Edge 297B Maris
Jones
Winter 2003 Section: Monday 5:15
ID#: 5040097
Biomass: America’s Untapped Energy
Potential
Imagine America with flooded costal cities. Next, imagine the citizenry—your descendants—having just fled inland from flooded cities and now bracing for wartime chemical attacks. This same war over oil has left the economy ravaged. The polluted sky is gray, children have high levels of asthma, many animals are on the verge of extinction, and acid rain is an unfortunate reality.
The previous description may appear to
be straight out of some apocalyptic novel; however, it is a scene that could
become all too real within our very own borders if steps aren’t made to
decrease America’s dependency on fossil fuels (specifically foreign fossil
fuels). Problems with the environment,
national/global political stability, economic status all could come to a head
very soon if the United States’ addiction to foreign oil does not dissipate.
How can this achieved? My paper looks at Biofuel as a promising new
American energy prospect, devoid of many of the ill-effects of fossil
fuels.
In order to understand where biomass
fits into energy use in general, it is helpful to have an idea of the timeline
for development and use of different energy sources. Before 1885, wood was the main energy source (for cooking warmth,
light, trains, etc.). In the 1700s,
electromagnetism, electricity, etc were beginning to be understood by
scientists and scholars such as Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday and
others. In 1760s, the development of
coal as an energy source emerged with a bang following the invention of the
steam engine by James Watt. This
discovery was a major energy milestone.
Later, with an understanding of electromagnetic fields, a man named
James Maxwell (around 1870) laid the framework for the development of electric
power. Oil had been used in lamps, etc.
before 1870, but it was only after 1870 that oil became America’s second
biggest export. Ever since then, Oil
has reigned supreme, especially since the invention of automobiles.[1]
So why is Biomass such a promising
source of Energy for the United States?
The reason is that Biomass absorbs C02 during growth and emits it during
combustion. Therefore, it creates a
cycle of atmospheric carbon and for this reason, doesn’t add to the problem of
accumulating greenhouse gasses.
What exactly is biomass? Biomass is a supply of organic materials
that can be harvested in some way to produce biofuel. This biofuel can be used to release energy made from these
organic materials, which include wood, bagasse[2],
crop residues, solid wastes, sewage and waste from food processing. Some
examples are sawdust for combustion; manure lagoons, landfill waste, and wastewater
as sources of methane; crops to produce ethanol; etc. Biomass is made up mainly
of carbon and hydrogen and there are procedures in existence that free the
energy from chemical compounds made up of these elements. There is a great potential for biomass to
supply an ever increasing portion of the U.S.’ energy as it can be fuel on its
own or added to other fuels to make them more efficient. For example, biofuels can be added to diesel
fuels in percentages in order to use less fossil fuel. According to the American Biomass
Association, biomass could easily supply 20% of U.S. energy requirements.[3] In Brazil, for example, biomass is a major
source of energy. In the sugarcane
industry, this energy comes in the form of direct combustion sources. This method works in Brazil because waste
from sugarcane and sugar production is used.
It is also successful because there are large forests and fields nearby
which act as major CO2 sinks as well as sources of harvestable biomass.
Overall,
the benefits of using biofuel are large.
First of all, the benefits to the environment are great. The cyclicity of energy use greatly benefits
the environment in that the amount of waste produced initially is made up for
in the end because more biomass is grown in its place, forming a cycle of
production. The cycle rotates as solar
energy along with carbon dioxide and water vapor help to produce plants
(biomass). This biomass is then harvested
for biofuel of one type or another. The
carbon, water and oxygen of the plants goes back into the environment when it
is combusted as carbon dioxide and water vapor and minerals from the combustion
process go back into the soil. Both of
these end processes help to grow more biomass (along with solar energy). This illustrates the cycle that is involved
in biofuel usage. Although there is
carbon dioxide produced initially, it is recaptured by the subsequent regrowth
of biomass materials. So, we see that
there is a cycle of production created that helps in bettering some problems associated
with fossil fuel use and the environment.
This cyclicity greatly helps to
decrease levels of greenhouse gas emissions that can cause global warming, a
major policy issue and a pressing global concern. Global warming occurs because of something called the greenhouse
effect, which is a rise in temperature because atmospheric gasses trap solar
energy. Some level of greenhouse
activity is necessary to keep temperatures ideal on earth. The problem arises because elevated amounts
of atmospheric gasses are produced by fossil fuel combustion (and not recycled
in the same way as biomass emissions are) and these act in addition to the
gasses already present in the earth’s atmosphere.[4] The resultant increase in temperature is
what leads some scientists to believe that important costal cities such as New
York, San Francisco, Boston, Miami, Tokyo, etc. could eventually be flooded as
a result of global warming. These
cities will be threatened in a warmer earth due to higher sea levels brought
upon by polar ice cap melting. Studies by the EPA as well as other organizations estimate that along
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, the sea level will very likely rise one foot (30
cm) by the year 2050.[5] “A study by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency estimated that about 25 percent of all buildings within 500 feet of the
U.S. coastline would be taken by erosion in the next 60 years.”[6] Aside from damage to coastal cities, there
is also the threat to other environments such as marshes and agricultural
lowlands due to these rising water levels.
“Nationwide, a two foot rise in sea level could eliminate 17-43 percent
of US wetlands”[7]
The use of biofuels can also help resolve other environmental dilemmas
relating to: acid rain, soil erosion, water pollution, landfill pressure,
wildlife and habitat issues, as well as forest management.[8]
Using biofuel also decreases the need to drill on arctic lands and
sidesteps the environmental fallout from these proposed policies. The current debate about whether or not to drill
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been all over the
news of late. Many republicans, as well
as the Bush administration, want to open up this refuge land to oil drilling in
order to provide stable, domestic sources of oil that would give America more
energy security. Many democrats and
others in opposition argue that no price is worth sacrificing the long term
health of the ecosystem. Opponents of
the ANWR drilling proposal also argue that eventually, the arctic oil will run
out and that more oil drilling in general is just a patch-up solution.[9] If the Bush administration would spend the
money that is proposed for use in developing the ANWR for building up biomass
infrastructure, the nation could have a renewable source of energy and not just
a one-time oil source.
Another benefit of biomass use is that
it could potentially replace fifty percent of our current oil imports[10],
thus leaving us less susceptible to deleterious oil politics. It is estimated
that America consumes a ridiculous twenty million barrels of oil per day[11]. Obviously, we consume more energy than we
produce[12]
and much of the oil that is consumed comes from areas of political
instability. The major sources of our
crude oil are (ordered from greatest to smallest number of barrels per day):
Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Iraq, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Angola,
Kuwait, Colombia, Gabon, Norway, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and Ecuador.[13] Many of these countries are currently on
precarious ground as far as governmental stability is concerned. It is not in our best interest to maintain
economic relations with unstable countries and rely upon them for our energy
supply. These relationships are usually
wholly focused on oil consumption and little else—war and conflict usually come
with the territory. How many wars will
need to be waged simply so that we can drive SUVs and run factories?
By integrating biofuel as an energy
source, we can reduce our dependence on these foreign sources of oil, which as
we see all too clearly now, can bring us into unnecessary wars and make us
subject to terrorist threats. The Bush
Administration proposes increasing energy security by making it “a priority of
our trade and foreign policy.”[14]
This energy security plan, however, primarily looks to new sources of oil,
whereas a switch to biofuel would not just temporarily fix the problem but
rather, leave the nation with a renewable source of energy.
Biomass would be highly beneficial to the current economic situation. Through the development of biomass conversion plants, employment would increase in the areas surrounding these establishments. Biomass conversion facilities need to be located close to the source of materials due to the fact that they are expensive to transport. For this reason, local processing plants are highly unfeasible to circumvent. These new jobs would be very helpful to an economy that has seen a rise in unemployment rates over the last few years. In February, almost 1.9 million people had experienced unemployment for 27 weeks or more. These people made up about 22 percent of all of the unemployed, which is a 7 percent rise in percentage from February of 2002.[15] According to a report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The number of persons working part time for economic reasons was 4.8 million in February. These persons indicated that they would like to work full time but worked part time because their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job.”[16]
Essentially, Americans need jobs, and many jobs could be created through the development of biofuel energy plants. These local plants and the resultant employment would invigorate rural America, which in turn would strengthen the nation’s economy as a whole. With the popular practice among American businesses of manufacturing products in third world countries having stripped factory jobs from average Americans, new jobs in a biomass industry could truly make a difference. An estimated 17,000 jobs are created for every million gallons of ethanol produced alone according to the American Biomass Association.[17] These extra jobs would be a needed boost to the American economy.
There are however, downsides to
biofuel use and production. First of
all, biofuel production is more expensive to setup than existing energy sources
(oil, etc.) because some new research still needs to be done and it does cost
money to develop a biomass infrastructure in a country where only rudimentary
biomass facilities exist. While the
1992 Energy Policy Act encourages a certain number of federal and state
government vehicles to use other, alternative fuels (non-fossil fuels), the
programs haven’t made much of a difference.
In this act, the government only asks that the vehicles use 20%
biodiesel mixed in with 80 % petroleum.
Since biodiesel fuel can be double the cost of petroleum, those who buy
the fuels for the state or local government rarely buy more than 20% biodiesel
fuel. Basically, the current demand for
biodiesel is low, mostly for cost-related reasons.
Since the price per gallon is
substantially more for biofuel than for regular petroleum—an estimate is around
70 cents per gallon more[18]--it
is apparent that if biofuel use is to increase, costs would need to
decrease. There is a possibility, however,
of this conversion being made more efficient by biotechnology and development
of new ways to increase efficiency of production. The downside is that the research needed to develop these new
biotech procedures comes at a cost, as well.
While biotechnology has made strides in biomass engineering, such as
developing ways of producing fuels from products such as corn husks and other
discarded farm wastes, there is much more that can be investigated.
One other negative aspect of biomass
use is that until we make green energy an overall priority, biofuel production
will not be entirely devoid of fossil fuel use and therefore the
environmentally friendly biomass cycle may not even itself out. There are many options for fossil fuel use
to be “hidden” in the production of biofuel.
Tractors, or motors at work in conversion plants, for example, could be
fossil fuel powered. Attempts could be
made at integrating “green” energy sources for components of the biomass
production process across the board, but here again, one runs into the issue of
costs. Replacing all existing fossil fuel powered motors in a biomass
conversion plant, for example, is an expensive undertaking. Who would fund this?
Aside from these downsides, there are
still ways to promote biomass use in the United States, and the benefits appear
to outweigh the costs if certain concerns are addressed.
The primary concern involved in
determining a workable policy regarding biomass implementation is how to obtain
funding for creation of a biofuel infrastructure.
One funding option is to have taxes cover costs associated with implementing Biomass as an American energy source. These taxes would allow the government to fund research and development of biomass. This research and development would primarily look into biotechnological modes of increasing the efficiency of energy crops. These taxes would also help fund the construction of biofuel production facilities. These taxes could help take the pressure off the businesses/farms themselves in funding the development of a biofuel infrastructure. Since biomass is cheaper a technology to develop than most other renewable energy types, these would be tax dollars well spent. According to the Ontario Power Generation Company, “Typically, small hydroelectric is the least expensive to produce, followed by biomass, wind and solar technologies.”[19] This makes biomass an economically as well as environmentally feasible choice for tax expenditures.
Most biomass technology has already been
tested and used (for example in Brazil) and so relatively less money and effort
needs to go into implementing biofuel processing on a large scale. Most of the money will go to actual building
of facilities and extra, improvement research.
The taxes could be added to gasoline or SUV purchases, for example, or
even levied on large, commercial polluters.
In any case, taxes are one possible mode of speeding up biomass
implementation in the U.S.
Another monetary solution to the
problem comes in the form of utilization of farm subsidies. Farm subsidies were first instituted in an
embryonic form in the 1920s in order to sidestep the economic downfall of
farmers due to elevated post WWI levels of agricultural production that would
go to waste (because there were no longer armies to provide for). If these surpluses were to flood the market,
it would spell financial disaster for farmers and this would be passed on to
the American economy as a whole. The
government therefore, came up with a subsidy plan, that paid farmers not to
flood the market with surpluses—that is—the government paid for extra grain,
etc., which was discarded. Although
farm subsidy programs have changed drastically since the 1920s, the premise is still
the same, and so there is a significant amount of money and or product that
could be siphoned off the Farm Subsidy program harmlessly to fund Biomass
energy production. These subsidies will
cut costs, utilize possible fuel sources (surplus crops) while still helping
farmers and the national economy as the subsidy program was set up to do in the
first place.
These policies can in the end be used
separately or used in conjunction with one another in order to help increase
the prevalence of biomass fuel use in the U.S.
Money talks, especially within the United States. Consequently, if there is a monetary
allowance for the implementation of biofuel, we will be heading in the right
direction.
Biomass
has enormous potential to change American energy habits that are spiraling more
and more out of control every day.
What kind of world do you envision for
your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc? Will the sky be dark, costal cities flooded,
domestic warfare and terrorism a gruesome day-today reality, or will they inhabit
a more enjoyable America? Fate may play
a hand in the creation of the script of human destiny—but sometimes—it could be
possible for us to intervene.
Continuation of fossil fuel energy sources will only lead to
tragedy—Your descendants deserve more than that. They deserve biomass.
Bibliography
1) American
Biomass Association. 2/10/03. www.biomass.org/fact_sheet_2.htm
2) Bartleby.com.
Agricultural Subsidies. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ag/agrisub.html
3) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031000-01.htm
4) EPA.
3/8/03. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ImpactsCoastalZones.html
5) EPA.
3/10/03. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html
6) Klare,
Michael T. The Progressive. June
2002. http://www.progressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html
7) Lavelle,
Marianne. Living Without Oil. Yahoo News Article. 2/10/03. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=926&u=/usnews/20030210/ts_usnews/as_war_looms__the_search_for_new&printer=1
8) Ontario
Power Generation. http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_greenPower.asp
9) U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chapter3a.html
10) U.S.
Department of Energy. Energy
Information Agency. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/milestones/
11) U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
12) U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
13) Yahoo
News. 3/12/03. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030313/wl_oneworld/1032_1047524331
[1]U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Agency. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/milestones/
[2]Bagasse is the residue left over after
plant processing, for example, after the juice has been squeezed from a sugar
cane stalk.
[3]American Biomass Association.
2/10/02.
www.biomass.org/fact_sheet_2.htm
[4] EPA. 3/10/03.
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html
[5]EPA. 3/8/03.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ImpactsCoastalZones.html
[6] EPA. 3/8/03.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ImpactsCoastalZones.html
[7] EPA. 3/8/03.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ImpactsCoastalZones.html
[8] American Biomass Association.
2/10/03.
www.biomass.org/fact_sheet_2.htm
[9] Yahoo News. 3/12/03.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030313/wl_oneworld/1032_1047524331
[10] American Biomass Association.
www.biomass.org/fact_sheet_2.htm
[11] Lavelle, Marianne. Living Without
Oil. Yahoo News Article. 2/10/03.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=926&u=/usnews/20030210/ts_usnews/as_war_looms__the_search_for_new&printer=1
[12]U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chapter3a.html
[13]U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
[14]Klare, Michael T. The Progressive. June 2002.
http://www.progressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html
[15] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
[16] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
[17] American Biomass Association.
2/10/03.
www.biomass.org/fact_sheet_2.htm
[18] Lavelle, Marianne. Living Without
Oil. Yahoo News Article. 2/10/03. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=926&u=/usnews/20030210/ts_usnews/as_war_looms__the_search_for_new&printer=1
[19] Ontario Power Generation.
http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_greenPower.asp