
exchange.

Below are my latest responses in three sections that will be a bit 
easier to wade through... :)

jmc at sfgreens.org wrote:

You can break the cellulose down into sugar, ferment the sugar, distill out the alcohol, and then recycle the leftovers back into the soil...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...

My reply:

Distilling out the alcohol takes energy -out- of the plant material in 
large amounts and turns it into a liquid fuel. All of that energy is 
then unable to be returned to the soil. Let's get to the heart of 
physics. Energy and matter are the same thing, and energy/matter is 
never lost or gained, it is simply moved from place to place, from one 
state to another. So, when you take large amounts of energy from a plant 
(in the form of alcohol or oil) and move that energy into the fuel lines 
of millions of vehicles, that energy is lost to the soil and transfered 
to the atmosphere. It has been moved to a different place and cannot 
strengthen the soil and build up within it. Remember, above and beyond 
nutrients, carbon itself is a key component of soil (plants don't solely 
depend on -atmospheric- carbon for their life cycle). And storing carbon 
in thick topsoil, keeps it -out- of the atmosphere.

There is a Science Daily article that gets right to the heart of what I 
am talking about (Trapping Carbon In Soil Key For Protecting Global Food 
Security, Dealing With Climate Change) at 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040614080953.htm

This same dynamic holds true for water grown algae. The algae -must- be 
fed a nutrient base, much of which will be transfered as energy into the 
fuel. And even if we develop an incredibly hyper efficient algae fuel 
process, think about what it is that we will be _doing_. We will be 
taking carbon dioxide out of the air, turning it into fuel, and 
returning it to the air, when -instead- _/and this is absolutely key/_, 
-most- of that CO2 could be taken out of the air and permanently stored 
in old growth ecosystems and their soils; and deep permacultural 
farmlands and -their- soils. By restoring old growth ecosystems and deep 
sustainable farmlands to the Earth in this way, we can pull a lot of the 
current excess CO2 -out- of the atmosphere and put it back down into the 
Earth and into cycling living systems where it belongs; and from which 
we have in fact unnaturally extracted it in the first place.

jmc at sfgreens.org wrote:

The two main sources [for biofuel algae supports] 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 atmospheric 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.

My reply:

No actually it is not better, because doing so would obviously increase 
the profitability and utility of both fossil fuel power plants and pig 
farms, perpetuating them as a paradigm in our global economic, energy 
and food system; especially when you consider that mainstream media 
reports always portray such projects as a way we can have our cake and 
eat it too, with both, fossil fuel burning, and incredibly destructive 
meat agriculture. And of course, there are in fact massive toxic 
chemical inputs into both industries that will indeed still make their 
way into our air and water bodies. Far superior alternatives are, a) a 
massive switch immediately to non-carbon based energy like solar and 
wind, enabling the immediate -closure- of the power plants (instead of 
simply mitigating their wastes and CO2), and b) a mass education program 
to get people to realise the power of eating much lower on the food 
chain, thereby encouraging immediate large reductions (instead of  
dangerous co-dependent validations) of pig farming. Pig farming by the 
way, is one of the -most- polluting of all forms of animal agriculture.

jmc at sfgreens.org wrote:

Monsanto's current exploits have nothing to do with the argument over whether biofuels might be part of a sustainable energy solution or not...and then...
We're talking about [genetically engineered] 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.

My reply:

First, Monsanto will be intimately involved with biofuels, because the 
current gold rush is toward genetically engineered ultra-high-yield 
biofuel crops. The connection then, is obvious.
Second, it is actually genetically engineered microorganisms that are 
the -most- dangerous. Microorganisms reproduce rapidly and therefore 
mutate rapidly and so can very quickly adapt themselves to invade 
exactly the ecosystems that you are so sure they will not be able to 
spread out into... And this isn't even the worst danger. Bacteria and 
viruses can get into/consume genetically engineered microbes -and- 
plants & animals and quickly incorporate genetically engineered DNA into 
their -own- genetic structure. And, -then- in an even -more- disastrous 
synergy, bacteria that exchange information between eachother -both- 
sexually -and- by directly joining to eachother and _directly_ 
exchanging  genetic information, can, and _often do_, incorporate this 
genetically engineered DNA flying around in the viruses and other 
bacteria all over the place, and then rapidly pass it down, around and 
through their neighbors, creating an explosion in the invasion of 
genetically engineered DNA into both our bodies and the biosphere. This 
has definitively been shown in hard research. Samples taken from people 
and animals that have eaten genetically engineered foods have shown that 
the engineered DNA, partly due to this very process of exchanges of DNA 
between bacteria, and viruses, are winding up not being fully broken 
down in the stomach and instead, are making their way all the way into 
the tissue -and- DNA of the people and animals eating the food. (This 
process is begun in the very tough and resourceful gut bacteria in our 
stomachs and intestines.)

Such microbial exchange of engineered DNA, is precisely why there is NO 
SUCH THING as a safe genetically engineered organism. They are 
inherently extremely dangerous, and should be abolished, because their 
artificial genetic material can make its way into every single corner of 
the planet and into every single living organism.

and to genetically engineer very small, rapidly reproducing organisms, 
is to increase this danger exponentially...

And on that happy note..

cheers

Eric
> 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
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20070406/22c67414/attachment.htm