Biofuels
are one of the many approaches being tried to solve peak oil, all the word
means is fuels derived from organic matter (organic in this case means from
living things, generally plants). To explain why we’re trying I have just
pulled out a paragraph from my chemistry textbook from the chapter on biofuels
(it’s a small chapter and they’ve just added it recently). I find it
surprisingly honest about what’s happening for its source
Peak
oil
‘Peak
oil’ is the time when worldwide oil extraction can no longer keep up
with
increasing demand.
The
greatest amount of oil discovered in any one year was in 1964,
and
since then the new reserves found have gone down in size each year.
Meanwhile
demand for oil has increased as the world population has
increased
and lifestyle expectations have risen. The actual timing of ‘peak
oil’
is debatable. We may be there now!
The
situation provides motivation to devise renewable and sustainable
sources
of the carbon compounds, both for fuels and to provide feedstock
for
the organic chemical industry.
The statement
above is mostly accurate but many of the realities of biofuels are ignored and
need to be stated here. It uses
agriculture that generates chemical energy as a fuel rather than as food, it
suffers from the limits and faults of any agricultural system used to produce
them and will change along with the rest of the agricultural system. It also
competes with food production, which limits the production levels. While
alternatives to using food are available, most of them suffer drawbacks and
would still require nutrient cycling to remain sustainable.
Now the dominant
form of agriculture is the industrial from, which suffers from an acute case of
unsustainability. So, any biofuels produced under the current model also
suffers from a case of unsustainability. Of more concern is the fact that the current
agriculture system uses vast quantities of fuel energy and so any biofuel
production would first have to compensate for its own production. Since the
fuel use of industrial agriculture is so high this means that most biofuels
produced today have a low or nil EROEI. High EROEI biofuels are produced mostly
by hand labour (e.g. ethanol from Brazil) and can reach about 10. This means that
replacing current farming practices with the various organics modes before
introducing major biofuel production is the better option, since the supporting
system is figured out first and it can then be decided if it is worthwhile.
Biofuels also can’t replace petroleum and
other fossil fuels in both amounts and usage. This doesn’t make them worthless,
just that their role will be highly limited and needs to be supported with
other energy sources.
So what are the biofuels?
Solids: The oldest biofuels, traditionally wood,
normally used for fire & cooking, there are currently efforts to increase
the range of sources of solid biomass available for heat energy. Charcoal is a
refined form of wood and was used extensively in metalworking and glassworks. It’s
actually superior to coke but costs more and its increased use caused large
scale deforestation across large areas in Europe and America. Any organic material can be used as a
feedstock for the new types being invented and as long as proper nutrient
cycling takes place long-term soil fertility won’t suffer. Raw biomass does
create large amounts of pollution however, which limits desirability.
While it will not
easily power motor vehicles (except electric or trains), it can easily supply
heat in stationary operations or electrical/mechanical power production. Due to
its difficulty to transport (relative to liquid fuels), the main constraint on
use will be its availability in the immediate area and rural areas should have
the greatest access while cities will probably use it as a small supplementary
energy source at best. For military use, mostly cooking, supplementary heat and
a local source of electricity.
Biogas: The chemical of interest in biogas is
methane, which is identical to natural gas. This allows the use of existing
infrastructure of natural gas to be directly used with only 1-2 components
added. The production of biogas, anaerobic digestion of biomass, has two
products; a solid known as digestate, which can be used either as a fertilizer
or as fuel (fertilizer will be the default option) and a mixture or methane,
hydrogen, hydrogen sulphide (corrosive) and carbon monoxide gases. This is one
of the easier biofuel production processes and is relatively simple and cheap
(the Chinese are engaged in massive biogas programs).
When upgraded
(takes 3-6% of the energy in the gas to upgrade) it can power machinery without
corroding it, hydrogen sulphide isn’t a very nice chemical. Compression into a
liquid can allow easy use in vehicles and has been shown to be able to power
trains (Sweden), this also makes it a candidate for
military use. Like all biofuels, rural areas will have the greatest access but
thanks to its ability to be transported easily by pipes a connection to the
rural hinterland could allow a reasonable supply to cities; this also counts
for the liquid biofuels.
Fuel cells offer a
highly efficient way of converting methane directly into electricity as opposed
to using hydrogen.
Ethanol: otherwise known as alcohol and is made by
yeast fermenting sugars anaerobically. Comes in a liquid form, which makes it
directly usable in combustion engines; either as an additive or (in Brazil) as the fuel, some engines do need
modifications through (it can melt plastics). By-products of production can be
used a animal feed (high in protein) or fertilizer but carbon dioxide is also
produced. Improvements, like GM bacteria that can use waste products or special
breakdown process of plant cellulose, are happening and could help keep basic
(limited) motorized transport running. Would most likely be produced in
abundance by Queensland’s sugar cane crop, similar to Brazil’s approach.
Isn’t as good on
the engine as gasoline is, but it can be used for fire quite well. E.g. http://www.ozflame.com.au/. Most likely,
it won’t be used as the primary combustion fuel (biodiesels are better for
that) but it can be used as a solvent, as an antiseptic, chemical feedstock and
as a drink.
Biodiesel:
Is produced by the breakdown
of triglycerides by Tran esterification (breaks a lipid into 3 fatty acids and
a glycerol). Energy density is close (about 9% lower) to petrodiesel but it
does offer a higher cetane rating (combustion quality) and better lubricating
qualities which helps offset its disadvantages.
Due to the higher
energy densities and increased efficiencies of diesel, biodiesels use in heavy
machinery, armoured fighting vehicles and ships is likely, if biofuels are used
for the military it will most likely be the primary fuel used. Can also power
aircraft and in rural areas would provide heavy muscle to add to the other
energy sources available. As a sidenote, from the crushing of oil seeds a high
protein and carbohydrate meal residue is produced which can be feed to
livestock, this makes it more attractive for farms to produce the Biodiesel for
themselves.
Usage Levels and
Nutrient Cycling: Two important questions remain about
biofuels, how do they fit in the energy mix we’ll have during the transition
and ecotechnic phases and how the nutrients used will be cycled back into the
soil.
To understand how
nutrient cycling will work I’ll list the elements of the fuels and where they
come from. For ethanol the nutrient used is glucose which is made of Carbon,
Hydrogen and Oxygen, all the fuels contain only this elements (if the fuel is
pure) and Charcoal is only Carbon while biogas is Carbon and Hydrogen. In sugar
production water is split in the chloroplasts by light (artificial
photosynthesis is an attempt to copy this process) to form Hydrogen and Oxygen.
The Carbon comes from the Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere around the plant and
is used to form the backbone to which Hydrogen and Oxygen is attached.
Therefore, as long as only the fuel is leaving the farm or local area the
plants via the atmosphere can replace the nutrients. Of course, the soil
normally gains these nutrients when the plants die and taking them away will
make the soil poorer than it would otherwise be. The principal loses are
organic carbon and a source of energy (that is what sugar is after all) for the
soil organisms and in some way this needs to be compensated, leaving the land
fallow could work and there are undoubtedly other approaches suited to each
area, biochar could certainly compensate for the lowering of organic carbon
levels.
The usage of
biofuels will depend on the traits of other energy sources as much as its own
traits. Given that wind and solar suffer from intermittency while biofuels can
be used whenever you want (after production) then a compensatory role is
likely. This also fits with their ease of storage relative to wind and solar,
similar to granaries but for energy instead of food. Balancing the amount of
food storage with energy storage (since it can be converted only one-way) will
be tricky and a vital decision of any society that seeks to employ biofuels.
For storage, a
good system could involve two levels. The first level could be considered the
day to day use (or in this case year-to-year) and is for individual farmers and
towns to supplement other energy sources. This would carry over from month to
month and partially from year to year and provides the main usage for everyday
life. The second level is made from the surplus from the first storage level
and is used for the bigger regional/national energy expenditures. While the
first level is used for yearly famines the second can be used for multi-year
famines, in effect they allow no biofuels to be produced that year without
losing energy, that the first level couldn’t cover. This second level would
cover major infrastructure expansions/maintenance and such, major wars,
festivals and other big energy expenditures.
No comments:
Post a Comment