ethanol redux

[sweeteviljesus]

This is in reference to this column (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html). In it, Cecil derides ethanol saying that all it does is make ADM rich at tax payer expense. He also says that claiming that ethanol provides more energy than it takes to make is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Whether or not it's true that corn ethanol is energy positive is debatable, but it isn't impossible prima facie because we're talking about an open system. The calculations only take into account the energy that you have to pay for to produce ethanol, not the energy imparted into the system by the sun.

But what I really want to know is if his criticisms are true for cellulosic ethanol. If you don't know, this process turns cellulose into sugar via enzymatic action and then turns the resulting sugars into ethanol the old fashioned way. I know that since I can't buy it yet, it isn't ready for prime time, but will it be? How soon? What barriers stand in the way of its economic viability?

Thanks for your help,
Rob

[bluezooky]

Most ethanol in Australia is produced in Australia by the fermentation of molasses and wheat by-products. You’re effectively recycling waste products some of which is burnt to produce the energy.
The main barrier is consumer acceptance, we are told adding ten percent to you gasoline is safe for your but people just don’t believe it after some undeniable engine failures due to using too much.
Give us an engine designed to run on ethanol and I’ll happily run as strong a blend as available but till then the refineries can keep their ethanol.
Regards Charlie

[joema]

...we're talking about an open system. The calculations only take into account the energy that you have to pay for to produce ethanol, not the energy imparted into the system by the sun....cellulosic ethanol...it isn't ready for prime time, but will it be? How soon? What barriers stand in the way of its economic viability?...
Rob the open/closed energy aspect doesn't affect the net energy balance issue of harvest energy input vs produced energy output. Cecil's point was it requires more energy to harvest and produce ethanol than it contains. If it costs 90,000 BTU of petroleum energy to produce each gallon of ethanol which contains 77,000 BTU, we're consuming more energy than we're producing. How much stored solar energy ethanol contains is no more relevant than how much stored geologic energy petroleum contains. What counts is total production energy input vs total output energy.

However that's not the biggest problem with ethanol working on a sufficiently large scale to make a meaningful difference in world (or U.S.) energy posture.

The big problem is there's not enough land to produce the needed ethanol, no matter what method is chosen. Ethanol clearly works on a small scale. However we have a big problem and need a big solution.

Very roughly, the world uses about 100 quadrillion BTUs of transportation energy per year. To supply that via ethanol would require 1.3 trillion gallons of ethanol per year. An optimistic average ethanol yield per acre using efficient feedstocks is say 500 gallons per acre per year. Therefore it would take 2.6 billion acres -- roughly the entire continental United States -- just for ethanol production. What about just supplying 1/2 that amount via ethanol? Even for that, there's not enough new arable land. Also even supplying 100% of the world transportation energy still doesn't solve the petroleum problem.

The transportation sector only constitutes about 50% of petroleum consumption, even that gigantic step wouldn't solve the root problem. Conventional oil would still run out.

[sweeteviljesus]

Rob the open/closed energy aspect doesn't affect the net energy balance issue of harvest energy input vs produced energy output. Cecil's point was it requires more energy to harvest and produce ethanol than it contains. If it costs 90,000 BTU of petroleum energy to produce each gallon of ethanol which contains 77,000 BTU, we're consuming more energy than we're producing. How much stored solar energy ethanol contains is no more relevant than how much stored geologic energy petroleum contains. What counts is total production energy input vs total output energy.

However that's not the biggest problem with ethanol working on a sufficiently large scale to make a meaningful difference in world (or U.S.) energy posture.

The big problem is there's not enough land to produce the needed ethanol, no matter what method is chosen. Ethanol clearly works on a small scale. However we have a big problem and need a big solution.

Very roughly, the world uses about 100 quadrillion BTUs of transportation energy per year. To supply that via ethanol would require 1.3 trillion gallons of ethanol per year. An optimistic average ethanol yield per acre using efficient feedstocks is say 500 gallons per acre per year. Therefore it would take 2.6 billion acres -- roughly the entire continental United States -- just for ethanol production. What about just supplying 1/2 that amount via ethanol? Even for that, there's not enough new arable land. Also even supplying 100% of the world transportation energy still doesn't solve the petroleum problem.

The transportation sector only constitutes about 50% of petroleum consumption, even that gigantic step wouldn't solve the root problem. Conventional oil would still run out.

Finally, a reply! Regarding the efficiency of ethanol production, I cannot debate whether or not ethanol production is efficient. I was merely pointing out that there is no violation of the laws of physics if the net energy output is positive. I also want to know how much cellulosic ethanol changes things. Is it efficient? By how much? If not, what would need to happen and how likely is that? Also, how much of the 10^14 BTUs goes to the US? How much of that is used for transportation?

I don't think ethanol is the silver bullet which will save us, but I do think that it might be part of the solution. Conservation, nuclear, wind, water and solar (if costs come down and efficiency rises enough) energy need to supply more of our energy needs, and I feel like hybrid vehicle systems running ethanol could help. It doesn't have to be ethanol, but that is currently the most viable alternative fuel.

Thanks for your help,
Rob

[Mangetout]

I cannot debate whether or not ethanol production is efficient. I was merely pointing out that there is no violation of the laws of physics if the net energy output is positive.And you were right to do so; it's simply false to invoke the 2LoT on the equation of fossil fuel required to produce ethanol; when the energy in the ethanol doesn't come from the fossil fuel - it comes from the sun. I've seen and commented on this flawed agument several times here on the board and elsewhere.

It is entirely possible to produce ethanol from plant matter without burning any fossil fuels at all, indeed without burning anything.

[sweeteviljesus]

It is entirely possible to produce ethanol from plant matter without burning any fossil fuels at all, indeed without burning anything.

Well, you are going to burn glucose cutting down the corn. :)

Rob

[joema]

...I also want to know how much cellulosic ethanol changes things. Is it efficient? By how much?...Also, how much of the 10^14 BTUs goes to the US? How much of that is used for transportation?...Conservation, nuclear, wind, water and solar (if costs come down and efficiency rises enough) energy need to supply more of our energy needs, and I feel like hybrid vehicle systems running ethanol could help...
Cellulosic ethanol is more efficient from an energy in vs energy out standpoint, however the yield and acreage problem remains. There just isn't enough extra arable land to produce the massive quantities of ethanol needed to make a big difference in the overall energy problem.

The world uses about 400 quadrillion BTUs of energy per year, of which very roughly 25% (100 quadrillion BTUs) are transportation. The U.S. uses about 25% of those numbers, which is roughly consistent with the share of economic production -- energy consumption in developed countries is roughly tied to economic output.

The energy problem can be divided into transportation and non-transportation. In general non-transportation energy comes from sources (coal, nuclear, hydro) which will last quite a while. By contrast transportation energy comes mostly from petroleum, which may hit peak production within a few years, then begin declining.

Therefore the most immediate energy problem is conventional petroleum. Other energy sources (esp. coal) will last over 200 years at current consumption rates.

The problem is petroleum is a global resource. US road vehicles gasoline consumption is only 44% of total US oil consumption, 11% of total WORLD oil consumption, 16.7% of total US energy consumption, and only 3.9% of world energy consumption.

Even if EVERY gasoline CAR in the US switched overnight to Mr. Fusion, peak oil would still happen, just a few years later. That is the shocking reality.

The only alternative transportation energy source I'm aware of which could be scaled upward to the gigantic level required and within a meaningful timeframe might be biodiesel from high-yield algae. At least mathematically it can produce the required output from the available acreage. Whether it's actually possible would require further study: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Note above consideration of petroleum is from conventional sources. There are large stores of non-conventional petroleum in the form of tar sands and oil shale, plus huge amounts of methane in methane hydrates. There will likely be a large environmental cost to obtaining these, but unlike some nightmare scenarios, the oil supply won't simply stop when conventional petroleum runs out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrates

[sweeteviljesus]

What I was after when I started this thread was to know how cellulosic vs. traditional ethanol changed things vis-a-vis Cecil's column. Given your figures, how much land is required to grow fuel for 85% of the gas burning vehicles in the fleet, assuming they could all run on E85?

Thanks,
Rob

[joema]

What I was after when I started this thread was to know how cellulosic vs. traditional ethanol changed things vis-a-vis Cecil's column. Given your figures, how much land is required to grow fuel for 85% of the gas burning vehicles in the fleet, assuming they could all run on E85?...
Cecil's concern was mainly energy balance, not land acreage required. It's true cellulosic ethanol would greatly change the energy balance aspect, and in that respect his article is incomplete. Unfortunately that doesn't solve the acreage problem, so ultimately the ethanol feasibility problem remains.

There's just not enough land, even when using agricultural wastes for cellulosic ethanol production. This was extensively studied by Battelle Labs, who found the limit was about 50 billion gallons of ethanol per year. IOW producing this amount would use all available agricultural waste streams and all US unused agricultural land. To produce more would require removing acreage from food crop production. (350k .pdf): http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/pubs/Battelle%20study%20v4.pdf

Now, 50 billion gallons per year is a lot -- in fact a 10x increase from current U.S. ethanol production (4 billion gallons per year). However the U.S. alone burns about 210 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Ethanol contains about 62% of the energy as gasoline, so this would offset 31 billion gallons of gasoline consumption per year.

That would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 15%, which is a big decrease. Due to decreased demand, it would decrease gasoline prices, near term. However it wouldn't change the big picture. U.S. road vehicle gasoline consumption only constitutes about 11% of world oil consumption, so world consumption would only decrease by 1.7%. Oil is a global resource, and peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) would still happen, almost unchanged time-wise.

[Chronos]

US road vehicles gasoline consumption is only 44% of total US oil consumption,Out of curiousity, what's the other 56%? Heating oil? Plastics? Other energy usage of some sort?

[joema]

I don't have the specifics, but crude oil is used for many things besides gasoline for road vehicles: diesel, heating oil, heavy lubrication oil, plastics, fertilizer, jet fuel, etc. If every gasoline vehicle on earth vanished overnight, it would eliminate less than 1/2 of world petroleum consumption.

[sweeteviljesus]

Cecil's concern was mainly energy balance, not land acreage required. It's true cellulosic ethanol would greatly change the energy balance aspect, and in that respect his article is incomplete. Unfortunately that doesn't solve the acreage problem, so ultimately the ethanol feasibility problem remains.

There's just not enough land, even when using agricultural wastes for cellulosic ethanol production. This was extensively studied by Battelle Labs, who found the limit was about 50 billion gallons of ethanol per year. IOW producing this amount would use all available agricultural waste streams and all US unused agricultural land. To produce more would require removing acreage from food crop production. (350k .pdf): http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/pubs/Battelle%20study%20v4.pdf

Now, 50 billion gallons per year is a lot -- in fact a 10x increase from current U.S. ethanol production (4 billion gallons per year). However the U.S. alone burns about 210 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Ethanol contains about 62% of the energy as gasoline, so this would offset 31 billion gallons of gasoline consumption per year.

That would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 15%, which is a big decrease. Due to decreased demand, it would decrease gasoline prices, near term. However it wouldn't change the big picture. U.S. road vehicle gasoline consumption only constitutes about 11% of world oil consumption, so world consumption would only decrease by 1.7%. Oil is a global resource, and peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) would still happen, almost unchanged time-wise.

How does technology like that of BRI Energy change things, assuming that they can do what they say they can?

Also, what if some of the transportation energy were shifted to the grid, via plug-in hybrids or something? One heartening things is that according to your figures, grid capacity would only have to increase about 16%.

Rob

[joema]

How does technology like that of BRI Energy change things, assuming that they can do what they say they can?
BRI is apparently converting unused municipal wastes to ethanol. That was considered in the above Battelle study, and using all available unused waste plus all unused arable crop land would produce about 50 billion gallons of ethanol per year (in the US). A huge increase, but far too little to solve the big problem.

We must always differentiate between something that works on a small or even medium scale, vs something that solves the main problem of petroleum running out (or greenhouse emissions, depending on your priority).

We must also differentiate between something the US or western Europe could do, vs a global solution. E.g, rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India consume much more energy per GDP dollar than western countries. Without major efficiency improvements, as they continue industrializing, they will soon consume more energy than the US does. Already China consumes more coal than the US. The point is if every car in the US and Europe switched to ethanol, the growth in energy consumption by other rapidly-industrializing countries would absorb this savings in a very few years. Conventional petroleum is a finite global resource.

Also, what if some of the transportation energy were shifted to the grid, via plug-in hybrids or something? One heartening things is that according to your figures, grid capacity would only have to increase about 16%.Rob
You can shift some to the grid via plug-in hybrids or even battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Despite having a bad rep, BEVs would work quite well in many environments, as the US average commute distance is only 11 miles.

However -- such changes may make us feel good about "doing something", but (even if adopted on a huge scale) aren't enough to significantly affect the big problem.

My statement was all US gasoline (not petroleum) consumption amounts to about 17% of total world energy consumption. That includes world consumption of heating oil, diesel, wood, etc, not just utility generation. The world consumes about 400 quadrillion BTU (4.22E20 joules, 1.18E17 watt hours) per year. Thus 17% of this is 20,000 trillion watt hours, or equivalent to about 2,300 nuclear power plants of 1GW each. That's more than the entire total US utility generation capacity, which was 4E15 watt hours in 2004: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

There is some unused "off peak capacity" on the grid, but not enough. Unused capacity margin varies from 14% to 20%. That's enough for thousands of BEV cars, which is still a drop in the bucket against the big picture.

What is the solution? It's possible there's no solution, and certain there's no easy one which is economically, technically and environmentally attainable in the remaining timeframe before peak conventional oil.

However oil won't simply run out, as there are vast non-conventional sources such as oil shale and tar sands. Tapping these will likely have a large environmental and economic cost, but since the fabric of modern society runs on petroleum, that must be measured against the disruption of running out.

The only renewable transportation fuel I've seen which is theoretically scalable in a useful timeframe to the vast level required for a meaningful difference is biodiesel from high-yield algae. Whether that's actually possible or whether there are unseen problems would require further research.

For non-transportation energy, hydro, nuclear, plus remaining coal will last for centuries at current consumption rates. So the energy situation is very different for transportation (largely petroleum) vs non-transporation sectors.

[Chronos]

I don't have the specifics, but crude oil is used for many things besides gasoline for road vehicles: diesel, heating oil, heavy lubrication oil, plastics, fertilizer, jet fuel, etc. If every gasoline vehicle on earth vanished overnight, it would eliminate less than 1/2 of world petroleum consumption.Ah, I didn't notice that you mentioned road gasoline use, specifically. So if all of the diesel vehicles on the road (presumably mostly semis) also converted to some non-petroleum fuel, would that help significantly?

On the matter of peak oil being a global problem, I certainly agree that even if the US cut off all of its oil usage, the easy oil would still run out. But from a purely selfish standpoint, it wouldn't be our problem any more. And from an altruistic standpoint, if we can reduce our oil usage, so can everybody else (though it might take longer in some parts of the world).What is the solution? It's possible there's no solutionIt's also possible that there are many solutions, no one of which is enough, but which, all taken together, are. People can use smaller cars, or carpool, or use public transportation (much of which is powered on the grid, and therefore uses no petroleum at all). What waste material we have can be converted to diesel, ethanol, or other fuels. Some folks can use plug-ins. None of these will, by itself, solve the problem, but they'll all help. And get together enough things that help, and eventually, the problem is solved anyway.

[joema]

Ah, I didn't notice that you mentioned road gasoline use, specifically. So if all of the diesel vehicles on the road (presumably mostly semis) also converted to some non-petroleum fuel, would that help significantly?

Yes, the more petroleum usage you replace the more it helps. However there are limits on what's possible. There's probably no solution available within the remaining time to peak oil. Even a gigantic crash program would take a decade or more to filter through the system.

On the matter of peak oil being a global problem, I certainly agree that even if the US cut off all of its oil usage, the easy oil would still run out. But from a purely selfish standpoint, it wouldn't be our problem any more.
Even if 100% of US gasoline vehicles were powered by nuclear fusion, peak oil would still dramatically impact the US (and world) economy, since we use petroleum for many things besides gasoline. Whether only gasoline increased to $15/gal or every petrochemical product likewise increased, you're still impacted. There's huge non-transportation petroleum use -- more than for transportation. Fertilizer, plastics, road asphalt, tires, pesticides, detergents -- we are surrounded by items made from petrochemicals. Ethanol for transportation doesn't solve this. Even with all US gasoline vehicles replaced with alternatives, peak oil would still be a big problem for the US.

...It's also possible that there are many solutions, no one of which is enough, but which, all taken together, are. People can use smaller cars, or carpool, or use public transportation... None of these will, by itself, solve the problem, but they'll all help. And get together enough things that help, and eventually, the problem is solved anyway.
This is a common notion, but is unfortunately incorrect. If every car on earth vanished overnight and was replaced by flying carpets that ran on zero point energy, peak oil would still happen, only delayed a few years. Transportation gasoline (in the US) accounts for about 44% of US petroleum consumption. World transportation gasoline consumption is an even smaller % of world petroleum consumption, since the world burns preportionally less gasoline as a % of total petroleum consumption.

If you overnight magically replace all cars on earth with perfect clean alternatives, on a world wide basis that would only reduce petroleum consumption about 33-40%. The world would still be using petroleum at huge rates, just for other things -- jet fuel, diesel, heating oil, plastics, fertilizer, etc. Since petroleum consumption increases about 2-3% per year (scales with economic output), in about 25-30 years you'll be right back where we started (in terms of total consumption rate). And during that period, we're still consuming petroleum at fantastic rates, only somewhat less than before. IOW 66% of a gigantic consumption rate is still huge.

You can even mathematically place an upper bound on the time difference to exhaustion of conventional petroleum based on all cars worldwide being eliminated. It's shockingly less than you'd expect.

There are about 1.2 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional petroleum left. We'll optimistically assume it's all recoverable at current rates and extraction costs to the last drop. Current world consumption is 31 billion barrels per year. That's 38 years at current rates, but consumption increases at about 2% per year. Thus we use the formula for compounded expenditure of a fixed amount:

n = int(log(P0*r/A + 1) / log(1+r)), where

P0 = the initial fixed ($1.2E12 barrels)
A = the initial amount withdrawn (31E9 barrels/yr)
r = the rate of increase of the withdrawal (2%)
n = resultant number of years supply

At current consumption rates that gives 28 years to total exhaustion of conventional petroleum. If all cars were magically replaced overnight, world petroleum consumption would drop to about 20.5 billion barrels per year. Using the above equation, that gives 39 years to total exhaustion of conventional petroleum. So eliminating all cars yields only an 11 year difference, and even that requires a magic impossible solution.

In reality oil extraction rates will decrease, and peak oil will impact things much sooner, but this gives an idea of the problem scope.

[sweeteviljesus]

So how does algae help? Do you need to use it in concert with all the other non-petroleum technologies or can it pick up most of the slack on its own? I haven't had time to finish the pdf you posted yet, so forgive me if this question is answered there.

Thanks,
Rob

[joema]

So how does algae help? Do you need to use it in concert with all the other non-petroleum technologies or can it pick up most of the slack on its own?...
A key point is whether any alternative energy can be scaled upward to the gigantic level required for a meaningful difference. With biofuels that equates to fuel yield per acre. Algae has by far the highest fuel yield per acre of any biofuel -- 250 times that of soybeans, 50 times that of corn ethanol, and about 25 times that of sugar beets or sugar cane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch2_ss5.htm

Another key point is where you grow the feedstock crops. Corn requires a certain climate and soil type, and hence competes with food crop acreage. Some other higher yield ethanol crops such as switchgrass can grow on marginal land not well suited to many crops. However algae ponds can be sited in desert locations not used for anything.

In theory biodiesel from algae could power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (assuming all cars were diesel), grown in a small area of the dessert southwest. The advantage over ethanol is it's doable in the available real estate and has much better energy balance. A disadvantage is it requires diesel engines, but the technology for that is off the shelf and very refined. Like ethanol it could use the existing distribution and infrastructure (pipelines, trucks, filling stations, etc). By contrast hydrogen would require totally new everything.

There could be hidden problems with biodiesel from algae if used on a gigantic scale. However those are hidden and currently unknown. By contrast the problems with ethanol (esp. from corn) are known and mathematically obvious, even now.

Ethanol per se isn't totally bad -- if you use the highest yield production such as switchgrass plus use cellulose production and waste stream sources, scale it to the maximum available real estate and production, it could provide maybe 15% of US vehicle fuel. That's significant but only a relatively small % of the overall transportation energy problem.

The problem with Cecil's article is it focuses almost exclusively on the energy balance issue, not the other issues that impact viability of ethanol, or any other biofuel.

[Askance]

Terrific contribution to the board, Joema, and I hope you stick around and join up! I, for one, would gladly kick the can if you're short of the readies ...

[Chronos]

This is a common notion, but is unfortunately incorrect. If every car on earth vanished overnight and was replaced by flying carpets that ran on zero point energy, peak oil would still happen, only delayed a few years. Transportation gasoline (in the US) accounts for about 44% of US petroleum consumption. World transportation gasoline consumption is an even smaller % of world petroleum consumption, since the world burns preportionally less gasoline as a % of total petroleum consumption.This doesn't mean that a complete solution is impossible, just that if it exists, it must also take into account those other uses for petroleum. For anything you can name that uses petroleum, I can name a way to make it without petroleum. In fact, the biodiesel you mention could probably be used for many of them. It's just a question of making it practical. And partial solutions are still better than nothing: If we converted all road vehicles to non-petroleum fuels, for instance, then when oil production does decline, road transportation costs would not be one of the things affected.

[joema]

This doesn't mean that a complete solution is impossible, just that if it exists, it must also take into account those other uses for petroleum.
The problem is the non-transportation petroleum makes the problem twice as hard. Even invoking magical solutions for 100% of the world's transportation petroleum doesn't solve the non-transportation consumption. That shows how difficult the problem is.

For anything you can name that uses petroleum, I can name a way to make it without petroleum.
The issue isn't how to make it without petroleum, but rather how to make the gigantic quantities needed in an economic, sustainable fashion. Yes you can produce small quantities of plastics, road asphalt, etc. without petroleum. However the world usage of those is on a titanic, gigantic industrial scale. There are many solutions that work well on a small basis but cannot be scaled to the gargantuan level required. I'm not aware of any technology that could replace most non-transportation petroleum at the current usage levels.
And partial solutions are still better than nothing...the biodiesel you mention could probably be used for many of them
Partial solutions can be worse than nothing if they're the wrong solutions. Cecil pointed out one example of this in his corn ethanol column. A partial solution that diverts attention and resources into a blind alley is ultimately harmful. There are several likely examples of this, including corn ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells.

You're right that biodiesel from algae could theoretically be further scaled up to handle, say, heating oil. I don't think you could make road asphalt or plastics from biodiesel, but am not sure. I think the petroleum components for those are already removed from the crude oil input stream before conventional diesel is made.
If we converted all road vehicles to non-petroleum fuels, for instance, then when oil production does decline, road transportation costs would not be one of the things affected.
Yes, converting a significant % of road vehicles to non-petroleum fuels seems a good idea, if that can be achieved within a meaningful timeframe relative to conventional oil exhaustion. If you pursue technologies that can't be scaled upward to the huge levels required or which take several decades to implement, it does little good -- peak oil has already long happened.

Note this assumes a conventional view of peak oil. The pragmatic truth is it's unlikely any substitute will be ready in time, and non-conventional petroleum sources will be tapped, including tar sands and oil shale. There's probably 100+ years of those available at current consumption rates, although environmental and economic costs of extraction will be high.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Thank you for the rich information you've brought, joema, and for your important point that transportation is less than half of the petroleum issue. However, what is missing from this discussion is a mention of economics.

Higher petroleum costs will push companies to do what I think they have had little incentive to do up till now: actually research and develop alternative materials and sources for their currently petroleum-based products. Ditto for transportation as well. I do not believe that there is any cause for great alarm that civilization will grind to a halt. Now of course these alternatives will almost certainly be more expensive than the petroleum methods we use now (or else we'd be using them already), and the R&D will be a big expenditure too. Uprooting industries, installing hydrogen pumps, algea ponds, and whatnot will be more money down the drain. No doubt that our industry-derived proportion of GDP will be lower than it would have been had we limitless oil.

But who cares? Oh no, the world GDP will be 5-10% less than what it might've been. GDP is meaningless. The world isn't any happier today than it was when total GDP was a thousandths of what it is now. Everything is relative, and it's the relatives that matter. Employment matters. Equality matters. Yet both those things are due to much more subtle economic forces that are largely orthogonal to petroleum and total GDP.

What matters is psychology, and the biggest thing we have to fear is us running around reiterating to ourselves how must mourn the passing of cheap oil.

The only thing we have to conern ourselves with is that the price increases due to dwindling oil come on gently and gradually. Not that I think we'll be plunged into a Great Depression if they don't. Not at all, the global economy now is too fluid for that (er...i'm already bracing myself for a discussion of economics on that point). Simply, it'd be condusive to not strain people's nerves (and god knows it no longer takes a Great Depression to do that... in good times the mounds become the mountains... everything is relative).

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with joema that there aren't any quick solutions that we could implement and never even notice the passing of the peak. I'm saying that, firstly, it is passing the peak that itself will bring about solutions. And secondly, if the solutions are imperfect (as they'll likely be), there's absolutely no reason we can't just shrug it off and get on with our lives.

Then again... this thread was about discussing cellulose ethanol and not philosophizing about petroleum in general. My apologies. Though I think the OP question has already been well answered and the discussion can be permitted to evolve.

[joema]

...Uprooting industries, installing hydrogen pumps, algea ponds, and whatnot will be more money down the drain...
I agree with some of your points. However my point (and Cecil's) is that some of these will be money down the drain, and it's even now it's possible to know some solutions which likely won't work. As Cecil mentioned corn ethanol or any other solution that takes more energy to produce than the result contains won't work. Likewise any solution that's not scalable to huge industrial levels won't work.

How do we know which solutions will and won't work? As Cecil pointed out, basic math shows corn ethanol just won't work. That doesn't mean all ethanol is bad. He failed to consider cellulosic ethanol, also didn't consider the yield per acre issue.

Likewise hydrogen fuel cells just won't work on a large scale. Hydrogen isn't an energy source -- it requires energy to make, and huge quantities of it. Where does that energy come from? Before anybody answers, do the basic math (inc'l all losses and realistic real world efficiencies) to find what's required to produce 100 quadrillion BTUs (world transportation energy) in hydrogen.

The point isn't to be defeatest and say nothing will work, but to avoid spending time and money on what are almost certainly blind alleys. Some things may work, and some things almost certainly won't work. Even now it's possible to determine the viability of some of those with fairly high confidence.

...the price increases due to dwindling oil come on gently and gradually. Not that I think we'll be plunged into a Great Depression if they don't. Not at all, the global economy now is too fluid for that
There are two perspectives here: conventional peak oil vs tapping nonconventional oil.

If you discount nonconventional oil sources, and if peak oil theories are true (and there's good basis for that), hitting peak oil will be dramatic. It would easily cause a lingering great depression. It would be like the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis, except it would never end and just progressively get worse. Would the world economy eventually adapt? Yes, but the world economy also adapted to the great depression of 1929, but it wasn't pleasant.

The other viewpoint is tapping nonconventional oil (tar sands, oil shale), and other hydrocarbons such as methane hydrates. There are huge, vast energy reserves in these. At current high oil prices, these are already economically feasible. Energy companies are hesitant to make the infrastructure investement for these because they're afraid oil prices might collapse, leaving them with huge losses, as already happened in the late 1990s.

However as you pointed out, sustained high oil prices will provide economic incentive to tap these nonconventional sources, plus develop other energy sources.

With few exceptions, non-petroleum sources cannot possibly be refined and scaled to meet demand in time before peak conventional oil. That's why non-conventional oil is so important. It provides a buffer period during which non-petroleum sources can be developed, refined, and made scalable.

[Green Bean]

Wow. Great discussion. Maybe you could answer a question for me.

My husband is an 8th grade science teacher. He's kicking around the idea of doing an ongoing biodiesel project, either with his students or as part of one of the extracurricular activities that he's involved in. It may not be feasible, but it's worth considering, right?

He was assuming that part of the project would be growing the agricultural product that will be used. This is not a great area for grain corn, so he was expecting to use some other grain or legume. But we never considered algae.

Is it possible to grow the required algae on a small scale? How much knowhow do you need? How high are the initial costs.

Growing soybeans or something would be easy enough. We could probably get the school district to lend us a little patch of land. After that, we know what to do. Of course, we would incur costs, but they'd be relatively low. Most equipment we would need could be begged or borrowed, and labor would be free.

Would algae be very complicated? Could they even grow it indoors? (My husband has a large classroom and an enthusiastic principal.) Would it be harder to extract the raw material from the algae than it would be from the grains or legumes?

Do you know of any websites that give instructions for do-it-yourself biodiesel (or even ethanol?)

Thanks in advance!

[joema]

...My husband is an 8th grade science teacher. He's kicking around the idea of doing an ongoing biodiesel project, either with his students or as part of one of the extracurricular activities that he's involved in...
He was assuming that part of the project would be growing the agricultural product that will be used....Is it possible to grow the required algae on a small scale? How much knowhow do you need? How high are the initial costs...
Growing soybeans or something would be easy enough. We could probably get the school district to lend us a little patch of land...Would algae be very complicated? Could they even grow it indoors?..Do you know of any websites that give instructions for do-it-yourself biodiesel (or even ethanol?)...
Here's a detailed PDF document on the DOE's biodiesel from algae project, called the "aquatic species program". Don't know if there's sufficient detail for what you need. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

More info: http://www.oilgae.com/

However in general I'd suggest not getting bogged down in the actual production of feedstock material. You don't want the students to go away remembering trying to grow stuff, but not the educational specifics about how that's used.

It might be easier and just as educational to make your own biodiesel from waste vegetable oil. Here are some web sites that discuss how: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
http://www.diyfuel.com/

[sweeteviljesus]

Do you know of any websites that give instructions for do-it-yourself biodiesel (or even ethanol?)

Joema gave some great advice, but I just thought that I'd mention that your husband may get into trouble if he is distilling ethanol in school.

Rob

[sweeteviljesus]

Thanks to joema for his informative answers. What kind of work do you do?

Anyway, I was glancing at an article in Technology Review that mentioned work on organisms to increase the efficiency of the cellulose-to-ethanol process. These projects are still very early in the R&D phase, but I was wondering what were the best possible results they could achieve? In other words, if you had some magic bug which if you fed it chopped up plant matter and get ethanol, what is the maximum yield you could hope to achieve? I can't think of a good way to calculate this. I suppose you could figure out the amount of cellulose in a bushel, figure out how many carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules were in there and if all these were arranged into ethanol molecules, that would be the maximum possible yield, but my chemistry is pretty rusty. All I can remember is that C2H5OH would have a mass of about 46 g/mol. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Rob

[Alex_Dubinsky]

If you discount nonconventional oil sources, and if peak oil theories are true (and there's good basis for that), hitting peak oil will be dramatic. It would easily cause a lingering great depression. It would be like the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis, except it would never end and just progressively get worse.

I very much disagree. The economic downturns in the 70s were more the result of monetary, fiscal, and government policy. They were also the result of a frictioned and far-less-than-ideal economy in which vibrations would cause undue damage.

For example, unemployment is never caused by a true inescapable reason. There is no immutable principle by which willing people cannot work. It is rather the subtle mechanisms of searching for jobs, inflexible wages, falsified resumes, poor competition (favoring larger companies with more market power), and other imperfections which cause people to not find a place in society to do work.

Now sure, it could be that such imperfections would add up such that a lack of oil would trigger them to grind the economy to a halt (or, as happened in the 70s, they might add up to cause inflation which would induce the government to remove money from the economy which, by means of those imperfections again, cause the economy to slow down).

However, both the economy and the Federal Reserve's (ie the people who get to take out and put money into the economy) understanding of economics have advanced greatly. Primarily, it is the internet and other communication technologies that have taken much of the frictions out. People no longer buy from a company just because that's the company they know. Before, that allowed that company (eg a travel agent) to hike up prices to its repeat customers. Now, it is much easier to comparison shop. Thus, the big airlines can't charge more just because they feel people have more money, but little airlines are able to easily enter the market. On the one hand this process in itself creates jobs and connects employees with them (through resume sites or whatnot). More importantly, it greatly reduces the magnitude and risk of inflation, giving the Fed the option to throw a bunch of money into the economy to stimulate things the more traditional way.

Thus, a conventional peak simply won't be able to deliver the aftershocks these days that it once might have been capable of. Without these aftershocks, the actual decrease in productivity that less oil would inescapably bring is much more subtle (corresponding to us physically not being able to produce as many goods), and would probably not even be worth caring about if the employment stays good.




aanyway... back to biofuels. What about South America? With its three harvests of sugar beets a year, it might be a bit more productive. Also, what about bioengineering (either through conventional selective breeding or genetic engineering) of faster-growing plants? Lastly, why can't we use fission to create hydrogen and power the grid? Wouldn't that go most of the way? The rest, for materials and such, could be made up with bio-derived chemicals or substitutes (or those tar pits or whatever).

[joema]

I very much disagree. The economic downturns in the 70s were more the result of monetary, fiscal, and government policy...Thus, a conventional peak simply won't be able to deliver the aftershocks these days that it once might have been capable of...Lastly, why can't we use fission to create hydrogen and power the grid? Wouldn't that go most of the way?...
Discounting non-conventional petroleum, peak oil would be economically disastrous. The Federal Reserve Board estimates even mild oil price increases just from 2003 to present have cost 1.5% in US annual GDP. These price increases (and associated economic impact) are tiny next to those likely under peak oil.

Petroleum is the life blood of industrial society, and not just for transportation energy. Heating oil, bookshelves, fertilizer, road asphalt, car tires, cosmetics, drugs, etc. A constant concern for economists is the economic drag caused by higher petroleum prices -- and this is for moderate price increases. Each year, petroleum consumption increases by about 2%, because the world economy increases by 2%. The economy runs on energy. Up to now, world petroleum production has mostly kept pace with demand. Beginning with peak oil, production will decline, yet demand will continue increasing. Anytime you have a major mismatch between production and consumption of a key commodity, the impact is huge. The result would be titanic price increases, likely causing a prolonged world recession.

In actuality, this probably won't happen because of non-conventional petroleum (tar sands, oil shale). Those vast resources will simply be tapped, albeit with environmental and extraction costs.

However IF non-conventional petroleum didn't exist -- the above scenario -- peak oil would likely be economically devastating.

Regarding using fission to produce hydrogen, it would take THOUSANDS of additional reactors to fuel world transportation need via the hydrogen fuel cell technology. The world consumes 100 quadrillion BTUs of transportation energy per year, (2.9E16 watt hours). The hydrogen production, transport and fuel cell end-to-end efficiency is about 30%. A 1GW nuclear reactor produces 8.76E12 watt hours per year. So very roughly, you'd need (2.9E16 * 3.33) / 8.76E12 or 11,023 new 1GW fission reactors. To provide 1/2 world transportation energy you'd need about 6,000 new reactors. To provide 1/2 of US transportation energy (roughly 4.39E15 watt hrs) you'd 1,670 new reactors. Currently there are about 100 reactors on line in the US.