Ben Cipiti · Biofuels & Land Requirements

June 15th, 2008

Before you throw your full support behind biofuels as an alternative to oil, make sure you consider the land requirements.  Here’s a quick calculation:

Our total yearly energy consumption from oil for transportation is equal to 1,360 GW of thermal energy (for comparison, a typical large power plant may generate 3 GW of thermal energy).  It takes about 0.45 square miles of land to produce enough biomass to generate 1 MW of thermal energy (assuming the land is used sustainably).  So to replace all of our oil consumption with biofuels will require about 612,000 square miles of land.  The entire continental United States equals 2,960,000 square miles, so we would have to set aside about 20% of our land for biofuels.

Or on average, we would need to devote 10 entire states to biofuel production.  This would be an incredible challenge.  On top of that, we’ve already seen food price increases due to increased use of corn ethanol.  And the science is clear that biofuels currently require just as much energy to produce, mostly coming from fossil fuels, as the energy we can get out of them–it doesn’t matter if we’re talking corn ethanol or biodiesel.  Ultimately, unless science can change the energy requirements, biofuels end up producing just as much pollution as oil because of the energy inputs.

Unless we see a major technological breakthrough, biofuels are not the direction we should be going.

Category: BFD

9 Responses to “Biofuels & Land Requirements”

  1. J Murray Says:
    June 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am

    There are enough proven oil and gas reserves in U.S. territories and territorial waters, to supply one or two centuries’ needs for the U.S. There are an estimated 8 times that number of unproven reserves. We won’t have control over our energy needs until we break Congress free from the “no drilling” lobby that, through its extreme position, has gotten us into this mess.

  2. phil lane Says:
    June 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Here’s a quick response to the quick calculation; Horseshit.
    Go nukes,eh?

  3. Ben Cipiti Says:
    June 16th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Phil-thanks for the great comment. If you’d like to present a different argument, please do so in a constructive manner.

  4. Derek Arnold Says:
    June 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am

    What we use as fuel doesn’t matter unless we fundamentally change the way we live…in short, drive shorter distances and use less fuel.

    We also need leaps in fuel efficiency from our vehicles. Neither of those ideas is sexy but hey, they make sense.

  5. J Murray Says:
    June 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Derek, it’s short-sighted to focus on driving as if that is the problem. Tremendous amounts of energy are used by power plants to generate the electricity that powers your computer and mobile phone, the lights in your house and office, the temperature controls that keep us comfortable whether it’s 95 or 15 degrees outside, etc. Environmentalists like to focus on SUVs and their owners as a part of the class warfare argument in the current political climate, but it’s not so simple.

  6. Derek Arnold Says:
    June 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Driving less and driving more fuel-efficient cars are steps that people can immediately take. Citizens also have more control of these solutions than the sourcing of their electricity.

    It is true that it will require more than choosing a Prius over a Hummer to solve our energy puzzle. This will take some public policy because relatively cheap coal makes the business want to maintain the status quo.

  7. J Murray Says:
    June 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Derek, how about turning off all the lights in your home when you’re not using them? Or running your hot water laundry at night? Or increasing your thermostat two degrees in summer, and lowering it two degrees in winter? Or replacing leaky windows with tightly-sealed, double-paned windows? Or increasing the depth of insulation in the attic? It’s not all about cars…

  8. Derek Arnold Says:
    June 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Conservation and mindful use of resources is always a good thing and those are good suggestions.

    Jonathan, it never was or is all about cars…sometimes I think you come to pick arguments. Maybe it’s your tone.

    Power generation has done more than Detroit has in the way of embracing renewable energy.

  9. phil lane Says:
    June 23rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Thanks, Ben. I thought it was a great comment, too. I’ll spread it a little thicker, as that is a good use of manure. From an article in Biomass Magazine; “On February 6, 2008, the Mexican government enacted the Law for the Promotion and Development of Biofuels. Biofuels are defined as ‘fuels obtained from biomass derived from organic material in the following activities: aquaculture, algaeculture, fisheries products, households, commercial, industrial, from microorganism, enzymes, and derivatives of the foregoing that are produced by technological sustainable processes that comply with the specifications and quality norms issued by the competent authorities.’ Further, this law defines biogas as the ‘gas produced by the biological conversion of biomass as a consequence of the decomposition process.’â€

    Now we have a definition of biofuels, and it is clearly not confined to corn ethanol and soy biodiesel. I’ll define the energy challenge the world faces now as identifying new and viable sources of energy which can be integrated with conventional sources and infrastructures in ways that are ecologically, politically and economically sustainable.
    Everything is on the table, even military hardened pebble bed reactors in stable seismic regions.

    The resultant mosaic of solutions might be a peak-shaving geothermal plant integrated with a wind/solar array in the Southwest United States or a rural Indian village co-op using rope engines in an oilseed crushing facility, captured CO2 from clean coal plants feeding algae farms in Ohio.

    On what planet have you ever heard anyone credible espouse a total conversion to corn ethanol and soy biodiesel for transport fuels? No one is advocating for this. Corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are first generation, prototype fuels, and for all their shortcomings doing a damn good job of preparing and transforming our formerly aging petroleum distribution to meet the demands ahead. The principal failures of these fuels are related to greed, lobbyists, farm subsidies and political insularity. Ethanol should have been introduced at a blend of about 17 to 25%, not E85 or E10. Every closed loop gasoline engine management system since 1996 can handle this much ethanol, and there is none of the anomalous vapor pressure problem found in E6-10. Too late for that, maybe, but soon variable compression engines like the Saab Biopower will be available stateside to run on any blend of gasoline and ethanol, delivering the highest power and efficiency when burning E85. Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition is approaching commercialization, and will revolutionize diesel engine technology.

    Furthermore, Ben, you state, in what I consider a specious hit piece, “And the science is clear that biofuels currently require just as much energy to produce, mostly coming from fossil fuels, as the energy we can get out of them–it doesn’t matter if we’re talking corn ethanol or biodiesel.â€

    I defy you or anyone else to prove why it matters if a transport fuel has a negative energy balance, which is in fact untrue for current ethanol and biodiesel. As I’ve stated before here on BFD, “ Despite the solar energy embedded in fossil fuels through millions of years of accretion, the modern processes of extraction, refinement and delivery always, always consume more energy than is ultimately available for combustion. The tradeoff is portability for wide distribution and mobility, stability in storage, access to embedded energy and uniform quality control for optimized combustion.â€

    Do not assume that the level of sophistry formerly tolerated and digested by American consumers is not going the way of $30 oil.

    http://www.25×25.org/

    http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

    http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E04-22_FutureNucPwr.pdf