| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Shell says biofuels from food crops "morally inappropriate" |
| 2006-07-06 |
| Hat tip to Lucianne.com Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving, an executive said on Thursday. Eric G Holthusen, Fuels Technology Manager Asia/Pacific, said the company's research unit, Shell Global Solutions, has developed alternative fuels from renewable resources that use wood chips and plant waste rather than food crops that are typically used to make the fuels. Holthusen said his company's participation in marketing biofuels extracted from food was driven by economics or legislation. "If we have the choice today, then we will not use this route," Malaysia-based Holthusen said at a seminar in Singapore. "We think morally it is inappropriate because what we are doing here is using food and turning it into fuel. If you look at Africa, there are still countries that have a lack of food, people are starving, and because we are more wealthy we use food and turn it into fuel. This is not what we would like to see. But sometimes economics force you to do it." The world's top commercially produced biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol, mostly used in the United States and Brazil, is produced from sugar cane and beets and can also be derived from grains such as corn and wheat. Biodiesel, used in Europe, is extracted from the continent's predominant oil crop, rapeseed, and can also be produced from palm and coconut. Holthusen said Shell has been working on biofuels that can be extracted from plant waste and wood chips, but he did not say when the alternative biofuel might be commercially available. "We are not resting. We are doing what everybody needs to do. We have worked over time on an alternative to get away from food, and this is what we call the second generation of biofuels," he said. He said Shell, in partnership with Canadian biotech firm Iogen Corp., has developed "cellulose ethanol", which is made from the wood chips and non-food portion of renewable feedstocks such as cereal straws and corn stover, and can be blended with gasoline. Ethanol is typically extracted from sugarcane or grain. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #18 Two other companies to keep an eye on are Genencor and Novozymes. They provide the enzymes that convert cellulose=>starch=>glucose. Yeast then digests glucose into ethanol. Corn kernels are a poor solution. In addition to taking high quality food, an acre of corn makes about 400 gallons of ethanol plus 30 gallons of oil. The waste mash becomes animal feed. Currently an acre of switchgrass (5 dry tons/acre/year)makes about 250 gallons of ethanol plus feed, though with better breeds, yields may go up to 600 gallons. It is also less labor and energy intensive to produce. A better method may be to grow single cell algae in huge aquariums. Algae grow much faster and trap more sunlight, and when co-located with powerplants, use the flue gasses to accelerate growth (and recycle the CO2, NO2). There is also no planting and harvesting, just pumping, filtering and drying, as well as saving processing steps. When grown in the desert SW, it does not take away from arable land. Algae with produce biodiesel, ethanol and feed. One ton of algae will yield 3 barrels of biodiesel + ethanol + feed or power plant fuel. But startup costs are higher for the aquariums, pumps, and driers (for dry feed or if burning the leftovers for power). Algae and Power Plants (PDF) With all that said. it's still cheaper to produce synfuels from coal, shale or tar sands. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-07-06 18:39 |
| #17 thanks for the explanation, i wasnt familiar with the term "cellulose ethanol" |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-07-06 18:01 |
| #16 From what I understand, to the extent ethanol DOES make sense, using corn as a source does NOT work without subsidies. In fact the most economical source may be tropical crops like palm oil. From a WSJ" piece about IOGEN, the Shell biomass ethanol company in Canada: In the U.S., ethanol for fuel is typically made from corn. But growing corn gobbles up a lot of power in the form of everything from fertilizer to pesticides. The economics of cellulosic ethanol, made essentially from waste, could be different. Different meaning lower cost. But it has yet to be demonstrated that this is the case in production volumes. But there is no question that corn grown for ethanol is a losing proposition, financially and in energy. But it does make midwestern Republican farmers richer. Now if Shell can make it clear to all the BHL that Ethanol from corn means starving children in the third world, well, that would sure stick it to ADM and the subsidies might get repealed. Now Shell has the ethanol market all to itself with virtuous Iogen. The invisibole hand at work again. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 17:01 |
| #15 Seafarious: Yep, I think you got 'em with that one. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to give that to Bill O'Reilly and have him rake them over the coals for a while with their own contradictory actions? |
| Posted by: grb 2006-07-06 16:49 |
| #14 I wonder if Shell executive salaries might also be considered 'morally inappropriate'. Just think of the starving children! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-07-06 16:40 |
| #13 LH: It depends on what else you're doing with the corn parts at the same time. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-07-06 16:39 |
| #12 "t may make sense, but it's not yet clear that it makes cents." "Cellulose ethanol is the only alternative that makes economic sense at this time. " Am I the only one whos confused. From what I understand, to the extent ethanol DOES make sense, using corn as a source does NOT work without subsidies. In fact the most economical source may be tropical crops like palm oil. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-07-06 16:30 |
| #11 Also, check out http://www.shell.com/wind They have about 550 megawatts of wind power capacity either built or under construction in the US (most in the last three or four years), and larger projects (a roughly 1Gw project in England somewhere near London, apparently) are underway elsewhere. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-07-06 15:13 |
| #10 haahahhaaaaa!! An oil company that cares about the starving little people. hoo, hoo! Wheweee. That's a good one! Nice to see them running scared though. Must mean that this is a real threat to them. Got come up with a line more believable than that, though. That'll never work. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-06 14:28 |
| #9 It may make sense, but it's not yet clear that it makes cents. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 14:07 |
| #8 Makes more sense to use waste, or to grow crops (like sawgrass) that are both more efficient energy converters, and grow on land that cant be used for food crops. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-07-06 14:03 |
| #7 There is an underlying assumption that any additional food produced will magically get where it needs to go. The problem isn't (yet!) with the amount of food the world can produce, it's with getting it where it needs to go. There are corrupt governments who are doing things that make this impossible. If their people were fed, there would be less donations rolling in to line their pockets, their people wouldn't be under control because they are worried about their next meal more than their freedom, they are distrustful that it has been spiked with hormones that will sterilize their population, ignorance, etc.. You can't fight that with any amount of additional food. Get food to the people who will take it if they need it, and turn the rest into fuel. Let the politicians work hard to figure out a way to bring down the corrupt governments and feed their people when you can. I still don't think it would make much of a dent in the amount of fuel we will be making, especially if these people start growing their own food as they should be able to. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-07-06 13:41 |
| #6 On the one hand I think Shell is chicken**** for trying to come up with a "but everyone's starving" angle, especially since the main places people are starving are because of societal breakdown rather than crop choice. OTOH, I also have noticed that the main country where biofuels have worked, Brazil, has used a variant of sugarcane optimized to that task. Yah, it's C-S that Shell has to find a "moral" but factually weak argument to support the same strategy on a corporate level, but if you think replacing Shell and oil is going to be that easy, invest your own money and make a killing. If everyone who cussed out "those fatcats in the oilfield" went and put their money where their mouth is, and invested significant amounts in either the domestic oilfield or domestic alternatives to oil, we might actually get somewhere with either industry. But I've gotten tired of reading the snarking from people who would probably last about half an hour if they tried to replace me in my job, especially because I _remember_, and survived, barely, shakeouts in this industry where half the domestic industry went out of business and became unemployed. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-07-06 13:26 |
| #5 "If you look at Africa, there are still countries that have a lack of food, people are starving" Perhaps if Africa put a little more effort into loving one another and sustainable agriculture and a little less effort into totalitarianism, tribal war, armaments, blood diamonds, HIV sex, and Islam, then they wouldn't need corn from America. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-07-06 13:12 |
| #4 If making biofuels out of food crops means increasing the food crops the unfed masses would benefit. If you want to talk morally inappropriate he should talk to his fellow Europeans who have scared and intimidated the third world from using bioengineered foodcrops that could be saving lives right now because they fear losing market share in the third world. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-07-06 12:39 |
| #3 Shell has very low reserves. They need to switch to "alternative fuels" because it's the only fuel they're going to get. Cellulose ethanol is the only alternative that makes economic sense at this time. You can bet they're motivated to make it work. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 12:19 |
| #2 Nuke power is the only real answer. Cheap, safe, distribution in place, no greenhouse gases, no foreign influences. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-07-06 12:18 |
| #1 To be quite concise, F**k You ! See the end of your monopoly rounding the bend ? |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-07-06 12:12 |