Friday, January 30, 2009

No We Can't

As I mentioned in previous posts, a number of people contacted me about my Globe piece. One of those people is Dr. Helmut Burkhardt, a Professor of Physics Emeritus at Ryerson University in Toronto. Dr. Burkhardt wanted me to know about a paper he published in 2006 entitled Physical Limits to Large Scale Biomass Generation for Replacing Fossil Fuels.

Dr. Burkhardt's paper helped me to understand the arithmetic of energy generation and consumption. Of the many facts and figures he presents, I found this passage particularly useful:

"The problem of large scale global use of biomass can be visualized by comparing it with food energy. A person needs some 100W of food energy - some 2000 kCal per day. Feeding the present world energy system with biomass power of 2300 W/person [current average power consumption per person] is equivalent to feeding 23 'energy slaves' for each person. It is quite obvious that a healthy World ecosystem cannot spare sufficient biomass production to feed the equivalent of 156 billion human beings."

So there are some hard numbers, for perspective. But as you know, I like to liven up hard numbers with intangibles. So here's a bit of touchy-feely stuff...

One very cold day early in the month, I found myself thinking that this business of saving the planet was lots of work. And while Toronto is a great place in June - in January, well not so much. Now just so you know, I am neither a martyr nor a saint. So I did what any normal person that just spent half his assets on a newspaper ad would do. I packed my bags and the next day my laptop and I were in New Orleans, getting ready to start a two month road trip to California and back.

Have you ever driven through the American Southwest? You should. Make sure to get off the interstate to experience the desert from the back roads. Get out of the car and walk. You'll soon see that, far from being dry and dead, the southwest desert is a wondrous place, full of life. Mesquite, creosote, agave and yucca. Roadrunners, javelinas and rattlesnakes. Broad expanses of mountains, rolling hills and open range. Endless blue sky.

Americans are a lucky bunch.

Spirituality is very personal and I don't like to talk about mine publicly. But I will say this: If this blue sphere of ours is nothing but an accident, it's one helluva of a beautiful accident indeed. During my travels I've been meeting many people - ordinary Americans, foreign tourists, parks staff, and a surprising number of Canucks - that are very committed to respecting and protecting this little accident of ours.

Unfortunately, that's not the case for everybody. Despite the physical impossibility of using plant matter to make a significant dent in our energy requirements, our governments are ignoring math and science and getting ready to dive headfirst into biomass as an alternative energy source.

And then there are people like the anonymous poster that left this telling comment to my post Farmers, and the Yin and Yang of Advocating:

"Dude, here's the fact: Ethanol = Sugar + Yeast. The planet is full of sugar, there are 70 million acres of mesquite in the US southwest with starch pods full of it - it just needs to be harvested."

How do you folks in West Texas, New Mexico and Arizona feel about that?

There you have it. If we want, we can fool ourselves into creating a "new economy" that subsidizes people to cut down, burn and plough over all of our remaining wilderness. There is no shortage of people ready to do just that if there is money to be made. But with all the wishful thinking in the world, it will not make a significant dent in our energy requirements because it is a physical impossibility.

So no, Mr. Obama, you can't.

You just can't.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

George,

Not mentioned by Burkhardt, algae is the only credible biomass with the possibility of substituting petroleum. Cellulosic ethanol is only a marginal option and it is much less clear that it can be commercially viable let alone that it could sufficiently scale. US DOE NREL conducted some groundbreaking work in algae biofuel but this was shut down in the mid 1990s. It is my understanding the research is now restarted with plenty of investment.


Here is the US DOE NREL Report at the close-out of its research:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

...and here is a brief article that introduces recent activity:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/natural-selection/2009/01/07/Algae-as-Alternative-Fuel-Source

SteveF

George Tesseris said...

Steve, are you aware of any possible unintended consequences of using algae as a source of biomass energy? I am not a scientist and I do not want to wade into territory where I have no business being, but I am concerned about rushing headlong into large scale solutions that can very innocently end up upsetting the natural balance of things.

Anonymous said...

Hi George,

The only disconcerting activity I have heard about involving algae is of the geoengineering variety: seeding the ocean to increase algae growth and take more CO2 from the air in return for carbon credits. This is very fringe, very frightening and nothing to do with creating a fuel source.

To my knowledge, most of the algae R&D being conducted involves either bioreactors that are essentially closed systems or algae farms in the desert. Here is a good, balanced article from National Geographic that traces the evolution of ethanol, including its now familiar fundamental flaws, and concludes on an optimistic note with algae based biodiesel:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text

SteveF

Anonymous said...

Nice article. I agree with you in principle that we shouldn't be diverting food cropland to fuels. However, I'm also wary of any blanket pronouncements either for or against something. Personally, I think the real issue in looking for new energy sources is two-fold: (1) We need to take a hard look at how we can conserve energy and be more energy efficient in all we do (why just waste it when you don't have to?); and (2) We need to look at a mix of options which need to be developed at a small-scale locally.

Looking for the "miracle energy source" or the technology that will save us is a non-starter. We have to work with what we have, which includes ample consideration of how we can live in harmony with the ecosystems we inhabit.

Large-scale global biomass doesn't make sense. But large-scale global anything doesn't make sense ecologically. Ecology thrives on diversity and plurality. It seems to me we need to mimic that in local small-scale development of energy, in a variety of forms - wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, hydro, woody biomass, cellulosic ethanol, even algae!, etc etc.

It would be a travesty to mow down all of the mesquite, but it might make sense for some people somewhere to use a little to create an energy source.

The difficulty arises when we get into the question of who will fund these projects and how do we push back against corporate control of the energy system (or the food system for that matter). There is no easy answer there, but I am encouraged by local grassroots efforts to develop community-operated sustainable energy systems. I am most familiar with the organizations I'm affiliated with (www.oregonrural.org and www.worc.org), but there are many out there...

George Tesseris said...

Shaun, I agree with much of what you said. We just need to proceed carefully when it comes to growing our fuel as the slope can get quite slippery.

Would it not be better to work at stemming population growth which is at the root of our environmental problems? It might sound counterintuitive, but you do that by economic development of poor countries to bring about the demographic shift. I think that's what I would focus on.