Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
The lastest issue of Nature Climate Change to reach my mailbox has some startling news, particularly considering that it comes from a generally Warmist publication. One might say is is “topsy-turvy” (upside down) from a Warmist viewpoint, but quite in keeping with a Skeptic point of view.
1) Total emissions from biodiesel are WORSE than emissions from fossil fuels, when considering both Direct and ILUC (Indirect Land Use Changes) Emissions.
2) Natural gas is WORSE than that “filthy fuel” coal when considering the net warming effects due to leakage rates of methane associated with natural gas and the cooling effects associated with aerosols from burning of coal.
3) Pure electric vehicles are WORSE than petroleum-burning hybrids, considering overall lifetime cost/benefits.
Here are some of the details:
1) A BIOFUEL CONUNDRUM. Biofuels get their energy from the Sun and absorb CO2 from the Atmosphere, making them carbon-neutral. Right? WRONG.
The graphic (from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/fig_tab/nclimate1265_F1.html, annotations added by Ira) shows total emissions, which is the sum of Direct and ILUC (Indirect Land Use Changes) Emissions. Note that all sources of biodiesel produce more total emissions than the equivalent amount of energy derived from fossil fuels. Also note that bioethanol, while better than fossil fuels in this accounting, are far from carbon-neutral.
The orange and grey dashed lines across the bars show the threshold for a 50% and 35% emission saving, respectively, compared with fossil fuels. Initially biofuels will have to deliver a 35% saving under EU law, but this will rise to 50% in 2017. Indeed, when policymakers talk about raising the threshold in the context of the ILUC debate, they are reportedly talking about raising it to 50% — this graphic shows that according to what we know about the scale of ILUC, this policy approach wouldn’t solve the problem. ILUC data is from a draft report of the International Food Policy Research Institute; direct emissions data is from the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
According to this research, bioethanol from wheat saves less than 50% of emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Other bioethanol sources are only about 50-60% carbon-neutral.
2. A NATURAL GAS CONUNDRUM. Natural gas (methane) produces only half the CO2 of coal per unit of energy, so it must be cleaner and greener. Right? WRONG.
According to research by Tom Wigley of NCAR [Climate Change, 108, 601-608 2011]. It turns out that burning of coal releases aerosols that have a cooling effect. Of course, that is not news to those of us familiar with the 1974 National Science Board report that warned of Global Cooling due to human-caused aerosols. In addition, it seems that up to 10% of methane, a potent “greenhouse” gas, leaks out into the Atmosphere. Leakage rates need to be kept below 2% to beat fossil fuels.
3. AN ELECTRIC CAR CONUNDRUM. Pure electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf and my golf cart, release no direct emissions, so they are “greener” than hybrids or conventional cars that burn gasoline or diesel. Right? WRONG.
According to research from Carnegie Mellon University [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 16554-16558 2011] hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles that burn some fossil fuels benefit society over their lifetimes more than either pure electric battery-powered vehicles or conventional gasoline-powered autos. Hybrids have smaller battery packs than pure electrics and therefore cost less to build and maintain.
… The work takes into account, for example, the power plant emissions associated with charging a plug-in car, the direct cost of oil as well as the military expense associated with defending against disruption in its supply, the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions from exhaust pipes, and vehicle recycling and land filling. …
@Mark,
you lost me the moment you mentioned being associated with Al Gore. That being said, this non-scientist still has some comments to make.
1. Pollution up until the end of the 1980s was definitely a problem. I live in Australia and was raised in Melbourne. I did suffer from the effects of pollution, in particular goint anywhere near an oil refinery produced a very severe headache. However, with the improvement in the quality of the air as a result of changes to car engines, the pollution in Sydney in particular has cleared. The same is true for New York City – I was there in 1985 and returned in 2009 and there was a very visible difference.
What I find is that this nonsense about CO2 as a pollutant is diverting attention away from where the air needs to be cleaned up, and that means that a lot of the good that has been done will end up being undone, unless we cut the crap!!
2. Biofuels, especially ethanol – Here in Australia we have had fuels that have been part bio-fuels. For earlier cars these fuels were a disaster, and their use actually reduced the life of the engine and did damage to things like the Fuel injection systems. How do I know? I used those “cheaper” fuels and ended up wearing the costs in fixing up my car!! This was improved when cars were built using the catalyctic converter.
On the same issue, I found that the ethanol fuels did not go as far a distance as the ordinary fuels I drive a six cylinder Ford and it is fuel efficient on the open road. I have seen the comparison and the distance covered when travelling a great distance is definitely reduced if I used the E10 fuel.
3. Insulation makes little difference in a lot of houses. The best time to introduce insulation is when the house is being built.
It is far better to design a house that is efficient and “sustainable” than to alter an existing house.
4. Natural gas is far more efficient than using electricity for cooking.
5. Hydro-electric power is a clear winner but the watermelons will not let us build the dams to create hydroelectric power.
6. Coal power is still very efficient and cheap as a source of electricity, but nuclear is cleaner.
No “letters to the editor” but
emailsa quiet talk to their boss about getting them fired for blasphemy. ;O)I have always wondered where on Earth these pure electric vehicles get their power for their batteries from. Solar? Wind?
Coal, oil, gas maybe?Mike Jonas: Septic Matthew – Algae farms are another form of solar power (I think the first one(s) are now in production??).
Agreed, and the focus of selective breeding experiments, which have produce increased yields.
Aussie says:
December 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm
=========================
Amen! (another Aussie)
What about those useless desalination plants that we now have that consume enormous amounts of electricity at huge cost … that’s Green sustainability for you.
So:
Instead of electric cars we must have no cars.
Instead of cheap and clean gas for fuel, we must have no fuel.
This report, it seems to me, is not in favour of the status-quo, nor the “clean” alternatives.
It fits neatly into the greeny slot though: Austerity, poverty and misery.
This helps whose cause ?
davidmhoffer. Dec. 11 5.59 pm
If you ever think of running for President, you got my vote
Ever think of writing a book on the known history of our climate ? you have the write attitude to make it a great success.
Algae farms are solar power?
Oddly, I would have thought they were bio-fuel-food.
By that definition, wind power is actually solar power too.
Streetcred;
The plants are useless because they’re in the wrong place. There are lots of regions/locales where they’d be worthwhile. Just ask the Israelis, who are experts at building and locating them properly.
“The work takes into account, for example, the power plant emissions associated with charging a plug-in car,”
It seems the Carnegie Mellon University didn’t calculate the electricity needed to refine gasoline.
The amount of electricity needed to produce 1 US gallon of gasoline can power an electric car about 25 miles, according to Nissan. Sorry no link.
“The amount of electricity needed to produce 1 US gallon of gasoline can power an electric car about 25 miles, according to Nissan. Sorry no link.”
Of course no link. That’s like the claim that there’s a secret carburetor that runs on water.
No mention here (that I noticed) of the congress mandated “10% added ethanol” foodfuel in gasoline as a payoff to ADM and the USDA. Nor of the 6 – 8% mileage decrease resulting from the use of that adulterated fuel.
How much electricity is used to refine a qallon of gasoline?
6 kilowatt hours
http://gateway.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline
Granted, external costs are overlooked by a free-market model, but much of the debate over the various fuels would be settled by just letting the markets work. If land has a better market use for something other than sugar beets, then that better use will occur naturally over time. If battery powered vehicles are less efficient, that will also be reflected in the pricing, and they will go out of favor due to cost. Etc., across the board.
That leaves government, and its people, to ascertain, and address legislatively, the external costs that are borne by society at large, but not by the individuals doing the transacting in the markets. If coal pollutes the air, pass air pollution laws that bring down the permissible levels of pollutants (as we’ve done.) If the cost rises to the point that coal becomes uneconomic once it is burned cleanly, so be it. Meanwhile, users of coal will be lobbying to keep the permissible level of pollutants at a reasonable level (sometimes unsuccessfully, as when they are ordered to spend billions to address external costs measured in millions of dollars.)
Just get the government out of the business of subsidizing products, either directly, or via tax law, and most of this would straighten out on its own…
Well then we’ll just have to levy big carbon taxes on big-agribusiness as well. This is great news! More money for the government. Whoo-hoo!
What is even more fun is looking at the conversion ratio of sunlight (insolation) per sq.m. per month in KWh over any given growing area (it varies by latitude but a rough and ready is 4KWh/sq.m./month) and then at the conversion ratio to actual, useful fuel in terms of energy harvested. For its growing season (approx. 125 days) corn gives a 9% return in the way of energy in ethanol, unfortunately you get nothing for the other part of the year from that land. Cane sugar doesn’t do so well at a 5% return, but has a continual harvest cycle in the tropics. Ethanol itself contains about half the energy per volume as gasoline does when oxidized.
Biodiesel fares a bit better as diesel from plant oil is as energetic as petro-diesel. Palm oil is harvested at about 635 gal./acre, Jatropha 202 gal/acre, rapeseed about 127 gal. acre. So all you have to do is take the number of gallons of diesel consumed per country per year, divide by the number of gallons each plant type yields and you get the number of acres needed to replace the diesel fuel with plant based derivatives. And thus use up all the arable land on most of the planet, as these crops don’t tend to grow well in the sea, in mountainous terrain, in deserts, wetlands (swamps, bogs, marshland), and on concrete.
This is without any cost in the way of energy for planting, harvesting, using insecticides, processing, shipping, etc. of the fuels involved. And a few of those plant types need large amounts of fertilizer or they deplete the soil of nutrients very quickly, thus putting an additional part to the processing train into the mix. None of these plants reach past 10% conversion ratio per sq. m. of energy to something useful, while even thin film amorphous silicon starts there at a 10% conversion ratio to electricity. Better ratios have come through more refined substrates but those cost more to process, etc.
Even if you add in the waste part of the plant (cellulose material) to get its energy, I can’t see where the return on energy gets to, say, 35% per sq.m. Plus that stuff takes more processing, sorting, etc. and has its own energy use and production train to it.
Algae sounds good for industrial plants, and is a nice energy recapture system, but only that: it takes waste heat from industrial plants and produces gasoline. Even if you put one on every, single energy wasting business, industrial site, etc. you are looking at a brand-new heavy industry to make the stuff and then faced with 70,000 gal/yr. gasoline and dividing that into what a nation uses per year to see just what sort of numbers you need for a nation. This is a ‘better’ solution in that it doesn’t use arable land, but it is in no way an ‘answer’ just a way to recapture waste energy. Those directly driven by sunlight have their own sq. m. to fuel ratios, but can be put on land not typically used for agriculture.
Just on energy budgets of what is required to run even a moderate sized nation, I can’t see any ‘green’ technology coming up with the goods even if you double the output of the useful fuels or energy coming from them. The math isn’t there for it and we have some hard earthbound limits on what we can use and where we can use it. Getting off the planet for this stuff does offer some very useful possibilities and maybe, in 30 years, we can start seeing if we can get a decent idea if O’Neil’s group was right on that…
Ralph, that’s comparing apples and artichokes. A portion of the energy is used in refining. But all the fossil fuel used to produce electricity goes into making electricity, not just a portion. And that’s after refining. Further, there is already arbitrage happening between electric rates and other power sources. If everyone drove EV’s, electric rates would skyrocket because you can’t get something for nothing. Right now EV drivers riding on the backs of the average electricity ratepayer.
Finally, I would never trade my gasoline powered car in for an EV. I get “only” 30 mpg, but there is no Leaf, Volt or Prius that can keep up with me in either acceleration or speed. And I get well over 300 miles to a tank of gas, and I can “recharge” in only a couple of minutes. It’s a no-brainer, especially since electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.
But don’t worry, there’s an alternative.
2. A NATURAL GAS CONUNDRUM. Natural gas (methane) produces only half the CO2 of coal per unit of energy, so it must be cleaner and greener. Right? WRONG.
According to research by Tom Wigley of NCAR [Climate Change, 108, 601-608 2011]. It turns out that burning of coal releases aerosols that have a cooling effect. Of course, that is not news to those of us familiar with the 1974 National Science Board report that warned of Global Cooling due to human-caused aerosols. In addition, it seems that up to 10% of methane, a potent “greenhouse” gas, leaks out into the Atmosphere. Leakage rates need to be kept below 2% to beat fossil fuels.
Tom Wigley left out a huge componant of this equation. Coal mining is by far the number one man made source for methane venting into the atmosphere. five years ago I was at a conference and a representative from the Chinese department of mining admitted at that time they vented over 345 billion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every year. I know of several coal mines in the western US that vent 6 to 7 million cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every day. Natural Gas drillers would never be allowed to vent even a fraction of that volume of gas.
Methane is about 13 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
Mike Jonas;
davidmhoffer – “You are assuming that biofuels are just as efficient as fossil fuels. As a rule of thumb, they are not.”
I don’t think I am assuming anything about fossil fuels. All I’m saying is that all the direct CO2 from biofuels is recycled C, so is not a net emission (unless the original absorption by the biofuel crop is being counted separately).>>>
Mike, how does one go about BUYING fuel? With money. Earned how? By working. Is work carbon neutral? NO! Unless ALL the fuel sources you use are net neutral (and they are not) then work is be definition carbon positive. Since you have to work more to buy the same amount of end result from the fuel you buy, an inneficient fuel is hugely carbon positive. Always. Even if all you do is sit at a desk and shuffle paper, the outcome of your work in the economic foodchain is physical work at some point, done by fuel sources that are net positive. Fooffuel is foolfuel.
Mike Jonas;
Yes one does, but surely it’s best to assess the effect of each other possible use and put it alongside biofuel for comparison. Maybe it would be legitimate to subtract the effect of doing nothing with the land, but for nearly all land that effect is close to zero in the long term>>>
Here are your choices for land use:
1. Food.
2. FoodFuel.
3. Whatever mother nature decides to grow.
1 and 3 are carbon sinks. 2 is carbon positive as I’ve explained above.
If you are picking by carbon impact, and can only pick one, FoodFuel is last on the list. If you are picking by net benefit to humanity, FoodFuel is last on the list.
Assessment of possible uses complete.
Smokey, I wouldn’t trade my Nissan 370Z for a Leaf for any reason. EVER! I simply commented on the common pratice of some people saying EV’s create more pollution than ICE automobiles.
FINALLY, an attempt at looking through the wide-angle lens. However, I sure would not put any stock in that 1974 report, concerning aerosols. We have come a LONG, LONG way in reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants (as well as all other types of industrial facilities), since 1974!
Also, why is corn ethanol not mentioned?
I agree, Mike Jonas. In the graphic at the head of this posting, the “Direct Emissions” (in Green) should only count those direct emissions required for growing the crop and processing and distributing the biofuel, and should surely not include the CO2 emitted when the fuel is burned because, as you say, that is recycled carbon.
I re-read the Nature Climate Change paper and now I am not so sure. They begin by saying:
But, then they note that the growing trees, cleared to make way for biofuel crops, would have continued to absorb CO2 had they not been cut down. On the other hand, they note, as some point mature trees absorb less CO2,and, of course, the biofuel crops absorb CO2. After reading all that back and forth I am unsure what the Green part of the bar graph represents.
Always great to hear from you Dave!
First of all, the quoted words are not mine, but were copied from the Nature Climate Change item that summarized the Carnegie Mellon research.
Secondly, IMHO they are correct. Indeed the blood and treasure we expend protecting our access to relatively inexpensive oil from politically unstable regions is the main reason I favor a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax collected at the mine, well, and port and distributed on an equal per-capita basis to all citizens as a free market-based way to encourage development of more efficient and mature domestic carbon-free and carbon-neutral energy sources.
As you may know, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (OIF) was initially called “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (OIL) and Alan Greenspan said “The Iraq war is largely about oil, …”
Ira;
Every war is about something, and control of energy lifelines is high on the list at any time. Or have you accepted the meme that “Oil” is a universal smear-word?
Note about algae ponds, etc: the cost of “fertilizer”, aka algae food, is very significant, and frequently a deal-breaker. TANSTAAFL, even for algae.