The European Commission wants to limit the use of food crops as a source of biofuel, and instead promote non-food sources, such as this Miscanthus, or elephant grass, grown in the UK, as a biofuel feedstock. (Source: Wikimedia Commons/David Wright)
This is an interesting situation. I really thought that the reason for the EU to limit biofuels was that there are food shortages from the drought in the US that have driven up the cost of basic foodstuffs. The issue of using land that was not under cultivation is a really imprecise measure. This happens in the realm of food production all the time depending on market conditions. For example, in the US, peanut production was at an all time high this year. The reason is two fold. First, crops were down and prices up in the previous couple of years. So, more land was put into cultivation. There was also a very high yield becuase the regions where peanuts are grown had lots of rain this year. In the EU, there are major distortions caused by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This has nothing to do with fuel production. In the US we have our farm policy. In both cases we have been paying farmers for years to not grow cash crops to keep prices to farmers up. Now the market does that for us.
The alternatives are not all they are cracked up to be either. Algae would have to cover a large area to be useful. Are we ready for that? In addition, do the crops get credit for the CO2 they absorb while they are growing? This would be an interesting calculation. I have seen oil refineries and I have seen ehtanol plants. Is the CO2 from the oil refineries in the calculation? What about the transport of oil around the globe. Ethanol tends to be used near where it is distilled.
Any real comparison should take into account the whole cycle of production, including the equipment. I don't think we have seen that done for oil, or ethanol, in a comprehensive manner.
Good point on taking in consideration the whole cycle of production on the biofuels, Naperlou. That's the only want to get a good comparison. Another example is the steel industry's claim that composites eat more energy than steel during processing, and that steel costs less to recycle.
" the steel industry's claim that composites eat more energy than steel during processing, and that steel costs less to recycle." -- ah, the complexities of the problem. This argument shows that if you choose to optimize on specific components you can come up with huge fails. The first rule of optimizing a system is to avoid local optimization. When it comes to minimizing total energy use, composites win by a large margin. Aluminum is awful but gets quite a bit better because of low energy intensity and environmental impact when recycled: ~5% energy recycled to raw. Steel is never a challenger for anything as it is less malleable and less stable - particularly it's environmental impact because of chemical processes needed to make a finished product. Recycled steel uses ~26% of the energy for raw steel. Having worked with composites, steel and aluminum for automotive and aircraft construction, I'm not sure what 'processing' they're even talking about - the heat load required to form and shape composites is much smaller than for the other two. Of course, if you were to consider the lifetime energy consumption of transportation products, composites and aluminum have a substantial energy use advantage over steel. One should also consider material turns i.e. what is the lifetime of the material in use, because, in the long view, the more frequently a material is recycled, the more energy it uses. One of the technical problems with sourcing aluminum, especially extruded or cast components, is that the majority of the price is energy content. Of course, the contribution of steel to acid rain is well known.
Thanks for that detail, George. In the study on steel I read, it wasn't specific about what was meant by "processing." I would guess that is pretty much everything that happens from raw materials to vehicle manufacturing.
@GeorgeG: I don't think I agree with your statement that "in the long view, the more frequently a material is recycled, the more energy it uses." Obviously, recycling takes energy -- but the recycled product is presumably taking the place of a new (virgin) product, so the net energy usage is less than making two parts out of virgin material.
It sounds like you are saying that throwing things away is less wasteful than recycling them. That just doesn't compute.
That being said, the steel industry's lifecycle assessments may be significantly overstating actual recovery rates for recycling. A recent study published in Science magazine shows that, even though metals are infinitely recyclable in principle, the reality falls far short of that. Recovery rates, even for commonly-used metals such as steel, are not much above 50%. A typical piece of steel might be recycled 2 or 3 times in its lifetime before it becomes unrecoverable, certainly not hundreds or thousands of times.
I'm hoping to interview the author of this study for Design News later this month, so stay tuned.
George, I did a story on the steel study, and I felt a tad queasy about it simply because it was commissioned by the steel industry. Even so, the results were interesting. Like many things (including cars) improvements may come easiest by improving existing systems rather than creating new systems. Our greatest gas savings may come from improved internal combustion engines rather than hybrids or EVs.
I'm saying that, the more often you recycle something, the more energy is used. Of course, as some point out, it's even a bit worse because of attrition - some part has to be made up of new material. Something like (1+(1-f)*(n-1))*En +f*(n-1)*Er where f is the fraction that is recycled, n is the number of lifetimes, En is the energy input for new material and Er is the energy input for recycling. Everything multiplies by n. Energy usage per unit of time is proportional to 1/Tl where Tl is the lifetime for one use and n(t) = t/Tl. Obviously, the more durable the product in which the material is used, the lower the cummulative energy input. For example, I remember when I purchased a new exhaust system for my car about every 3 years but now, even a car I've had for 10 years still needs no replacement. Ditto for front disk rotors. The energy content of the vehicle for these items is obviously easily 3 times less, even before we think about recycling. It would be ludicrous to say that recycling is not better than throwing away unless recycling takes more energy than making new material and I didn't say that.
Like Dave, I've also seen the statements about metals being "infinitely" recyclable, especially aluminum. Sad to see that for steel, recovery rates are only around 50%. But that said, Dave, what makes the piece of steel unrecoverable after 2 or 3 recycling instances? By "unrecoverable" do you mean it begins degrading, or that it becomes lost in a landfill because people don't recycle it?
@Ann: Material is lost from recycling streams at all stages.
Metal loss in melting processes is non-neglible; metal is lost due to volatilization and oxidation. The amount of loss depends on the melting process. For induction melting of steel, about 1-2% of the charge material is lost; for cupola melting of iron, the loss might be as high as 10%.
Then, not all scrap metal makes it into the recycling stream; some winds up in landfills instead. This is probably the most obvious way that material can be lost. A less obvious one is that not all scrap makes it back into the correct recycling stream. For example, steel that is mixed into aluminum scrap becomes a harmful impurity.
The statement that a given unit of steel is recycled two or three times before it is essentially lost to the recycling process is based on Markov chain modelling of the various loss processes.
One of the conclusions of the Science article is that design engineers can play an important role in increasing the effectiveness of recycling efforts. I hope to get more details about how to do this when I talk with the author.
Dave, thanks for the explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Sounds like there are multiple ways metal can be non-recovered. That 10% figure is higher than I would have guessed. I'll be very interested to see the results of the interview, assuming you can get it.
Like anything with broad ranging economic as well as ecological impacts, it quickly becomes very complicated. Also, how you tune multi-parameter systems depends on what you wish to optimize. From an economic point of view, biofuels have an attraction to net importers - every time a country imports oil it exports cash which drags down its currency making all imports more expensive and this is a persistant economic impact since a one time purchase exerts this pressure until the cash is repatriated. On the other hand, biofuel from foodstocks seems a crazy idea given the context of declining oil, increased demand for fuels and increasing demand for food based on population growth - when you do a little of this, it's not a problem but when you project forwards, it could be a form of population control. One ecological effect is that biofuels are naturally cleaner than the stuff that comes out of the ground, especially as extraction shifts towards unconventional sources. The US started into corn ethanol partly as a step towards security and to plump US agriculture. Overall, its not a really smart approach as the total energy input required to produce it is nearly 6 times the net energy produced. By comparison, European production of ethanol from root crops is significantly more energy efficient while Central and South American production from sugar cane is very much more energy efficient and produces a cheaper product. The US plan was obviously mainly directed at assisting domestic production given the major efforts to restrict imports of inexpensive ethanol from countires like Brazil which already have a well developed biofuel economy. From a carbon budget perspective, fossil fuels take carbon that was more or less permanently sequestered and releases it into the environment while biofuels recycle the carbon that is already in the atmosphere and oceans and the biosphere slightly distorting the balance between them but not adding to the total.
I think GeorgeG's points are very well-taken. Although my article discusses European issues, the biofuel-and-food-crops situation is a global one, and anything that far-reaching is complex, with multiple parameters and multiple variables. Plus, as Greg mentions, our tools have become more fine-tuned. Although we might prefer it otherwise, alternative solutions have had to be tested in the field, so to speak, before we could get to this point in our understanding.
Great article which takes a deeper dive into biofuel reality. As we gain more experience with biofuels, some of the intial economic perceptions that we had will continue to need adjustment. As we use entire life-cycle carbon and cost calculations, surprising numbers will continue to be found.
Is it possible that the Europeans have seen the light? While they may make the public pronouncement why they are considering alternatives to "food" sources for fuel, could it be that this is just a mask to restrict outrage from the far left that has been at the forefront in demanding the use of these raw materials into fuel supplies? Maybe they've seen the astronomical rise in the price of a bushel of corn in the U.S., since we've gone to ethanol supplements, AND maybe they're beginning to reel seriously from their recent catastrophic directives of ROHS, etc.
As more conservative leaders in Europe emerge, they may be attempting to shift the thinking to an incremental approach to change, instead of a revolutionary approach to change. Just as you cannot stop a rolling steam engine on a dime, so too you cannot stop an entire economy or process on that same dime! It just may be that someone has calculated the tillable land available in the greater European Continent, and decided that it would be too extreme to commit more of this arable soil to production of biofuel sources than human food production.
It is always interesting to see what happens when the unanticipated results of decisions made based on emotion instead of logic become a bit more obvious. The short term problem of bidding up food prices is only one aspect that should have been expected. It will be very educational to see where the EU winds up after the full reality of their choices becomes clearer.
It may be a bit like the consequences of that ROHS set of rules, which have caused quite a few unintended results. Once again, acting on emotions instead of facts does cause problems.
It's too bad that it's taken six years since the global food crisis began for the role of biofuels to be publically recognized by policymakers. That's six years too late for millions of people in the developing world. But at least this problem is finally being taken seriously.
I agree, Dave. But I think we need to remember that the reason first-generation fuel feedstocks were chosen while ignoring their potential impact on food crops happened for several reasons. We had a focus on ethanol because researchers were looking for what appeared to be the fastest, more-likely to-be-a-drop-in replacement for gasoline. We looked at corn as a source of ethanol since we, the US, have a lot of it, and here the corn lobby may be relevant, as others have mentioned. But it's also true that we looked first for a drop-in replacement, due to the economics that drive our manufacturing, instead of first seeking the "best" technology from some other standpoint, such as least harm to the environment, easiest to produce, or easiest/simplest to distribute.
" first-generation fuel feedstocks were chosen while ignoring their potential impact on food crops" ... no, they were not. The US policy was clearly one intended to increase the demand for corn and other grains. At the time, there was actual surplus capacity, where surplus means no market at the American price, and substantial curtailed capacity where curtailed means paying producers not to produce. 'Twasn't an accident. The option of importing inexpensive ethanol was always there. However, if it doesn't seem to make sense to an engineer, look for a politician in the works.
Ann, reading your article makes me think the EU is trying to mandate magic fuels. Nuclear power is bad, fossil fuels are bad, food-based biofuel is bad. Fuels must not emit greenhouse gases. I'm at a loss for what is left.
It seems like Europe wants people to turn their skin green and photosynthesizing their own energy.
TJ, the article states that the EC wants to increase its production of biofuel for transportation applications, but decrease the amount of feedstock that comes from food-baseed crop sources. Instead, there are several other possibilities: food crop waste (like corn husks), or non-food crop biomass (like straw). Other possible sources include non-recycled plastics, and municipal waste, all of which we've reported on.
'Fuels must not emit greenhouse gases. I'm at a loss for what is left.' First sentence true. Nulle desperandum. Conservation, geothermal, tidal, run of river, wind and solar for a start. Even hydro although new hydro has an appreciable carbon footprint. Existing hydro has a long way to go: recall that most hydro is ancient and that knowledge in fluid dynamics, magnetics and meteorology has gone a long way in 50 years. Many existing head ponds are capable of a technological bonus of 150 to 200%. The problem, common to most of these technologies, is simply LCOE (cost) as compared to cheap and dirty burning stuff. Even with automobiles, we can get off of gasoline now ... at a cost. By and large, we're just too cheap to save our own skins.
What I'd hope that engineers would understand, especially good product and process engineers, is that economy of scale is huge (that's the Henry Ford story): if everyone buys a product, the price will go down - a lot. For new technologies, we talk about experience curves where the cost of production decreases in proportion to cummulative quantity sold. If you would like cheap EVs, try buying 100,000,000 of them. Engineers get budget from margin which comes from sales - engineers make things better given time and money - simple equation. Experience also generates data which is invaluable - practical engineering involves a substantial amount of SPC (the good stuff is mostly bleading edge - we just call it leading edge to seem smarter).
The company that brought you 3D-printed eyeglasses has launched both an improved clear polymer material for 3D printing optical components and a high-speed, precision, 3D-printing process for making small- and medium-sized batches in a few days.
We've found an amazing variety of robot hands & arms in medicine, space, and service robots, as well as R&D and assembly. Some are based on industrial designs modified for speed or dexterity, while others more closely emulate human movements, as well as human size and shape.
To give engineers a better idea of the range of resins and polymers available as alternatives to other materials, this Technology Roundup presents several articles on engineering plastics that can do the job.
The first photos made with a 3D-printed telescope are here and they're not as fuzzy as you might expect. A team from the University of Sheffield beat NASA to the goal. The photos of the Moon were made with a reflecting telescope that cost the research team £100 to make (about $161 US).
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.