I've made a bunch of comments upthread today, sort of laying out in more detail that my focus remains the oil depletion problem, and how that can be mitigated. And, I do intend to do a post on the small, tactical, and regional role I see for biofuels.

G

The standard I use for biofuels is to measure how well they could scale up to replace liquid fuels, mostly in North America. This strikes me as appropriate, for me at least, as 1. This is an energy blog with a primary focus on Oil. 2. Biofuels are discussed as a matter of national energy policy as a replacement for oil. 3. Biofuel makers are only to happy to sell the idea that their product is an oil replacement, and, they could just as easily be offering to convert biomass to heat for electricity but clearly want to make liquids.

So the main problem I have with biofuels is that they don't scale. I regard them as a science experiment.

Now, while it's true that there is a small amount of net energy to harvest from plants–and I don't see why changing the plant or the method is going to change that by much–the prospect for biofuels as a sustainable investment are even worse. This is because that energy profit margin, while positive, is too thin. With the energy profit margin thin, they are fated to bankrupt investors.

As an aside, I would note that even resource extraction businesses in oil and coal–two very high energy content sources–remain difficult, low margin businesses. I have watched coal companies have great difficulty making money this decade, for example. They always make enough to stay in business, but often not much more than that.

All the unit-level economics have been done. I would much rather point to meta-studies like the one done years ago at Berkeley, or current papers done out of places like Cambridge in the UK, and elsewhere. I have seen what happens when the arguments descend, as they have over the years, into the minutia of the math. Soon one is arguing over ancillary formulae, and missing the bigger picture. The role I have carved out for myself here at Gregor.us to reach a more informed-generalist audience. So my process is to consume all of the details and then present it as something digestible.

I would note that many commenters in this thread are unnecessarily confused about my position on biofuels. My position stated is quite clear, I think. It's clear I am talking within the oil and transport context, and that the efficacy of biofuels HAS to be measured against a replacement prospect for oil. Of course, oil is so unique it really cannot be replaced.

See Robert Rapier's blog, and also David MacKay's work at Cambridge UK as two good examples on biofuel analysis.

I have a question for you: do you believe there is a meaningful quantity of energy to be captured from plants? This seems to be the devastatingly simple question few are asking.

We are so immersed in the oil age paradigm, we have totally lost sight of oil's almost unearthly energy-density. And, we have built everything we see with that density. I think that's part of the mental hurdle here.

Best,

G

Yes, just about everyone who read the blurb of my post in the NY Times incorrectly thought that I took the position that biofuel production is either not technically possible, or that it does not capture energy.

The focus of this blog is mostly oil and the oil depletion problem. Therefore, my focus on biofuels generally points towards the societal hope that they could scale up enough to replace oil consumption. Which of course they cannot. Not in North America. There has been a fair amount of continuity on this blog, in which I've essentially said that yes biofuels capture the small amount of energy available from young plants. This hardly seems controversial.

If one has no liquids, and a pile of solids that could be turned into liquids, then my compliments to the scientific community for turning the latter into the former. As I am sure you would agree, “not much” energy has been captured in the process. But if one's only problem was getting liquids from a pile of solids, then one is doing very well indeed.

As I have also said, society seems to be unaware that everything currently built in modernity runs on the energy density of oil. Since plants are not energy dense, trying to run the present world on them would likely mean we live a very different life. Which is fine by me.

My hope is that current research will have myriad ancillary benefits, possibly to food production and better use of water and land. That would seem to be the likely outcome here. And as we have nowbuilt some of the infrastructure, it would seem prudent to keep it and use it to create liquids for use in farming/agriculture. Again, it would be silly to be “against” a small net energy extraction process especially if it's not diluted by long-distance transport, and used locally.

Finally, I don't see why any next generation processes to transform biomass into fuel would be very interesting or exciting. Except on the level of alchemy. I realize that for those working on the process, they are excited by the process itself. I would just remind we have an army of Venture Capitalists who want to sell that process into very broad-based, cultural hopes and dreams.

G

“Thanks for asking. I disagree. Could the auto industry or the oil industry ever have become strong or stayed afloat without massive government subsidies. No. And the same is true for many other industries. So, investing tax dollars in biofuels that demand more accountability with regard to the life cycle analysis of GHG emissions….meaning that biofuels have to significantly outperform fossil fuels to be eligible for incentives………..makes sense to me. The energy intensive ethanol plants are already on the ropes. The plants that are not drying their wet distillers grains, are sequestering their CO2 and using it for enhanced oil recovery or some other application and are using milo as an alternative feedstock are producing a pretty green/sustainable fuel and that is what we need to move forward. If we just say ixnay to biofuel no big deal for the next few decades likely. Time for the naysayers to die off. But what happens to those that will have to pay $10/gallon when oil supply is so constrained that our fossil fuel economy is in peril. And do you feel good enriching nations that hate America and fund terrorists? Let's spend our money to fuel the economy in the USA.

So, long story short is I am somewhere in between. Don't abandon oil and it's huge energy advantage over plant based fuel but let''s invest in biofuels and work towards transitioning.”

You've made this point regarding the futility of biofuels repeatedly in your blog, and I concur for corn-based ethanol. However, there are many credible people who have made the opposite point with regard to more advanced biofuels (no links on hand at the moment, but you read all the same stuff we all do).

I think it would help your readers evaluate your point if you could walk us through unit-level economics (gallons/acre, EROEI, etc.) for advanced biofuels processes to show us why you think they are not good solutions. For example, after reading your posts, I don't understand if your argument is based on an inability to scale, a cost issue, or an EROEI issue — or on something else entirely. Please consider laying out your argument in more detail to help your readers understand where you're coming from.

Thanks,
Alex

You focus on the “goal” world, which we need for change, growth, evolution. You need support (capital) to maintain yourself, your computers, labs, schools, peers, etc. in order to research the “goal”. This is without question and is understood.

Gregor is drawing attention to the “now” world. He is asking questions, reviewing different methodogies of how we survive to progress into future (goal).

In a time of constrained capital, what is cheaper ultimately win, even if it is a short term fix. It will most certainly be a coctail of all technologies based on geography, climate, natural resources availabe and capital.

One thing I know that debating “goal” world now seems like advertising for political and financial capital. Maybe now is not a good time for that. Also, your “goal” may not be the best immediate, effective use of limited capital when compared a nuclear physicist as an example.

Would actually ask if you could spare a body or two to determine the better connect the dots between “now” and “goal”. That's where we need to invest in immediate, limited capital. That's where you could get immediate support.

You focus on the “goal” world, which we need for change, growth, evolution. You need support (capital) to maintain yourself, your computers, labs, schools, peers, etc. in order to research the “goal”. This is without question and is understood.

Gregor is drawing attention to the “now” world. He is asking questions, reviewing different methodogies of how we survive to progress into future (goal).

In a time of constrained capital, what is cheaper ultimately win, even if it is a short term fix. It will most certainly be a coctail of all technologies based on geography, climate, natural resources availabe and capital.

One thing I know that debating “goal” world now seems like advertising for political and financial capital. Maybe now is not a good time for that. Also, your “goal” may not be the best immediate, effective use of limited capital when compared a nuclear physicist as an example.

Would actually ask if you could spare a body or two to determine the better connect the dots between “now” and “goal”. That's where we need to invest in immediate, limited capital. That's where you could get immediate support.