4/26 Berkeley teach-in on bio-fuels

On Thursday I visited the beautiful University of California-Berkeley campus again to attend a "teach in". Not knowing what to expect, I arrived a little late and had to go sleuthing around for a way in at LeConte Hall (grid c5 in the map). I came via the faculty club, the so it was the back of the hall, which is locked in the evening.

The teach-in was very interesting. It was put together by a local activist group that call themselves the Green Century Institute. Contrary to my expectation, it was not a bunch of Berkeley types shouting "down with Big Oil!" Two of the speakers I'd previously met (Richard Register and John Harte). The others - Prof. Tad Patzek and a priest living in Brazil, gave very convincing arguments as to why biofuels is never going to be the answer to our energy needs.

First off, Prof. Patzek gave some basic arithmetic arguments pertaining to our energy consumption and the potential of biofuels. The overall potential of biofuels, even if we were to plant all the tillable acreage (farmland) available with the most productive biofuel plant (probably a variety of corn), would still only cover something like 30% of our current energy needs. Professor Harte made the point that solar arrays set up all over the west (for instance on the current weapons proving grounds owned by the government) would be able to fulfill our needs. Richard Register showed us photographs from his world travels including many innovative concepts for greening of cities. His basic point, though, and this is also a basic "Peak Oil" argument, is that our present suburban and car-based lifestyle is in for a deep shock at some point in the next 20-40 years. I agree with this argument.

Afterwards there were some students and activists who lined up at the mic to ask questions of the speakers. As usual, the "questions" (actually many were political statements) were more numerous than there was time to answer. Well that's no surprise.

Going forward I will edit this post to include links to audio and video fiiles of the speakers at the teach-in. Hopefully some of you are able to see it that way.

Glaciers and Ice Ages

Today's Chron features an article about mountain climbers' perspectives on global warming.

I recently took a natural history course at Merritt college that included a study of the last ice age during which the Great Lakes were formed in the midwestern U.S. This got me thinking of glaciers and ice ages. Some scientists point to recurring ice ages as an explanation of how global warming will eventually lead to the next "Ice Age". This process involves massive movement of water vapor from the equator to the poles and then freezing of this vapor in the form of new glaciers. But, the process takes place over thousands of years and is accompanied by massive shifts of climate. So I don't see it as any sign of hope.

For reference, I also dug up information on ice sheets on Wikipedia:

Antarctic Ice Sheet
30 million cubic km of ice. Around 90% of the fresh water on the Earth's surface is held in the ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world's oceans.

Greenland Ice Sheet
the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The thickness is generally more than 2 km (see picture) and over 3 km at its thickest point. The volume of ice is 2.85 million km3.
...
Recently, fears have grown that continued global warming will make the Greenland Ice Sheet cross a threshold where long-term melting of the ice sheet is inevitable. Climate models project that local warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celsius during this century. Ice sheet models project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the ice sheet (over centuries), resulting in a global sea level rise of about seven meters [ACIA, 2004]. Such a rise would inundate almost every major coastal city in the world. How fast the melt would eventually occur is a matter of discussion. In [IPCC, 2001], the expected 3 degrees warming at the end of the century would, if kept from rising further, result in about 1 meter sea level rise over the next millennium.

Summary of BioFuels Forum from 3/22 (from Steve Geller)

NOTES FROM SIERRA CLUB FORUM ON BP BIOFUELS PROJECT, HELD MARCH 22,
2007, AT THE HILLSIDE CLUB, BERKELEY, CA (by Steve Geller)

I attended the Sierra Club panel on the BP Biofuels project (EBI),
held on March 22 at the Hillside Club. This report summarizes what I
got out of it. Note that in places, I have adapted parts of Wikipedia
articles to explain technical terms.

Helen Burke, who organized the event, did her usual great job of
moderating, smoothly dealing with occasional outbursts of shouting by
some excitable Berkeleyans. The hall was full; many Berkeley
environmentalists were there, including Council Member Linda Maio and
"Ecocities" author Richard Register.

The event was presented as a forum, not a debate. The four speakers
each gave 10-minute presentations, then got 2 minutes each to comment
on others' remarks and expand. They then answered questions from the
audience, submitted on index cards.

The subject of the forum was "Is the BP Biofuels project good for
environment?"

BP will establish EBI - Energy Biosciences Institute at the UC
Berkeley campus. It will involve multiple research projects directed
toward ways of producing fuel from biomass, or biofuels. Examples of
biofuels today include biodiesel (e.g. from waste cooking oil) and
ethanol (e.g. from corn).

Paul Ludden, Dean of UCB's College of Natural Resources, appeared to
be enthusiastic about the project. Chris Somerville, professor of
biological sciences at Stanford, was also a proponent.

The opposition was represented by Ignacio Chapela, Assistant Professor
of microbiology at UCB. Chapela has been vocal about both the dangers
of the project to the environment and the political and economic
dangers of UCB getting into the project. John Harte, who teaches
environmental science at UCB, completed the panel. None of the UCB
people claimed to be involved in the negotiations for taking on the
EBI project, but Stanford's Dr. Somerville is said to be considered
for the post of EBI Director.

To start off, Dean Ludden gave us an overview. He said that EBI will
study ways to produce fuel from biomass and reduce the impact of such
processes on the environment. The goal is to "change our energy
paradigm in the US".

In 2005, BP Corporation (once called British Petroleum--now Beyond
Petroleum) requested proposals from about 5 big universities, for the
establishment of a research institute to study biofuels - production
of fuels from biomass sources.

In Sept 2006, the UC Berkeley chancellor asked for responses from
directors, deans and department chairs. Governor Schwartzenegger also
got involved at this point.

The result in February 2007 was an agreement in principle to establish
the Energy Biosciences Institute, but as of now (March 2007) the deal
has not been signed by all parties.

BP will provide $500 million over 10 years. The State of California
will contribute $40 million for a new building for the EBI project,
probably to be located up in Strawberry Canyon, near the Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) buildings. Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and
LBNL director, has already established the Helios project at LBNL. It
studies alternate fuels and renewable energy.

EBI will assemble expertise in Cellulosic Ethanol (not Corn Ethanol),
cell wall structure functions, plant genetic engineering,
photosynthetic microbes, and "syngas synthesis"?

Syngas (from synthesis gas) is the name for a gas mixture with varying
amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen which is generated by the
gasification of a carbon containing fuel. Syngas is involved in the
steam reforming of natural gas to produce the hydrogen used in fuel
cells.

We heard the term "Synthetic biology", which appears to refer to
genetically engineered plants and microbes. It seems that synthetic
plants are easier to break down than natural plants and synthetic
microbes are good a breaking down synthetic plants.

UC and LBNL already had a lot of the required expertise. To add
experience in agriculture, EBI will also include the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), which has 100 or more acres used
for plant studies, as opposed to the one acre at Berkeley. Nobody
mentioned why UC Davis wasn't selected.

Some people see the impetus for the EBI project coming from "end of
oil". If BP runs out of oil to sell, it may want to get into a
profitable position in other fuels. In 2002, at Stanford, Exxon-Mobil,
notorious for denial of global warming, funded the Global Climate and
Energy (GCEP) project. Exxon committed $100 million to GCEP over 10
years. Other funding partners include General Electric and
Schlumberger.

The GCEP project is not intended to explore climate science, but
rather focus on development of new energy technology and carbon
sequestration technology.

The EBI project will be structured as two separate divisions. One will
be a new subsidiary of BP, which will develop proprietary technology.
The other division will be the university components: UCB, LBNL and
UIUC. This division will be headed by a "governance board", consisting
of a UCB vice chancellor, the LBNL director, the UIUC chancellor and
two BP executives. The EBI director will report to the governance
board.

Six project directors will report to the EBI director. Under the
directors will be as many as 25 research leaders.

Intellectual property will stay where it is developed - with the BP
subsidiary or the universities. Any joint results will somehow be
split. Nothing was mentioned about how to resolve disputes.

Ludden noted that UCB's research is now funded about 60% by the US
Federal Government. He did not think the huge BP funding will do much
to change research direction at Berkeley.

Dr. Harte said that biofuels are really not good for the environment.
They are still carboniferous, and when burnt produce Carbon Dioxide.
We will be removing the CO2 sequestered in the soil. What we need is
biological processes which capture CO2, something like the work of
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

The land required for raising "energy crops" may be more than we can
spare from food agriculture. To replace US current gasoline use with
biofuel from energy crops, we'd need something like 5 Iowas. And
growing this stuff will require plenty of water, pesticides and
fertilizer, all of which impact the environment. Even now, we are
short of irrigation water.

On top of this, plant diseases like corn blight can wipe out an energy
crop, particularly if it is a single genetic strain. And there's
weather and fire. But we can hope that EBI research will find
solutions to all these problems.

Harte made another more subtle point: energy crops can change the
albedo of the Earth, which is reflectivity. This can have its own
greenhouse effect. Also, the energy not converted to electricity has
to go somewhere. Heat?

Harte noted that photovoltaics work even on bad agricultural land. We
can set up solar energy farms anywhere there's sun, such as in the
deserts. He got a cheer when he suggested the weapons proving
grounds.

The BP deal only covers successful research. If research determines
that some biofuel process is actually a danger to human beings, there
does not seem to be any provision for shutting down such a project.
EBI has no provision for concluding that anything might be a "bum
deal".

Dr. Somerville from Stanford spoke next. He warned us that there is no
single solution to the problem of energy needs; we need diversity; we
need to try out many different schemes. Biofuels aren't the only goal.
Solar energy is clean and more abundant than hydro, tides, wind or
geothermal. As an aside, he claimed that if we were to depend on
nuclear power, we'd have to build a new nuke plant every 2 days. Solar
voltaics on 5% of Earth's land would cover our energy requirements.
Right now, we're using 12% of the Earth for food production.

He noted that BP right now is a major producer of photovoltaics, and
is the world's largest producer of Hydrogen. Then we got to learn a
big new word: "Miscanthus". This is the wonder grass for biofuels.
It's related to sugar cane, but is not edible. There are 15 species.
One species, M. sinesnis, is cultivated in Japan as an ornamental
plant, known as susuki. One of the first EBI projects will be to use
genetic engineering to make a microbe which will digest Miscanthus.
Something close to this microbe already lives in the guts of
termites.

It can take as much as 15 years to develop a transgenic plant; it's
better to use one already available in the wild. That's not a goal of
EDI, but EDI will look into using transgenic microbes to digest
cellulose from wild plants like Miscanthus. The sterile hybrid between
M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, called M. giganteus (also known as
or "E-grass"), has been in trial use in Europe as a biofuel, since the
early 1980s. It can grow to heights of more than 3.5 m in one growth
season. There's a field of it in Denmark which has been harvested for
30 years.

So America's amber waves of grain may be accompanied by giant
Miscanthus, growing high as an elephant's eye and providing our cars
with fuel. But first, we need basic research on perennials. We need to
find ways to make the conversion of biomass to fuels efficient.

Dr. Chapela spoke next. He gave us some funny quotes from our
Governor, which came from the German news magazine "Der Spiegel".
Governor S. can't hide behind German , because Chapela worked in
Switzerland and knows the language.

"Mine are not common Hummers - one is a biogas car."

"We are not against SUVs."

"Keep your luxury car."

Chapela said that what happens here in Berkeley will be copied in
other places. It's very important for Berkeley to do this research
right. He is bothered that the EBI project is focused on patents and
profits, not science. He noted that people are afraid of GMOs. Some of
Monsanto's stuff may cause damage to kidney or liver.

He gave us a new acronym -- Net Primary Productivity (NPP) is defined
as the net flux of carbon from the atmosphere into green plants per
unit time. NPP refers to a rate process, i.e., the amount of vegetable
matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year. We
want to promote NPP, to move Carbon from the atmosphere into the
ground. Clearing land for any kind of crops by burning plants
generates atmospheric CO2. He noted that the burning of forests in
Indonesia is generating a lot of CO2, enough to make Indonesia 3rd
offender in the world, after the US and China.

Chapela also gave us the term "Chimeric DNA". This is the genetic
material artificially developed by genetic engineering, usually by
mixing DNA from two or more different organisms. It is commercial
property, patentable. He's afraid the EBI project will put priority on
producing profit-making DNA, and may not be sufficiently concerned
with safety. He also said that if we follow policies bad for humans,
think of how bad we'll be to non-human life.

Here are some samples from each panelist's 2-minute rebuttals.

Harte said that right now, about 5% of the Earth's land has been lost
to deforestation. Biofuels would require another 5%. We need a panel
of ecologists to review EBI research proposals. This is how the
National Science Foundation reviews grant proposals. We need to avoid
bias caused by potential big money.

Somerville said "This is not a steady-state world". Things are
changing. We have to deal with what's coming, not what is. Berkeley is
not going to decide what goes to market as a result of EBI research.
All industrial fermentation today makes use of GMO microbes.

Chapela said this is not just a research project. Social and economic
issues are involved. Miscanthus will pull out nutrients from the
soil.

Ludden said that UCB needs to have faculty who can evaluate technology
critically, and consider social impacts. The EBI project provides
overhead to the university - 52 cents of overhead for every dollar
granted.

The final part of the event was the question period. Helen Burke read
questions from index cards collected from the audience. Before getting
to the questions, she read a comment submitted earlier by Dr. Otto
Smith of UCB's Electrical Engineering Department. He pointed out that
biofuels are all carboniferous; they will generate CO2. What we really
need is carbon-free transportation, powered from the sun, wind and
water.

After the event, Smith, a distinguished white-haired gentleman, was
handing out literature and talking to people.

Chapela said that BP should pay a fine for trying to take over UC.
Somerville said there's no single solution; we need to put knowledge
up on the shelf. Harte responded to someone's worry about putting all
our research eggs in one basket by saying we should candle each egg
before putting it in the basket. Ludden said the EBI approach might
last 50 year, or maybe not. We have to try. This is a research
project.

Question -- Might large-scale production of biofuels effective export
resources sustainably? Somerville: We've been adding 3 billion people
every 50 years. That's not sustainable. But perennial crops might put
nutrients back into the land. Ludden: US farmers should stop
depressing food crop earnings in developing countries. They do this by
exporting US large-scale food production. If the US shifted a lot of
land to energy crops, we wouldn't have the surplus. Question -- What
about the Ecocity? (probably from Richard Register) Harte: That's part
of the solution. Global warming is going to change our lives. EBI
should do "thorough and unbiased" research. Chapela: EBI will not seek
any solutions which don't involve patents. BP wants to make money. In
this kind of thinking, Ecocities have to justify themselves by being
profitable.

Question -- Why is there no interest in energy conservation or
preserving wildlife habitat?

Chapela: LBNL has already spent the equivalent of the BP grant on
studies of energy conservation. We need to keep intellectual diversity
on campus. We need to promote "intellectual wildlife". When someone
asked about public input to decisions about EBI, Dean Ludden brusquely
remarked "this is not a plebiscite". There is no legal basis for
public participation; it's a business deal. The public can look at an
abridged version of the proposal on ebi.berkeley.edu (I tried it, and
it doesn't exist yet). When he said "it's a question of trust", he got
catcalls. In Berkeley, UC is not trusted to do right, and BP as a
global corporation is trusted far less.

There's an article in the latest Economist (March 24 2007, p. 9) which
suggests that BP might not be careful about safety. "BP was berated
for having a weak safety culture in the final report from America's
Chemical Safety Board into the blast at a Texas refinery in March 2005
that killed 15 workers and injured scores of others. The inquiry
concluded that the oil company paid more attention to cutting costs at
the facility than to the threat of an explosion." Chapela noted that
today, science and technology are regarded as equivalent. We do
science in order to generate technology. EBI has this mindset.