PEAK SOIL

I have been reading this interesting article which argues against biomass “waste” fuel production. It’s pretty interesting, but first I just want to say that they have the ultimate tagline: PEAK SOIL. This pretty much puts them at an advantage already.

Biomass fuel (e.g. ethanol) sounds like a great idea if you phrase it right: We’re already making an assload of corn, right? But we only use/eat part of it. We just waste all this organic matter in the harvest – why not use it to make ethanol and thus eliminate the threat of our dependence on foreign-oil. It’s, like, a win-win scenario, man! The arguments against this line of thinking go something like this:

  • The giant, heavily-subsidized agricorp production of food from our country’s land is already pushing the environment to its limit by focusing on continuous-crop growing (no rotation) and tilled row farming that is contributing to massive soil erosion.
  • The current “wasted” organic mass is actually critical for soil health (topsoil is a giant ecosystem, doncha know) and for stemming the tide of erosion.
  • Fossil fuels are non-renewable because the immense work of condensing solar energy into a usable form has already been done over millions of years by nature. The process of growing, harvesting and refining usable energy from crops is intensely inefficient by comparison.
  • Because of this, ironically, switching to biomass fuels will probably do little to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. As we further damage the top soil, more and more fertilizer will be necessary. Where do we get fertilizer? That’s right, fossil fuels. Producing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer requires 33,500 cubic feet of natural gas.
  • etc..

There’s more.. check it out, it’s pretty interesting.


Comments

JacksonJune 16, 2007 at 20:20 · reply

Of course, we could just let Brazil export sugar cane based ethanol to the US. Instead we want to tariff it to the point that it costs as much as the already subsidized corn-based ethanol that US farmers are producing.

Sugar cane based ethanol is much more efficient to produce. Brazil has been running dual-fuel vehicles for what, 20 years?

Sugar cane is no magic bullet either. The uncomfortable truth is we need to re-think the way we do cities, and we MUST have re-tool for public mass transit, and local sustainable living. There is NO other choice. There is nothing more important for us to focus on, right now. Great post, Chris.

ScavengerJune 18, 2007 at 15:50 · reply

There’s an even larger related issue. You point out that fertilizer is based on fossil fuels. Indeed, the “green revolution” of the 50s and 60s that makes it possible to feed the world’s current-and-still-growing population is completely dependent on fossil-fuel-based fertilizer. We dodged the Malthusian catastrophe then, only to tie our food to fossil fuel production.

That’s right, if the Peak Oil folks are right, not only will we be short on energy, we’ll be short on food at exactly the same time.

rorschachMarch 09, 2009 at 14:08 · reply

Of course there’s another choice. We can cut population growth. That may seem impractical but we’re going to have to do at some point. Why not now?

rorschachMarch 09, 2009 at 14:12 · reply

Scavenger: You’re missing a key word there. “…fertilizer is (currently) based on fossil fuels.” It needn’t be. The world isn’t short of energy. The world is _made_ of energy. What it is short of is people willing to look at non-fossil based methods of energy production.

Thanks! Your comment has been submitted and will appear shortly.


Leave a comment