Turning Soybeans into Diesel Fuel Is Costing Billions(npr.org)
npr.org
Turning Soybeans into Diesel Fuel Is Costing Billions
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/16/577649838/turning-soybeans-into-diesel-fuel-is-costing-us-billions
141 comments
Ethanol has never made much sense to me. Drill and pump petroleum, process into gasoline (for tractors), and fertilizers, grow corn, turn into ethanol., It's the equivalent of getting a crisp new $100 bill from the bank, recycling it immediately and printing a $1 bill from the "recycled" paper and calling it an environmental success.
If it takes one thousand gallons of gasoline to produce 10 thousand gallons of ethanol, then it could be a net win by requiring less gasoline production later or something.
But I have no clue how the numbers actually work out.
But I have no clue how the numbers actually work out.
The laws of thermodynamics alone lead me to suspect that that's probably not the case.
The energy input to crops that later become ethanol is the sun, not the gasoline burnt in the production process, so there is no necessary relationship inferrable by thermodynamics between fuel burnt and the energy content of crops or the resulting ethanol.
If there were, then human-powered farming would have been pointless as a food production method.
If there were, then human-powered farming would have been pointless as a food production method.
I assume you're speaking in theoretical terms, but it bears mentioning that in practice, fossil fuels are a critical input to the production of crops, to the extent that EROEI for corn ethanol remains stuck at around 1.
I stand corrected.
Ethanol makes perfect electoral sense: Democrats get to pass "green" legislation which their base likes while Republicans get to give subsides to farmers, one of their main constituents.
It depends on whether the ethanol is generating net positive energy. If I burn one joule of petroleum to get two joules of ethanol, it's a net success. If I burn two joules of petroleum to get one joule of ethanol, it's a net failure.
I very much doubt it would have survived as long as it has as a technology if it were a net energy loss.
I very much doubt it would have survived as long as it has as a technology if it were a net energy loss.
> I very much doubt it would have survived as long as it has as a technology if it were a net energy loss.
Most of the assessments I have seen generally always show that bio-ethanol is a net loss. Only subsidies keep it afloat.
None of the bio-* will make any sense until we have a lot more renewable electricity on the grid. At that point, producing bio-* will basically become an energy storage solution and a way to soak up excess energy production that you couldn't store any other way.
Most of the assessments I have seen generally always show that bio-ethanol is a net loss. Only subsidies keep it afloat.
None of the bio-* will make any sense until we have a lot more renewable electricity on the grid. At that point, producing bio-* will basically become an energy storage solution and a way to soak up excess energy production that you couldn't store any other way.
As an aside, I suspect once transport and commuting are handled by EV vehicles, ethanol will stick around as a small scale fuel for motorsport enthusiasts.
Frankly, I love my combustion engines for fun and sport, and while I fully support the switch to EV, I have long been wondering how the switch will effect my ability to use them for fun Sunday drives. Eventually they will be banned from the roads and the production and distribution of petroleum will slow right down.
With many motorsport vehicles using Ethanol based fuels for its lower temperature burn and higher power output, I suspect that is the fuel that will stick around as a special use product. Appropriately priced, no doubt.
Frankly, I love my combustion engines for fun and sport, and while I fully support the switch to EV, I have long been wondering how the switch will effect my ability to use them for fun Sunday drives. Eventually they will be banned from the roads and the production and distribution of petroleum will slow right down.
With many motorsport vehicles using Ethanol based fuels for its lower temperature burn and higher power output, I suspect that is the fuel that will stick around as a special use product. Appropriately priced, no doubt.
economically a net loss or ecologically?
I sort of assume both, but I'd like to hope for one of them.
I sort of assume both, but I'd like to hope for one of them.
Both. Here's some data from the late Prof. MacKay:
http://www.withouthotair.com/Errata.html#284 :
" 1 acre produces 122 bushels of corn per year, which makes 122 x 2.6 US gallons of ethanol, which at 84000 BTU per gallon would mean a power per unit area of {0.2 W/m^2}; however, the energy inputs required to process the corn into ethanol amount to 83,000 BTU per gallon; so 99% of the energy produced is used up by the processing, and the net power per unit area is about {0.002 W/m^2}. The only way to get significant net power from the corn-to-ethanol process is to ensure that all co-products are exploited; including the energy in the co-products, the net power per unit area is about 0.05 W/m^2."
" 1 acre produces 122 bushels of corn per year, which makes 122 x 2.6 US gallons of ethanol, which at 84000 BTU per gallon would mean a power per unit area of {0.2 W/m^2}; however, the energy inputs required to process the corn into ethanol amount to 83,000 BTU per gallon; so 99% of the energy produced is used up by the processing, and the net power per unit area is about {0.002 W/m^2}. The only way to get significant net power from the corn-to-ethanol process is to ensure that all co-products are exploited; including the energy in the co-products, the net power per unit area is about 0.05 W/m^2."
Ethanol production has never been a net positive for energy production. It has always survived to maximize the use of the subsidies the american corn farmer.
Don't underestimate the power of farming subsidies and lobbying.
Very much so. We should not have any of these laws; if bio-whatever makes economic sense, you won't need laws mandating its use.
It you wanted to kickstart a technology I think it could make sense for shorter periods of time. For example Electric Vehicle tax credits make it much easier for car companies to develop their electric car lines, but the credits expire after so many cars.
I don’t understand this argument. It assumes thay petroleum will always be needed to run tractors and other infrastructure around it, which seems unreasonable considering the vast number of alternative fuels out there?
According to Wikipedia, the energy balance of ethanol in my country is 8 or more, so it would be more like getting a crisp new $100 bill and turning it into eight $100 bills.
I'm guessing this is someplace that sugar cane can grow? The EROI from corn ethanol is much, much worse. Ethanol does make a lot of sense for, say, Brazil, but not much sense for the US.
modern tractors run on diesel (although I have two that run on gas) for the low end torque curve and slight increase in fuel-to-energy conversion efficiency. Although my person preference is gas tractors, commercial farmers all use diesel for these reasons. For me, gas tractors so much easier to rebuild a carburetor then a diesel injection pump. My diesel tractor has been down for almost a half year due to an injection pump rebuild (Case 530CK Roosamaster pump)
I agree re the comparison.
However, the fundamental problem with biofuels overall is that fuel requirements are so huge. Indeed, total annual fossil fuel usage -- coal, oil and natural gas -- is an appreciable fraction of total annual biomass production through photosynthesis. Everything, all plants, everywhere. The reasons being that energy requirements are so much greater than food and feed requirements, and that photosynthesis is so inefficient compared to PV.
Human land use is a major factor in the current great extinction. Adding large-scale biofuel production would increase extinction rates. But of course, global climate change is also a major extinction driver.
PV and batteries are clearly the way to go.
However, the fundamental problem with biofuels overall is that fuel requirements are so huge. Indeed, total annual fossil fuel usage -- coal, oil and natural gas -- is an appreciable fraction of total annual biomass production through photosynthesis. Everything, all plants, everywhere. The reasons being that energy requirements are so much greater than food and feed requirements, and that photosynthesis is so inefficient compared to PV.
Human land use is a major factor in the current great extinction. Adding large-scale biofuel production would increase extinction rates. But of course, global climate change is also a major extinction driver.
PV and batteries are clearly the way to go.
In the future, would you mind typing the word "photovoltaics"?
It's a bit frustrating to have to leave mid-read to define an acronym.
It's a bit frustrating to have to leave mid-read to define an acronym.
> Biodiesel is still way more environmentally friendly than ethanol
"X is less bad than Y" doesn't mean that X is not bad. Both can be. In this case, both are.
> then have the US reduce emissions to offset
Yes. One way to do that would be to stop planting huge cultures for "bio"-diesel and then fertilizing them to death.
"X is less bad than Y" doesn't mean that X is not bad. Both can be. In this case, both are.
> then have the US reduce emissions to offset
Yes. One way to do that would be to stop planting huge cultures for "bio"-diesel and then fertilizing them to death.
The whole concept of fuel-based transport should be at question here.
Hybridization would be more efficient by far.
EVs in general (energy production + transport to plug + battery efficiency losses) are more efficient than the biofuel option (growing/fertilizing/harvesting crops -> turning into fuel-> transport/storage->burning in a vehicle)
But what's being discussed? Which crop or where it's grown? Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Hybridization would be more efficient by far.
EVs in general (energy production + transport to plug + battery efficiency losses) are more efficient than the biofuel option (growing/fertilizing/harvesting crops -> turning into fuel-> transport/storage->burning in a vehicle)
But what's being discussed? Which crop or where it's grown? Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
In Brazil Ethanol is made from sugar cane. It is much more efficient and environment friendly than corn ethanol.
Crop failures can happen anywhere, so isn't supplier diversity a good thing? All other things being equal, it seems like excluding US exports from the global market would increase exposure to bad weather and make prices more volatile.
In particular, think about the case where US farmers have a good year and many other places have a bad year.
It seems like efficiency and environmental considerations would have us reduce the amount of land devoted to crops as much as possible, but guaranteeing safety of the food supply would mean increasing capacity. So there's a tradeoff here.
In particular, think about the case where US farmers have a good year and many other places have a bad year.
It seems like efficiency and environmental considerations would have us reduce the amount of land devoted to crops as much as possible, but guaranteeing safety of the food supply would mean increasing capacity. So there's a tradeoff here.
In a world where hunger is still an unsolved problem, burning food for fuel is not just unethical, it's downright stupid.
The counter argument there is that hunger still existing is not so much a product of there not being enough food as much as the food not properly being allocated. There is easily enough food produced in the world to feed everyone as is.
Hunger is a distribution problem not a food shortage problem. There’s more than enough food being produced for everyone.
> In a world where hunger is still an unsolved problem
At best its only a problem in specific locations and due to political problems. I don't believe its reasonable to demand that progress in renewable energy adoption should be aborted just because some nation on some random corner of the world is experiencing political problems.
At best its only a problem in specific locations and due to political problems. I don't believe its reasonable to demand that progress in renewable energy adoption should be aborted just because some nation on some random corner of the world is experiencing political problems.
Look at the trends:
https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment
Even in sub-Saharan Africa under nourishment has gone from ~35% of the population in 1991 to ~18% today.
It's a problem that is being solved.
https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment
Even in sub-Saharan Africa under nourishment has gone from ~35% of the population in 1991 to ~18% today.
It's a problem that is being solved.
Hunger is solved, in any country that is not a shit hole.
Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We eventually ban accounts that do this repeatedly.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wow. chronic hunger is still a problem in the first world. i hope you are trolling. either way i hope you are banned.
>This kinda reads like a corn industry hit-piece on a rival technology.
The way that this is framed really betrays either a bias or a significant gap in understanding on the part of the author. The big one is their neglect of the costs to society borne from extracting and refining diesel from fossil fuel. Instead they focused solely on the costs of the subsidy.
Look at how they mentioned the Argentine subsidy: "Argentina was doing the U.S. a favor, helping it satisfy its biodiesel demands more cheaply"
They're framing this as a net positive for America, but it betrays their perspective: they don't see disincentivization of biodiesel production by American farmers as a negative thing.
The way that this is framed really betrays either a bias or a significant gap in understanding on the part of the author. The big one is their neglect of the costs to society borne from extracting and refining diesel from fossil fuel. Instead they focused solely on the costs of the subsidy.
Look at how they mentioned the Argentine subsidy: "Argentina was doing the U.S. a favor, helping it satisfy its biodiesel demands more cheaply"
They're framing this as a net positive for America, but it betrays their perspective: they don't see disincentivization of biodiesel production by American farmers as a negative thing.
Fueling ground transport with bio-fuels probably doesn't make long-term sense -- the economics for battery electric already look like they're better. Bio-fuels for jet aircraft may make long-term sense though, because aircraft are vastly more weight sensitive than ground transport. Even though jet aircraft individually consume a lot of fuel, the entire air transportation sector is only responsible for a relatively small fraction of overall petroleum usage (on the order of 5%, I think). Fueling the worlds entire transportation sector with bio-fuels just isn't practical. Fueling 5% of it with bio-fuels might well be, though -- in particular the 5% where battery-electric is just not going to be feasible. That doesn't mean the current soybean to diesel programs make sense, but instead of canceling them, maybe we should be modifying them to produce jet-compatible fuel instead.
I was also once an advocate of bio-fuel for mobile size/weight restricted transportation applications. For a 5% minority, it seems to make sense. Soybeans to fuel doesn't make sense, however. For awhile, the cheapest biodiesel in Houston was made from animal slaughter byproducts. You had to watch out for the winter, however, as that stuff had a rather high gelling and solidification temperature. It also has very high hysteresis, so the melting temperature of the resulting wax-like substance can be much higher than the freezing temp, as high as 60 degrees F. I know, because it temporarily bricked my car, and ruined my relationship with my Mercedes mechanic.
I don't think that stuff would be good for aviation. Maybe palm or algae derived?
I don't think that stuff would be good for aviation. Maybe palm or algae derived?
I know jet aircraft have been tested with bio-fuel of some sort, but I don't know how they handle the gelling problem. I'm kind of assuming that the fuel tanks would need to be heated to make it work. On the flip side, if you wanted to use ethanol then the low temperatures wouldn't be a problem, but the big trade-off there is ethanol has a much lower energy density per unit weight.
There are two ways to convert a fatty acid to a volatile fuel: you can convert it to an ester or an alkane. Biodiesel is comprised of esters; biokerosene is made of alkanes. Converting fats to biodiesel is a much simpler process, which is why biodiesel is common and biokerosene has yet to take off -- currently, biokerosene is made by hydrogenation, and hydrogen usually comes from fossil fuels. This is described here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulf_Neuling/publication...
The most land-efficient way to produce fats from crops is by far the palm oil fruit ( http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html ), but because most cropland is already used for growing food, most palm oil plantations are on recently cleared forest, which gives palm oil an undeservedly bad reputation (farmers in Southeast Asia would simply grow something else on cleared forest if not for oil palms).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulf_Neuling/publication...
The most land-efficient way to produce fats from crops is by far the palm oil fruit ( http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html ), but because most cropland is already used for growing food, most palm oil plantations are on recently cleared forest, which gives palm oil an undeservedly bad reputation (farmers in Southeast Asia would simply grow something else on cleared forest if not for oil palms).
Heated tanks are already a thing on ships, which burn fuel that is pretty much solid at room temperature, and need to be heated to even pump to the ship.
From the end of the article:
In fact, China wants so much soy meal that it's boosted global supplies of soy oil, because soybeans, when they're crushed, yield both meal and oil. By satisfying China's demand for meal, soy processors inevitably end up with plenty of oil to sell, too.
So if soy meal is what's driving the Soy market, doesn't that limit the environmental cost for soy used for oil, since the oil is effectively a waste product from the soy meal production?
In fact, China wants so much soy meal that it's boosted global supplies of soy oil, because soybeans, when they're crushed, yield both meal and oil. By satisfying China's demand for meal, soy processors inevitably end up with plenty of oil to sell, too.
So if soy meal is what's driving the Soy market, doesn't that limit the environmental cost for soy used for oil, since the oil is effectively a waste product from the soy meal production?
Soy oil a waste product? Hardly. It can be used for all manner of food preparations.
That is misleading. IT is used for a lot of other uses. However those other uses are nowhere near taking up the supply.
Waste product according to the driving force.
Just as Diesel used to be a "byproduct" of gasoline refinement. But of course manufacturers want to monetize everything they possibly can and did so with diesel.
Originally, gasoline was a byproduct of kerosene (lamp oil) refinement, and simply thrown into waste (even dumped into rivers). The man best known for getting rich by utilizing this byproduct was John D. Rockefeller.
The US used to have a policy of paying farmers to maintain unused production capacity - ie, to leave some of their fields fallow. This creates an emergency-response capability: if some event shrinks the country's or the world's food production capacity, then that capacity can be activated. This policy was politically problematic because of the conspicuous waste, and economically problematic because fallow land can't necessarily be converted into food production fast enough.
Mandating use of biodiesel seems like a better way of achieving the same goal: it ensures extra food-production capacity is maintained.
Plus, it reduces the amount of soybean oil being used in food. That stuff's unhealthy (very high omega-6 content), and apparently there's a huge amount of it being produced essentially as a byproduct of soy meal.
Mandating use of biodiesel seems like a better way of achieving the same goal: it ensures extra food-production capacity is maintained.
Plus, it reduces the amount of soybean oil being used in food. That stuff's unhealthy (very high omega-6 content), and apparently there's a huge amount of it being produced essentially as a byproduct of soy meal.
I dunno. Back in the day farmers used a system called crop rotation to maintain the soil.
One year they planted crop A, the next they planted crop B, and the next they left it fallow.
This was before industrial fertilizes mind you, but leaving part of the land fallow is not a bad thing.
One year they planted crop A, the next they planted crop B, and the next they left it fallow.
This was before industrial fertilizes mind you, but leaving part of the land fallow is not a bad thing.
Farmers today still understand this - better than most non-farmers appreciate. Anybody still farming today is a decent business person, and that means making sure your land stays healthy so your farm has a future.
Industrial fertilizers have definitely changed the rules and allow farmers to shift the traditional cycles, but the same principles of caring for the land still apply. Crop rotation is still common, but some land is so much more productive for some uses than others that it makes sense to "weight" the rotation with fertilizers.
Industrial fertilizers have definitely changed the rules and allow farmers to shift the traditional cycles, but the same principles of caring for the land still apply. Crop rotation is still common, but some land is so much more productive for some uses than others that it makes sense to "weight" the rotation with fertilizers.
Yeah i fear that very few acknowledge, never mind appreciate, the kind of long term outlook one develops as a farmer.
Lifestock, crops, all that happens over years, not weeks or months like in most industries.
Lifestock, crops, all that happens over years, not weeks or months like in most industries.
There are millions of different soil types. The right answer is different for each. Follow is just one useful technique farmers use to build soil, it works in some cases not in others.
This is a poor policy decision in order to maintain ag production readiness (or, possibly, is blatant handout to the ag industry), very much the same way corn ethanol is a net negative. Crop production should never create competition between human nutritional consumption and transportation.
You also can't give away your overproduction to less well off countries, as you cripple their ag market, preventing them from bootstrapping their own economy.
It's a moot point with transportation electrifying as quickly as it is. I don't have enough knowledge to say what crops we should be planting above and beyond what meets human consumption needs, but I can say without a doubt we should not be subsidizing crop based biofuels (only algae based fuels, only to be used for air and marine transport).
You also can't give away your overproduction to less well off countries, as you cripple their ag market, preventing them from bootstrapping their own economy.
It's a moot point with transportation electrifying as quickly as it is. I don't have enough knowledge to say what crops we should be planting above and beyond what meets human consumption needs, but I can say without a doubt we should not be subsidizing crop based biofuels (only algae based fuels, only to be used for air and marine transport).
If an emergency created a huge shortage in global food supply, the policy's assumption is that the market competition for nutritional vs. transportation crops would shift (food would be more expensive and valuable to sell) so that the new nutritional needs were satisfied.
You are correct that in the current equilibrium state it is sub-optimal. Prices are settled right now where a small number of hungry poor people are out-competed by the transportation market because they can't pay more than it can.
That is bad, I completely agree. But fixing that isn't what the policy is for, the policy is for preventing starvation during World War 3.
So you have to compare the suffering of people here and now against the potential suffering expected without the policy in place multiplied by the probability that WW3 occurs.
You are correct that in the current equilibrium state it is sub-optimal. Prices are settled right now where a small number of hungry poor people are out-competed by the transportation market because they can't pay more than it can.
That is bad, I completely agree. But fixing that isn't what the policy is for, the policy is for preventing starvation during World War 3.
So you have to compare the suffering of people here and now against the potential suffering expected without the policy in place multiplied by the probability that WW3 occurs.
I don't understand the implicit vision of World War III that underlies this rationale. Is it supposed to be a multi-year total war affair between major powers, but strictly non-nuclear, like WW II before August 1945? All of the world's major military powers and a few minor ones now have nuclear weapons. And even if they didn't have nuclear weapons, conventional weapons have radically improved effectiveness because of radically improved targeting. (Most of WW II's bombs were wasted destroying random patches of nothing-in-particular instead of the factory or airfield that was being targeted.) The probable timeline from initiation of total war to comprehensive devastation has been heavily compressed since 1940.
If there were total war again between major military powers I could see a brutal spasm of months of using conventional weapons followed by nuclear murder-suicide from whichever side is losing worst. Perhaps a negotiated peace if the winning side doesn't make the losing believe it has nothing left to lose. I don't see it going on for years either way. Preparing to fight the next World War as if it were going to be as protracted as the last one is strange.
If there were total war again between major military powers I could see a brutal spasm of months of using conventional weapons followed by nuclear murder-suicide from whichever side is losing worst. Perhaps a negotiated peace if the winning side doesn't make the losing believe it has nothing left to lose. I don't see it going on for years either way. Preparing to fight the next World War as if it were going to be as protracted as the last one is strange.
Could we not discontinue the legal use of food production for biofuels, pay for those crops to continue to be harvested (readiness payments), and then gave the crops away for free to those in need within the country?
It doesn't quite just work that way. For example, the corn grown for ethanol production is really no good for people to eat.
edit (too deep to reply): I really don't think it's moving the goal posts, you asked about redirecting that food production in general, not soy. As is mentioned elsewhere, the soy oil isn't really used much for food anyway.
That said - you can't just swap corn grown for ethanol for "corn for people to eat" - the equipment involved to harvest it is completely different, as are the facilities to process it. The same concerns apply to other crops.
edit (too deep to reply): I really don't think it's moving the goal posts, you asked about redirecting that food production in general, not soy. As is mentioned elsewhere, the soy oil isn't really used much for food anyway.
That said - you can't just swap corn grown for ethanol for "corn for people to eat" - the equipment involved to harvest it is completely different, as are the facilities to process it. The same concerns apply to other crops.
We're talking soybeans at the moment. This is moving the goal posts. If you can't eat corn-based ethanol corn, you grow other crops on that land.
No we could not. That subsidized introduction of available food would shift the whole demand curve.
Farmers currently produce as much food as the market demands, plus some excess capacity is converted biofuels. If the market required less, they would (eventually) produce less unsubsidized food. Then, the logic goes, WW3 takes out a lot of our food and we suffer massive shortages because there is no extra capacity to produce more.
Farmers currently produce as much food as the market demands, plus some excess capacity is converted biofuels. If the market required less, they would (eventually) produce less unsubsidized food. Then, the logic goes, WW3 takes out a lot of our food and we suffer massive shortages because there is no extra capacity to produce more.
corn ethanol is a net negative
Some amount of ethanol added to gasoline serves as a fuel oxygenator, reducing emissions of soot and carbon monoxide. A discussion of whether there is a better oxygenate than corn ethanol could be interesting, but 5% or 10% ethanol is really there for emissions, not biofuel.
Some amount of ethanol added to gasoline serves as a fuel oxygenator, reducing emissions of soot and carbon monoxide. A discussion of whether there is a better oxygenate than corn ethanol could be interesting, but 5% or 10% ethanol is really there for emissions, not biofuel.
Agreed that ethanol is superior to MTBE (which was phased out due to toxicity) [1], but E85 efforts [2] are misguided.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
Right - corn ethanol offset a lot of MTBE usage in the USA, which is a good thing.
>Plus, it reduces the amount of soybean oil being used in food.
It reduces the land being used to produce food.
http://hungerreport.org/2017/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/hung...
"In 2014, Italian and U.S. researchers, examining a global dataset of large-scale land acquisitions, published a study showing that between 300 million and 550 million people could be fed by crops grown on these acquired lands. The land in these deals was in countries with some of the world’s highest rates of hunger and malnutrition. Govern-ments in fragile states, desperate to attract foreign investment, have proved all too willing to trade land to investors at bargain rates. Agri-businesses typically claim that they will reduce hunger by applying modern technologies to increase productivity on the acquired land. In fact, many of these deals are intended to produce crops for export or to produce biofuels. Reducing hunger and poverty in the host country is not a priority when crops can instead go to paying customers."
It reduces the land being used to produce food.
http://hungerreport.org/2017/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/hung...
"In 2014, Italian and U.S. researchers, examining a global dataset of large-scale land acquisitions, published a study showing that between 300 million and 550 million people could be fed by crops grown on these acquired lands. The land in these deals was in countries with some of the world’s highest rates of hunger and malnutrition. Govern-ments in fragile states, desperate to attract foreign investment, have proved all too willing to trade land to investors at bargain rates. Agri-businesses typically claim that they will reduce hunger by applying modern technologies to increase productivity on the acquired land. In fact, many of these deals are intended to produce crops for export or to produce biofuels. Reducing hunger and poverty in the host country is not a priority when crops can instead go to paying customers."
You're on the right track, but getting the wrong conclusion. Green revolution agriculture is about a move from subsistence farming to cash farming. Nobody grows soybeans at scale for subsistence; their value is as a cash crop. It's not just for biofuels. The famed Ethiopian famine of the 1980s? That was caused by the introduction of export cattle farming, fencing off "property" and breaking the traditional grazing cycle that protected the land. Public land got overgrazed, and rivers got silted. And the export cattle? They were for the European pet food market. And European financial interests were all too happy to work with Western governments to put compliant Ethiopian governments in place to do it.
Is it me or terms like 'dumping' is only ever used in one direction and when the US exports heavily subsidized agricultural products, it's just plain old free market trade.
I don't think it's uncommon to say that the US dumps cheap corn on the world markets, especially Mexico. Or, in so much as that's talked about at all, 'dumped' isn't uncommon terminology.
Or maybe I just have cynical friends.
Or maybe I just have cynical friends.
Ya, I don't mean in private conversations. In corporate media.
Oh, then I'm afraid I'm unqualified to say.
Some examples, please?
(tho, I bet if you read news from Brazil, it would go the other way)
(tho, I bet if you read news from Brazil, it would go the other way)
Sugar. The US has very highvpunitive tariffs on global sugar, and massive subsidies on American alternatives (beet sugar and high fructose corn syrup), enough that it is one of the top sticking points in trade agreements.
For those of us interested in agro-ecology (Permaculture, etc.) David Blume makes a great case for small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated into your permie farm. Pretty much any sugar or carbs can be fermented to make alcohol. The byproducts can all be reused directly on the farm. The chemical elements that make up the fuel all come from air and water so your nutrients and trace minerals etc. are retained on the farm, the alcohol fuel is essentially packaged sunshine.
He's got a comprehensive book "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/
He's got a comprehensive book "Alcohol Can Be a Gas!" http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/
Sure but how much is it saving us in the long term by being carbon neutral?
Industrial agriculture methods probably aren't carbon neutral anywhere, and it would be almost impossible if mature forests are cut down to grow soybeans.
Are they carbon neutral?
Sure the initial carbon dumped into the atmosphere to plow the fields is a short term increase, but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them, which permanently adds more carbon into the atmosphere.
Sure the initial carbon dumped into the atmosphere to plow the fields is a short term increase, but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them, which permanently adds more carbon into the atmosphere.
The biodiesel.org site, which is run by the National Biodiesel Board (a biodiesel industry trade group), references [1] a 1998 study that shows biodiesel to have a 78 percent reduction in net CO2 emissions. So not carbon neutral, but significantly less net emissions. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a more up-to-date study.
However, that's the net reduction for B100, or 100% biodiesel. The more common and engine-friendly B20 blend at 20% biodiesel / 80% petroleum diesel would be a 15.6% net reduction in CO2.
[1]: http://biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/biodiesel-faq's
However, that's the net reduction for B100, or 100% biodiesel. The more common and engine-friendly B20 blend at 20% biodiesel / 80% petroleum diesel would be a 15.6% net reduction in CO2.
[1]: http://biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/biodiesel-faq's
I don't think linking to a biodiesel lobbying group constitutes as evidence.
The research in question was merely cited by the lobbying group. Specifically, they write:
> A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel.
> A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel.
It appears this is the study cited: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24772.pdf
Where are the people who funded those studies working today? Industry has a well established track record of planting shills and promising lucrative jobs to public officials who do their bidding.
> but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them
Other than anecdotal evidence, do you have any source for this?
The cost to remove trees and put that land into production is quite high. Even then, most forested land is poor for growing crops. I would be very surprised to learn that in the US, farmers are removing trees and preparing the land to till on a large scale.
Other than anecdotal evidence, do you have any source for this?
The cost to remove trees and put that land into production is quite high. Even then, most forested land is poor for growing crops. I would be very surprised to learn that in the US, farmers are removing trees and preparing the land to till on a large scale.
Most of the land in the US East of the Mississippi was forested, cut down, and turned into farmland. Some marginal lands have returned to forest like in upstate New York and in the Appalachia Mountains, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and other mid-western states are/were the heart of US agricultural production. They are slowly beginning covered by urban and suburban development. I believe that people thought farming was not possible if the land did not already support trees. They were mostly right before irrigation and scientifically bred crops.
The article focuses on Argentina as it was a source of low cost biodiesel.
It is still probable that grasslands are a better carbon sink than the same land would be if used to grow soybeans.
Here's a source that describes methods which would be broadly beneficial:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1287318.Holistic_Managem...
It is still probable that grasslands are a better carbon sink than the same land would be if used to grow soybeans.
Here's a source that describes methods which would be broadly beneficial:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1287318.Holistic_Managem...
This is covered in the article. The forests in question are in Argentina, not the US, and it sounds like demand for Soybeans from China may be causing some of the deforestation (although it is unclear how much is due to that versus US-based demand).
The article we're discussing is a good source.
Also, Brazil enacted a soy moratorium over ten years ago to combat deforestation.
You're limiting your "surprise" to the US, but that's not what I, or the article we're discussing, are talking about.
Also, Brazil enacted a soy moratorium over ten years ago to combat deforestation.
You're limiting your "surprise" to the US, but that's not what I, or the article we're discussing, are talking about.
They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel. Of course energy is still needed to convert the soybeans into something you can burn in an engine, plus all of the cultivation and transportation costs.
The intent is that this is grown on lands that would otherwise lay fallow, so there shouldn't be a large deforestation concern.
The intent is that this is grown on lands that would otherwise lay fallow, so there shouldn't be a large deforestation concern.
You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral. And anyway, I'm not asking if it's better for the environment than fossil fuels, I'm asking if the claim that it is carbon neutral is true or not.
You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral.
Well, if you're going to be that pedantic about it, then nothing we know of is technically carbon neutral. We might be off by an atom or two!
Well, if you're going to be that pedantic about it, then nothing we know of is technically carbon neutral. We might be off by an atom or two!
I was clarifying in case the author of the comment was unsure what "carbon neutral" means. It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
"Either it is or it isn't," implies that it's a binary. That's incorrect and muddies the waters. It's quantitative in a practical sense, as in geography or geology, not in an absolute sense as in mathematics. So "more carbon neutral" can be sensibly interpreted in this quantitative sense. Your use of language implying that it's a binary, "confuses the discussion to use it as such."
You probably think it's "unfunny" because you missed the logical distinction. Now that it has been explained to you how you were the one who derailed the discussion in the first place with bad logic, you probably still think it's "unfunny."
"Either it is or it isn't," implies that it's a binary. That's incorrect and muddies the waters. It's quantitative in a practical sense, as in geography or geology, not in an absolute sense as in mathematics. So "more carbon neutral" can be sensibly interpreted in this quantitative sense. Your use of language implying that it's a binary, "confuses the discussion to use it as such."
You probably think it's "unfunny" because you missed the logical distinction. Now that it has been explained to you how you were the one who derailed the discussion in the first place with bad logic, you probably still think it's "unfunny."
I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.
The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."
I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).
I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.
The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."
I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).
I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.
I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.
Thanks for confirming one of my theories.
Thanks for confirming one of my theories.
Yeah that doesn't help me understand what you're trying to say. What was your theory that I confirmed?
And, I assume producing and transporting vast quantities of fertilizer which is not carbon neutral.
IIRC, soy has nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Yes, but there are other nutrient needs, also looks like in certain cases additional nitrogen fertilizers are used for soybean crops.
https://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-managemen...
https://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-managemen...
Background. My family are gardeners since generations back. We are on a sourcing trip in Brazil to buy new plants where bio ethanol are made. Farmers inform us on the fields that the bio ethanol production is very resource instensive. Basically growing sugar plants which are the source used to make ethanol sucks up all the nutrients from the ground. It also uses a lot of water. Politicians back home fully sold on the “green” aspects of bio ethanol subsidies the ethanol fuel without knowing the growing damaging consequences.
Soybeans may be similar to Sugar. You have to ask if it’s really clean also the growing part not just the fuel.
A greener way is to put up electricity lines over highways. Then trucks can be driven electrically without hauling lots of resource instensive batteries. The mining of lithium in truck production scale probably is not clean. Mining is one of the largest emitters of co2 in the world.
Cop report on largest co2 emitters doing 70% of the emissions. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
Soybeans may be similar to Sugar. You have to ask if it’s really clean also the growing part not just the fuel.
A greener way is to put up electricity lines over highways. Then trucks can be driven electrically without hauling lots of resource instensive batteries. The mining of lithium in truck production scale probably is not clean. Mining is one of the largest emitters of co2 in the world.
Cop report on largest co2 emitters doing 70% of the emissions. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
I personally believe that much of the requirements on bio-diesel and other crop-fed fuel sources are likely at least half motivated by courting heartland swing states.
Recognizing it is a little tangential to this article, it seems to me there would be a great benefit to the USA's domestic environmental policy if the Iowa caucus wasn't so early. Food to fuel is a tragic waste of resources.
I guess my take is simpler than a lot of the arguments floating around here. if the current price tag is not acceptable, what price would be? Or, are we really saying that we'd rather spend the money elsewhere?
Biodiesel has some advantages, and many disadvantages. To me, I could see this being a part of a energy mix, but it doesn't seem like it is worth the money we are spending on it today, given that we could get better renewable energy/dollar in several other ways. If anything must be spent here, it seems we need some research to figure out how to do this better.
Biodiesel has some advantages, and many disadvantages. To me, I could see this being a part of a energy mix, but it doesn't seem like it is worth the money we are spending on it today, given that we could get better renewable energy/dollar in several other ways. If anything must be spent here, it seems we need some research to figure out how to do this better.
Just learned from a neighbor that unwanted meat scraps is used to create diesel or biodiesel. Can't recall which; either way, he said they're not selling drums above plant costs but have to keep the machines running for environmental compliance. Specifically, Crude Oil plants with less demand are switching to this.
There is an episode from West Wing that touches on how awful Ethanol really is, really opened my eyes.
What I understand is that ethanol can be produced from, among many things, byproducts of corn.
TLDR 'Scott Irwin, an economist at the University of Illinois calculates...the extra cost for biodiesel comes to about $1.80 per gallon right now, meaning that the biofuel law is costing Americans about $5.4 billion a year'.
'Biodiesel is very expensive, relative to petroleum diesel'
'Defenders of biodiesel insist that it's a much cleaner fuel than regular diesel, because it doesn't come from the ground, but from soybean plants that capture carbon dioxide from the air as they grow. In fact, by the EPA's calculations, replacing petroleum-based fuel with biodiesel will cut greenhouse emissions at least in half.
A growing number of environmentalists, however, say that this calculation is dead wrong. They say that if more soybeans are needed to make fuel in addition to food, it inevitably means that people somewhere on Earth will have to plow up grasslands or cut down forests in order to grow that additional supply — and clearing such land releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.'
'Biodiesel is very expensive, relative to petroleum diesel'
'Defenders of biodiesel insist that it's a much cleaner fuel than regular diesel, because it doesn't come from the ground, but from soybean plants that capture carbon dioxide from the air as they grow. In fact, by the EPA's calculations, replacing petroleum-based fuel with biodiesel will cut greenhouse emissions at least in half.
A growing number of environmentalists, however, say that this calculation is dead wrong. They say that if more soybeans are needed to make fuel in addition to food, it inevitably means that people somewhere on Earth will have to plow up grasslands or cut down forests in order to grow that additional supply — and clearing such land releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.'
Mandating its existence has other strategic advantages as well -- oil price shocks can and will happen in the future, so having the infrastructure to manufacture biodiesel and ethanol in place has a benefit as well.
There's a short, medium and long term outlook here. In the short term, there's a wastage of $5.4B. In the long term, burning things for fuel is bad. In the medium term, being able to moderate swings or ensure minimum supply of fuel mitigates risk that endanger the economy as a whole.
There's a short, medium and long term outlook here. In the short term, there's a wastage of $5.4B. In the long term, burning things for fuel is bad. In the medium term, being able to moderate swings or ensure minimum supply of fuel mitigates risk that endanger the economy as a whole.
But this doesn't actually work yet. Oil prices are transmitted through to biofuels because the biofuel supply chain depends critically on fossil fuel inputs. For example, planting, harvesting, and transport of corn and soy feedstock is currently completely reliant on fossil-fueled machinery. This may change in the future, but the current reality is no better than a 1-to-1 transformation of fossil fuel into biofuel.
This is true of corn but I'm not so sure on soybeans. Do you have a source on the total conversion rate for soy?
According to the source below, the partial conversion rate is about 57 gallons per acre (at 39 bushels/acre). It takes WAY less than 57 gallons of biodiesel to farm one acre of soy. Modern practices are really only going to have 3-4 passes (no till plant, early spray, maybe a later spray and harvest). After that is is mostly bulk trucking which shouldn't be much per acre.
Remember that unlike corn, soy requires very little/no fertilizer due to it being able to fix its own nitrogen. It is mostly the fertilizer the kills corn.
Source: https://www.uaex.edu/publications/PDF/FSA-1050.pdf
According to the source below, the partial conversion rate is about 57 gallons per acre (at 39 bushels/acre). It takes WAY less than 57 gallons of biodiesel to farm one acre of soy. Modern practices are really only going to have 3-4 passes (no till plant, early spray, maybe a later spray and harvest). After that is is mostly bulk trucking which shouldn't be much per acre.
Remember that unlike corn, soy requires very little/no fertilizer due to it being able to fix its own nitrogen. It is mostly the fertilizer the kills corn.
Source: https://www.uaex.edu/publications/PDF/FSA-1050.pdf
Googling for the EROI and NEB of soy biofuel, numbers appear to be significantly better than for corn, but still no better than low single digits. Also, soy uses a lot more water than corn, which imposes another host of considerations, including higher transportation cost due to regional growing restrictions.
Cane ethanol seems to do better than soy fuel. I'm also aware that new biofuel "generations" have the potentional for much higher returns, but these things are either still emerging technologies (e.g., cellulosic and algae) or horrifically damaging to the environment (e.g., palm oil biofuel).
Cane ethanol seems to do better than soy fuel. I'm also aware that new biofuel "generations" have the potentional for much higher returns, but these things are either still emerging technologies (e.g., cellulosic and algae) or horrifically damaging to the environment (e.g., palm oil biofuel).
>This may change in the future, but the current reality is no better than a 1-to-1 transformation of fossil fuel into biofuel.
I was with you until this. a brief thought experiement makes it seem impossible that it would be 1 to 1, but rather that some smaller amount of fossil fuel used would yield a much larger amount of biofuel
I was with you until this. a brief thought experiement makes it seem impossible that it would be 1 to 1, but rather that some smaller amount of fossil fuel used would yield a much larger amount of biofuel
This topic is way too complex to be experimented upon by mere thought. For example, take a gander at this discussion on corn ethanol EROEI a few years back. Lots of data, detailed analysis, vigorous debate, and a headline conclusion of an EROEI of 1.07.
There's a lot of debate about this, with numbers varying due largely to differing assessments of inputs and credits for byproducts, but I have never seen a convincing EROEI for corn ethanol over about 2.
EDIT: I forgot to include the link! Here it is: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6760
There's a lot of debate about this, with numbers varying due largely to differing assessments of inputs and credits for byproducts, but I have never seen a convincing EROEI for corn ethanol over about 2.
EDIT: I forgot to include the link! Here it is: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6760
How so? If the market is manipulated via farm subsidies or biofuel subsidies it's entirely possible groups might not be overly worried about the efficiency of the process and expend the same amount of fossil fuel (or more) to obtain an equal amount of biofuel.
Remember, biofuel costs significantly more. Pump prices include taxes, so difference in pre-tax vs pre-subsidies of 1.80 $ is huge.
The value of biofuels is simply cushion in case of poor harvests.
The value of biofuels is simply cushion in case of poor harvests.
Also in the medium term, artificially increasing the price of fuel incentivizes research and development of alternatives.
In the case of Brazilian Amazon forest, indeed there is a negative impact of soybean.
Up to 2006 was a direct impact causing deforestation. But a law passed making it hard to sell soybean cultivated in deforestated areas (specially to the USA).
But still there is an indirect impact, since then. Cattle raising is the main force behind direct forestation of the Amazon on brazilian area. But once the cattle extinguish the resources of the land and move to a new land to deforestate, the soybean farms occupy the empty land they left behind.
So soybean farmers have an interest in supporting cattle raisers deforestation of the Amazon.
source: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414...
Up to 2006 was a direct impact causing deforestation. But a law passed making it hard to sell soybean cultivated in deforestated areas (specially to the USA).
But still there is an indirect impact, since then. Cattle raising is the main force behind direct forestation of the Amazon on brazilian area. But once the cattle extinguish the resources of the land and move to a new land to deforestate, the soybean farms occupy the empty land they left behind.
So soybean farmers have an interest in supporting cattle raisers deforestation of the Amazon.
source: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414...
I think deforestation isn't going to be solved by going after a single industry/product. Humans will eventually find a reason to destroy any forest we can find. We can target soybeans and cattle, but that'll be replaced by gold prospecting, logging, housing, parking lots, nuclear weapons testing, spaceports, or anything else humans can think of to make a dollar.
For large swaths of the Earth, we need to say "You can't touch this area for any reason. Don't even step foot here. Go away."
For large swaths of the Earth, we need to say "You can't touch this area for any reason. Don't even step foot here. Go away."
Don't forget that when this law was passed, diesel fuel was well over $4.00 per gallon. Recently it's been about half that.
[deleted]
As long as the subsidy is US only I think they can avoid having too much forest land plowed over to make room for Soybeans.
The effects are connected. Converting more soybeans into fuel means it costs more to buy soy for food - higher incentive to make a new soy field anywhere.
Depends how the subsidy is set up. If it creates a price floor just above the production cost then it just reduces risk for the farmers without incentivizeing them to devote extra field space to soy. Basically the food market gets serviced until the price almost drops below the point where it would be sustainable and the excess is bought up by the Diesel producers (who receive the government subsidy).
By creating a price or demand floor you create an incentive for someone in some country with lax environmental regulations to bulldoze rain-forest to grow soybeans.
Not really, the soybeans used don't have to be grown in the US. So forests in south america are destroyed to make room for soybeans that will be used in the US to make biodiesel.
Is that $1.80 on top of the average $3.00 for regular? What i would give to buy fuel that cheap...
Diesel exhaust is carcinogenic (causes cancer) [2012]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...
"IARC: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST CARCINOGENIC" [PDF] https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf
... Soybeans are also useful for bioplastics.
"IARC: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST CARCINOGENIC" [PDF] https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf
... Soybeans are also useful for bioplastics.
That's for dinosaur diesel. Biodiesel would have a different set of combustion byproducts. Probably still carcinogenic though, at least in the state of California. High combustion temps tend to do that.
It's not so much what comes out chemically but what comes out physically. And happens to be particulate matter meaning partly combusted hydrocarbons in the form of soot. The soot is an inhalation hazard and has been linked to asthma and lung cancer.
Do I remember correctly that fully burned pure diesel yields water and CO2? Soot is usually partially burned fuel plus a percentage of contaminants?
That can't be right because where would the sulfur go? Not to mention all of the other junk in there.
Per wikipedia, pure diesel is moderate size hydrocarbon chains. Everything else is impurities... so burning pure diesel in a 100% oxygen environment would yield water and COn gases.
Of course, the rest of the world introduces different combustion products, including sulfur as part of the fuel oil fractions not completely distilled away.
Of course, the rest of the world introduces different combustion products, including sulfur as part of the fuel oil fractions not completely distilled away.
Hard to tell from the PDF if that's Tier IV or traditional Diesel exhaust.
I can tell you inhaling anything from our pre-DPF '81 tractor isn't something you want to do but I'd be curious to know how much modern DPF(Diesel particulate filters) make a difference.
I can tell you inhaling anything from our pre-DPF '81 tractor isn't something you want to do but I'd be curious to know how much modern DPF(Diesel particulate filters) make a difference.
Tier IV reduces NOX and particulates quite a bit... but they are still definitely there.
This kinda reads like a corn industry hit-piece on a rival technology.
Besides, having third-world countries be dependent on US exports of (heavily subsidized) surplus food is one of the things that causes famines (shortages in the US come out of exports first), and continues the cycle of economic dependency (domestic producers cannot compete with heavily subsidized US exports). The actual fix here would be to develop foreign food production and then have the US reduce emissions to offset.