Washblog

-

by citizensteve on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:05:55 PM PST

---

Noemie here. I'm looking forward to this.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:54:05 PM PST

---

Thanks, Greg, for your essay. I strongly support what is said through this essay, this is every good reason to shift from a fossil fuel to biofuel economy, particularly in the Northwest.

As your comments on agriculture indicate, it is creating a biofuel "economy" which is the prize. This is for two reasons. First, the indirect impacts of more sustainable production processes are as important as substituting biofuel for fossil fuel itself. Second, the widespread use of biofuels requires support from distribution infrastructure to a holistic approach to the economy which appropriately values all the benefits of using biofuels. Energy independence is good, but clean burning fuels is better and buying local is even better.

The changes in the agriculture economy you mentioned are critically important. But these kind of changes do not happen in the United States without public involvement and support. Public involvement is already a reality. Public support is there - it is an artifact of the oil crises of the seventies. Unfortunately, the current structure of public support acts as much to reinforce the negative element of producing biofuels from agricultural products as it does the positive. Even present subsidies for renewable energy production and distribution are most favorable to corporate agriculture and the oil companies.

Here are some concrete instances of this problems:

• Well over ninety percent of our subsidies for basic commodities  such as corn and soy go to massive farms in the Midwest. These subsidies make it economically feasible to over grow these crops in the Midwest and ship them or their oil to the Northwest; preventing the development of local alternatives.


• Tax credits for blending and distributing a gallon of ethanol is $0.51, while the credit for producing the same gallon is $0.10. It is the oil industry that does most of the blending in the United States.

In most of us, facts like these engender a strong "let's end this!" reaction. We should. But the fact is, we probably wouldn't get the result we intend. We need to replace these policies with better policy. We can effectively change the subsidy system by first recognizing what is wrong with it and then changing those elements.

We can:

• Broaden the commodities we subsidize to include mustard and rapeseed.


• Limit the amount of production we subsidize a specific producer for, so we pay for no more than 10,000 bushels from any one producer. Canada does this and it has limited the advance of corporate agriculture there.


• Better still, we begin to phase out the subsidy of crops and place instead the subsidy of public benefits. There is a "sustainable farming" subsidy program in place. It is not being widely implemented.


• Finally, we limit energy subsidies to the first so much produced; just as Canadians do for basic commodities. Further, we do not subsidize any energy that requires significant transportation inputs.

The basic point of all of this is that if we want a "holistic" change in our economy, we must first create holistic public policy.

by don hopps on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:59:42 PM PST

---

I am hoping that Jackie Minchew will join this conversation but, for now, I will be sitting in for Democracy for Snohomish County

by The Left Shue on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:00:17 PM PST

---

Greg wrote earlier today. He's in a small town in Switzerland and probably not able to get internet access. He had a comment for me to post reqarding my earlier question to him on low-energy farming. I had understood him to mean in his essay that low-energy farming could produce more crops than agriculture with high energy input. He clarifies here:

"As to the biodiesel question. I did not say that we could produce more biodiesel with low energy farming, but rather that we could produce more net energy by not wasting so much energy producing the biofuel energy. The end result would be less biodiesel but more net energy production because we would waste less fossil fuels producing it. As to the quantities of Biodiesel and Ethanol we could produce in our region I am not an agricultural expert but I think 80-90% would be very optimistic. Biofuels are not a silver bullet to our problems; there are no silver bullets. We will need to match alternative fuel consumption with an aggressive conservation effort. No combination of renewable fuels will allow us to continue living our massively energy consumptive lifestyles. We need to learn to reduce consumption first and then meet that reduced consumption with a growing renewable energy sector. The real point is we can use as much more biofuels than we currently are. Consumers can help drive the effort by purchasing biofuels, increasing demand and thus increasing local domestic production. I have heard goals of having 25% of our fuel come from biofuels in the next 25 years I think this is an optimistic goal. But if we learn to use public transit, walk and bike we could cut our consumption in half and then those biofuels would represent 50% of our fuel consumption. There are also other variables like plug in hybrids and electric cars coming on the market which will hopefully offset some of our demand for liquid fuels as well. Hopefully we get that electricity from clean renewables as well, not from coal and nuclear."

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:01:42 PM PST

---

Thank you Greg, Washblog, for hosting this important discussion. It's great to see people start to log in here :) I look forward to learning from others and really producing something great to reference. Let's roll!

As we pass the peak in oil production, there is a frenzy to replace our present oil supplies with alternate fuels. Some of these fuels - oil shale and deep sea methane deposits - pose enormous strains on the environment and our ability to regulate the impacts of such operations. Other alternate fuels are derived from plants and grains. These often give the false hope that we will be able to grow ourselves out of peak oil. Unfortunately, they will not. There will not be a replacement for cheap oil.

So what are we doing here posting on this conversation? Well, we're here because biofuels offer benefits other than complete replacement of petro-fuels. Dense fuel sources - BTU-rich liquids - will always be important for more than our motoring to the store. Biofuels offer a way to connect our communities to our food and energy sources. As peak oil will teach us, our food and energy sources were never as secure as we thought they were. Biofuels will be a handhold to help us get our necessary fuels and reconnect us to the land and resources that make our standard of living possible.

by JesseNelson on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:03:34 PM PST

---

Hi All,

David here with Imperium Renewables.  -d

by dkirkpatrick on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:04:38 PM PST

---

I already have a bunch of questions. I'll start with this:

The introduction mentioned that some energy is burned and carbon dioxide is released when the biofuels are being produced. Can you give us a basic percentage comparison to the amount of energy burned in fossil fuel production - and also how the seed crushers are powered? The reason I ask is from some things I've read by RFK Jr. on producing Hydrogen cars, he states that the energy expended to dig down and get the material would negate the amount of "clean" energy produced because the process requires too much gasoline burning.

 

by shoephone on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:26:13 PM PST

---

A few thoughts from my ringside seat in regional biofuels development to stimulate discussion...

1. There is indeed no silver bullet when it comes to reducing and replacing petroleum, but there's a lot of bronze buckshot we can use! When talking with groups, or especially the media, I try to emphasize that enhanced CAFE standards, "transit that works," and implementing new (and often long supressed) technologies, are just some of the low-hanging fruit we can pick to enhance transportation efficiencies.

2. Arguments about life-cycle efficiencies are, in my mind, no longer an issue, regardless of how many column inches Mr. Pimentel, et al can muster. So often this argument glosses over the numerous other benefits, such as air quality, greenhouse emissions, rural economic development, national security, etc. Debating whether the ratio for current ethanol production processes is 1.25 or 1.75 or ... is a moot point in the long run. Traditional starch-based ethanol will be on the way out in 5-7 years by the multitude of cellulosic and "next gen" technologies getting ready to launch.

3.  This brings up my third point -- the future of biofuels will be defined in large-part by the rise of biorefineries. Feedstocks will be selected for their ability to provide industrial precursor chemicals and related materials, the oil will be just one of the co-products. The National Biodiesel Board was established to get rid of excess soy oil. Which oilseed crops are grown in the Northwest will be determined, in part, the value of various co-products.

by Peter Moulton on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:33:30 PM PST

---

David, I know this question has probably come up for you in different ways. What Imperium has done with the Grays Harbor plant opens up economic opportunities for that region and gets us on the road to using more biodiesel in WA and the region. My understanding is that improvements in biodiesel quality will make it easier to comply with new emissions standards, and so we are likely to be seeing more diesel cars coming onto the market soon. I had not known that diesel engines get such high mileage compared with 'regular' engines -- and also that they last longer, less wear and tear on the engines -- so that energy inputs into manufacturing the vehicles themselves are potentially lower. So that's all great. But ideally we'd be able to develop our local feedstocks here. Don in his comment 'upstream' in this post talks about the need for this. Do you agree with his analysis there? And, from your perspective, do you have thoughts on what legislation, incentives, removal of barriers, alliances -- whatever -- could help get us set up so we're growing our biodiesel supplies here? Long-winded, sorry!

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:39:05 PM PST

---

Rita Schenck, Executive Director of Institute for Environmental Resarch and Education, posted this comment on another blog entry on biofuels. I'm moving it here and hope she joins us on this page!

Biofuels have an important role to play in our energy future-- whether we are talking about biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol. I have a few points to make, however. First, there is a limit to the amount of fuel we can grow while still maintaining food crops, and a modicum of biodiversity in the soils and the landscape. This means that we need to step up our conservation efforts: better fuel economy in our cars and conservation in our homes and businesses. Second, while biofuels do reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, current technologies only reduce them by 20 (ethanol from corn) to 80 percent (the best biodiesel). This is an improvement, but it does us no good to exagerate it. Such exagerations lead opponents to dismiss all the good information with the bad. The important thing to realize is that biofuels are a good step forward, but only the first in a long series of policy and personal decisions that need ot be made if we are to survive the end of oil without economic and social collapse. We have been doing research on energy independence for over five years, and it is clear that it is possible-- and on a pretty short timeline, but it takes political will to do so. Rita Schenck Executive Director Institute for Environmental Resarch and Education

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:40:42 PM PST

---

Joseph J. James, CEO of The Corporation for Economic Opportunity, S. Carolina, wrote me regarding tonight's biofuels conversation:

I was glad to read your message about the need for cellulosic complements to corn, as a bio-fuel feedstock.  Our organization is actively involved in biomass issues in South Carolina and the Southeast.  We are also assisting our National Forest and our forestry industry find new ways to use the woody biomass that results from fire hazard trimmings or the waste from timber harvesting and processing.

We are also active members of the Southern Alliance for the Utilization of Biomass Resources (SAUBR), a 14-state organization promoting biomass initiatives in the Southeast.  See www.saubr.ua.edu.  Recognizing the need for adequate political clout to create a more balanced federal policy concerning bio-fuels feedstocks, the Northwest and the Southeast, two places where heavy corn production is unlikely, need to find a way to work together.  Please share that thought with your fellow bloggers and let's find some ways to increase our ability to work together.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:10:56 PM PST

---

Eric Teegarden, who is running for Snohomish County Public Utility District, (Vote for Eric Teegarden, eric@teegarden4pud.com), has written with this comment:

I support biofuels made from waste organic matter such as cooking oil and spoiled vegetables, fruits and vegetation. However, I believe it is false economy to grow crops (especially corn and other grains) for the express purpose of converting them into biofuels. Dept. of Energy research has shown that it takes more energy than is produced by biofuels to grow crops for fuels.

The same is true of solar cells because sand must be heated in a kiln to high temperatures to convert SiO2 into cell-grade 95% pure Silicon. It takes three years for a solar cell to earn back its production energy expense. But then again a solar panel can last 50 years with virtually no maintenance costs.

Conservation is the lowest cost way to reduce our nonrenewable energy needs followed by distributed (home and business supplied) solar water heating and photovoltaics and wind turbine power.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:15:46 PM PST

---

I like where this conversation is going. We like to say that these systems can be successful if they rest on the "economies of synergy". That is, they can be made economically successful if you can put together a package of value-added products(and the technologies behind them) that fully utilize the resources available locally. This requires, in particular, good analysis of the resources presently beingwasted in whole or part.Using dairy waste in combination with ethganol production for example.

by don hopps on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:50:25 PM PST

---

I've been collecting information recently on different renewable energy resource technologies currently being pursued on the Olympic Peninsula.

I read last week in the Port Townsend Leader about Snohomish PUD looking at an area off Point Wilson for placement of 450 tidal power generators.

They are considering a biomass cogen facility in Forks that could produce power and heat for city buildings including the schools while producing a respactable return on investment for a private buyer if pursued correctly.  This would use timber waste as feed, waste which is currently burned in place.

Apparently the Makah tribe and private investors have recently conducted tests on wind power in the region.

Clallam County (including the cities of Port Angeles and Sequim) Transit has recently shifted their 50 bus fleet to a 20% biodiesel blend.

I talked to a man today who has geothermal heating tubes in his home.  Apparently the earth's temperature is a steady 55 degrees 3 feet underground.  He has a system of tubes that run through the walls of his house that provide the first 55 degrees of his winter heating "free."  Apparently they also use this as cooling in states like Arizona.  Hadn't heard of that one at all.  Apparently there is a low energy pump that circulates some especially heat-conductive liquids throughout the system.  Pretty cool.

Off the Peninsula, I recently read about a company in Tacoma that is producing diesel fuel from landfill waste.  I couldn't seem to find the same information I had read in hardcopy on their website - but it was intriguing if nothing else.

Anyways, very interesting conversation.  

My only larger point I guess would be that the state has a very important role in nurturing these sorts of technologies.  The renewable fuel standards bill has spawned developments like the biodiesel plant in Hoquiam.

We should provide targetted tax-breaks for renewable energy investments, but we should avoid becoming too involved with one solution versus another.

Something like I-937 which sets renewable goals but does not "pick sides" with the technologies would be the most beneficial for the local economies while promoting innovation and avoiding too much taxpayer investment in dead-end industries.

Great conversation - I really like these community discussions.

PortDork

by PortDork on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:00:58 PM PST

---

Thank you all so much for engaging in this dicussion. Unfortunately I have to sign off for the night.

Before I go, I want to remind you all again of the DFSC Renewable Energy Symposium and Expo (With Keynote Speaker: Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute).

Please visit our Website SustainableEverett.com for more details. We are still seeking sponsors and exhibitors for the event. If you have particular questions, please email Jackie Minchew at:
info@sustainableeverett.com

Good Night and Peace to you,

Chad (The Left) Shue

by The Left Shue on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:11:26 PM PST

---

Will biofuel production eventually result in huge numbers of farmers, who currently grow food for human consumsption, deciding that it is better for them finiancially to grow crops for biofuel instead? Basically, what I'm asking, is there a downside to moving to to biofuel production?  Could we, many years from now, see a drastict reduction in food being grown for people to eat?  

by Cherisse on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:35:11 PM PST

---

This is one of the best newspaper stories I've seen that lays out the intersection between government/investors/community on this renewable energy stuff.  It's great for Washington that we created the market for biodiesel before Oregon did.  There are a lot of companion industries that could result from this foresight.  

PortDork

by PortDork on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:57:16 PM PST

---

Which ones would have troubles and what we can do to help them?  It seems that if we can offer to find solutions for them, that they would be more likely to come together with us.  Build a coalition of mutual support.

by Pen on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:50:43 PM PST

---

Ken Dahlberg of Michigan Land Trustees wrote and suggested I include this link in our discussion:

Study Finds Ethanol Not Efficient Enough.

It is a page that discusses the July, 2006 article from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled, "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels"

In relation to this article, Mr. Dahlberg wrote me:

It shows that ethanol from corn only yields 25 percent more energy than it takes to produce it. The study also found greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution improvements were only slight using corn ethanol, a bit better using soy diesel. But, the researchers say even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to bio-fuels instead of food would only meet 12 percent of the demand for gasoline and six percent of the demand for diesel. The researchers conclude that other more woody plants and wood by-products could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based bio-fuels. The consequences throughout the food system are summarized in a statement I gave to the MI Food Policy Council.

Mr. Dahlberg attached a file of this presentation. Much of it touches on issues that a Minnesota organization, Institute for Local Self Reliance, focuses on. The Back to the Roots program, which is sponsoring this biofuels conversation, centers on the need that Mr. Dahlberg describes --- decentralizing food and energy production and distribution -- and diversifying technologies, crops, etc.. Here are some excerpts from Mr. Dahlberg's presentation:

Biofuel Development: Michigan Needs to Focus on Protecting Food Security and Building More Sustainable and Self-reliant Communities
A Statement by Ken Dahlberg, Michigan Land Trustees Michigan Food Policy Council Listening Session, Kalamazoo, February 21, 2005

Introduction:
Michigan Land Trustees was founded in 1978. Its objectives are "to provide access to land, to promote preservation and responsible use of farmland, the development of energy-conserving and appropriate technologies, and the development of decentralized and self-reliant communities. . . ." In its early years it ran pioneering homesteading and permaculture programs and more recently has supported the development of community gardens, food systems councils, and fall harvest festivals.

My statement tonight is based on a longer "white paper" that I am working on. The National Context:

In his State of the Union Address, the President proclaimed that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology"

Unfortunately, these views suggest that we only need to change the substances than feed our fuel addiction, rather than addressing its root causes - energy extravagant transportation systems, food systems, and lifestyles.

Nationally, rather than changing "how we power our automobiles," we need to focus on reducing our dependency on long distance systems - especially in food, where the average food item travels some 1500 miles. Rather than pursuing the President's goal of making ethanol "practical and competitive within six years," we need to reduce the huge energy inefficiencies in our food system.

Michigan should not join in the "gold rush" mentality to develop biofuels as an industrial "crop." That is, as "export fuel" which will help feed our national energy addition. The risks are too high. Rather it should develop a decentralized approach which will revitalize small- and medium-sized family farms through policies that promote local food economies that are sustainable, that encourage public health, and that provide food security for all.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:05:37 PM PST

---