Ethanol might help save oil, but it could brutal for the water supply
(via Watercrunch) The National Academy of Sciences has just published a report titled “Water Implications of Biofuel Production in the United States“. The summary from the Watercrunch article:
The report basically states that if the projected increases in the use of corn for ethanol production occur, the harm to water quality could be considerable, and water supply problems at the regional and local levels could also escalate.
The Oil Drum has a much more in-depth look at the report, with many more charts and some great discussions. Their summary suggests that Ethanol might not be the right solution to the oil problem. From their site:
We CAN increase our internal production of transportation liquids. In addition to ethanol and biodiesel, we can use coal-to-liquids via Fischer Tropsch; we can drill the Arctic or Alaska Wildlife Refuge; we can expand land to dedicated energy crops, etc. A joint study of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture concludes that the United States could produce 60 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030 through a combination of grain and cellulosic feedstocks, enough to replace 30% of projected U.S. gasoline demand. Scientists and policymakers should be asking them ‘at what cost’? When they reply XX billions, the comeback should be ‘we didn’t mean in $ terms-what are the costs in other scarce inputs needed by society?’. In robbing Peter to pay Paul, we have to realize that Paul is pretty insatiable. Who will we rob after Peter?
We have oil problems, so we’ll use more water to fix them. Then the water problems become more severe. What do we do next to try to fix those? It could be an ugly cycle.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
US Federal government in particular never thinks about the future. Members of Congress just do as lobbyists desire for the moment. Making some quick profits from growing corn for fuel would outweigh any considerations about water resources.
Do you see Georgia’s Governor and DC Reps doing anything about the severe drought here? Nope not a damn thing except praying the rains will come, so water can be continued to wasted for more development.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I wonder how much cross-traffic this site gets with peakoil.com (which also has a SE water shortage thread). You guys should check it out if you haven’t already; what we’re seeing now with the drought is a pretty nice preview of how the oil shortages will play out.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Ask any environmental expert, and coal to liquid and drilling in ANWR will cause more problems than solve. Ethanol isn’t great either. What about the one using woodchips? Would that hurt water supply?
Global climate change is the elephant in the room here. Fossil fuels create CO2 in the air which leads to global warming which by 2020 will lead to water shortages all over the world (and in full irony, flooding of coastal regions). We need to get off oil, and then not stupidly replace it with anything that causes CO2 emissions, is energy inefficient, or wastes water.
They talk about using “wedges” to solve global climate change. Meaning you have to do different wedges all at the same time: energy efficiency, renewable energy (wind & solar don’t waste water, right?), CO2 sequester in coal firing plants, and there are others. But you are so right that any solution to what is essentially the same problem: energy independence and combatting global climate change must NOT increase the use of freshwater. I think that means that nuclear plants, although not having any CO2 emissions, is a less than ideal solution because it uses MORE water than the coal fired plants. We really need to think carefully about this.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I’m not an environmentalist or an energy expert, but solar power will use water for the same reason that a nuclear power plant would use it–coolant.
For household solar setups, photovoltaics are used because they are easy to install and don’t require maintenance. But power plants would use solar thermal (at least for all the ones I have read about) because although it is more costly to maintain, it is far more energy efficient and cost efficient for the amount of power it produces.
The problem is that a solar thermal plant (like a nuclear power plant) uses a thermal gradient (a hot side and a cold side), thus they will use some form of coolant. The easiest at the moment is pulling water from a river and using it. It returns almost all of the water back to the river (at a higher temperature that is regulated by the EPA). The only water that isn’t returned is that which evaporates. When you read that a power plant needs a certain amount of water, you can’t use that as a measure of actual consumption, but rather a temporary borrowing.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Ehtanol and biofuel are just distractions from the real problems of globalization and over-reliance on independent transportation that have made us all such voracious energy consumers in the first place. Farming and material production will eventually have to return to more localized networks as resources grow more scarce and international systems grow unstable.
Consider also that ethanol is a net energy user as a fuel. It takes more energy input (petroleum) — to grow and fertilize the corn, harvest, process and transport the ethanol — than is yielded by the final product. Ethanol relies upon our existing fossil fuel infrastructure, as do most other alternative fuels, including photovoltaic and wind power (to manufacture components, deliver energy).
Check out James Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency”:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/0802142494/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196455401&sr=1-1
-st
November 30th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
In terms of alternate sources of energy for transportation, the US is ahead of Canada. Here’s how. Very recently it came to light that an electric car designed and produced in Canada could not be sold in our country because it had not been certified by the federal government. The car maker was getting the run-around and could not get a straight answer from the bureaucracy.
The howl of public protest was intense when this fact became known, and Transport Canada quickly certified the car. This did not help much, however, because of the 10 provinces, only British Columbia had laws on the books for the use electric cars. The province of Ontario started to reconsider its ban on electric cars only when it was discovered by Al Gore (so the story goes) that the car could not legally be driven in Canada. The car is currently for sale in the States and also in Europe and Great Britain, I believe. It has won an award…
The car goes a maximum of 25mph and is for a limited niche market; however, the manufacturer (ZENN Motors) is looking for a better battery. Apparently some drivers - especially seniors in Florida - have turned to golf carts because they are so inexpensive to run. The ZENN car is going after that particular market.
HeatherF in Ottawa
November 30th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
HeatherF-
Please watch the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Fully-functional electric vehicles (capable of much higher than 25mph) were on the market for a short time in the 90s before the oil companies strong-armed the auto makers (and the California government) and had them recalled and destroyed.
The technology to make powerful, affordable cars that are petroleum independent (NON-HYBRID!!) has already existed, and has been suppressed to further the oil agenda. Hydrogen cells, hybrids, and under-performing electrics like this Canadian offering are shoddy replacements — introduced to distract consumers from the truth, and to keep the internal combustion engine on top…
-st
December 1st, 2007 at 12:06 am
st,
agreed. I’ve read about that documentary and can believe it. There are vested interests, we all know that.
From what I understand (and I hope to be wrong), any vehicule that doesn’t run on a traditional combustion engine is barred from Ontario roads. This does not exactly encourage innovation. But that seems about to change. I hope so anyway.
I own no car, never have and don’t intend to unless something environmentally friendly comes along.
HeatherF
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
I’d like to note that electric cars simply switch the energy burden from oil to coal, hydro, and nuclear power - ie, whatever source is generating the electricity that is charging the batteries. As such they are not a solution for a world facing declining energy availability. The large decrease in street level pollution and reduced maintenance costs (one of the reasons car makers don’t want them) are nice benefits, though.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Great point, Mark. Our over-reliance on independent transportation, and suburban sprawl, are the real problem with automobiles. They require endless energy to keep going, inevitably derived from fossil sources.
-st