Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems_Benefits and Risks Episode 2 Part 11 doc

18 Biofuel Production in Italy and Europe 491 Troeh F.R., Hobbs J.A., and Donahue R.L., 1991. Soil and Water Conservation (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Turkenburg, W.C. (Convening Lead Author), Faaij, A. (Lead Author), et al., 2000. Renewable Energy Technologies. Chapter 7 in World Energy Assessment of the United Nations, UNDP, UNDESA/WEC. UNDP, New York. USDA. 1993. Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. USDA. 1994, United States Department of Agriculture. Summary Report 1992 National Resources Inventory. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Vitale, R., Boulton, J. W., Lepage, M., Gauthier, M., Qiu, X., and Lamy, S., 2002. “Modelling the Effects of E10 Fuels in Canada”. Emission Inventory Conference Emission Inventory Confer- ence, Florida, USA. Wackernagel M. and Rees W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers. World Resources Institute (WRI) 1994. World Resources 1994–95. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 19 The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian Sugarcane Andrew R.B. Ferguson Abstract The power density of ethanol produced from sugarcane in Brazil is about 2.9 kW/ha. That is equivalent to capturing a little more than a thousandth part of solar radiation, and is also a little more than a thousandth part of the power density we are used to from oil and gas. So ineffective is 2.9 kW/ha, that about 5 million ha of land would have to be put down to sugarcane every year just to satisfy the increase in transportation energy demand that results from the annual expansion of population in the U.S.A. Keywords Brazil · sugarcane · ethanol · power density 19.1 Introduction In an eleven page paper, Sugarcane and Energy, the relationship between sugarcane and energy has been covered in considerable detail (Ferguson, 1999); however it may be useful to make available a more concise summary of this essential question: what is the power density of ethanol from sugarcane? The question needs to be asked since one great problem with biofuels is their low power density. The lack of agricultural potential in the USA to achieve anything significant from biofuels has been superbly demonstrated by Donald F. Anthrop, professor emeritus of environmental studies at San Jose State University, in the Oil and Gas Journal, Feb.5, 2007. For instance, he brought up the fact that if the whole of the US corn crop were to be devoted to producing ethanol from corn, this would satisfy only 11.5% of gasoline demand in the US. Note, too, that the reference is to gasoline, and since gasoline represents about half of transportation fuels, it could also be said that the ethanol produced would satisfy only about 6% of transport fuel. My thanks go to Walter Youngquist for sending me this important paper. Donald Anthrop did not cover sugarcane, and since the ‘energy fantasists’ are not easily brought to see reality, some will doubtless hold on to the hope that the A.R.B. Ferguson 11 Harcourt Close, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1UZ, England e-mail: andrewrbferguson@hotmail.com D. Pimentel (ed.), Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems, C  Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 493 494 A.R.B. Ferguson supposedly huge unused acres of Brazil can come to the rescue. Thus a look at the power density of ethanol from sugarcane would appear to be timely. As with all liquid biofuels, there are various power densities which could be assessed: a) The calorific value of the ethanol produced each year per hectare of land. b) The calorific value of the ‘useful’ ethanol produced each year per hectare of land, that is after subtracting the portion of ethanol that is needed for input into the agricultural and production processes. c) The calorific value of the ethanol and by-products produced each year after sub- tracting the calorific value of all the inputs. This is the net energy capture (or net power density). Choice (c) might seem to be the most revealing analysis, but there are both practical and almost philosophical questions about how to assess the inputs, particularly: (1) to what extent it is misleading to subtract the calorific value of non-liquid inputs from the calorific value of liquid outputs; and (2) what value should be assigned to by-products, especially when some of the by-products could be used to improve soil fertility and prevent erosion. Albeit at the cost of being potentially misleading, the type (b) analysis gets around that, and so is a useful starting point, but it requires an assessment of the liquid inputs needed, for which data are not always available. Although using corn (maize) as feedstock to produce ethanol differs in several important respects from using sugarcane, there is bound to be a degree of similarity in the amount of liquid inputs needed as a fraction of the total inputs. So as a guide, let us look at a statement in Shapouri et al., 2002: As discussed earlier, some researchers prefer addressing the energy security issue by look- ing at the net energy gain of ethanol from a liquid fuels standpoint. In this case, only the liquid fossil fuels used to grow corn and produce ethanol are considered in the analysis. On a weighted average basis, about 83% of the total energy requirements come from non-liquid fuels, such as coal and natural gas. That is clearly a statement of method (b) above, and it implies that 17% of the inputs need to be in liquid form. However, we should not take corn as being too accurately aligned with sugarcane in this respect, so I build in a 3% error margin, and assume that only 14% of the total inputs needs to be in liquid form. To establish the power density of sugarcane I have, with the kind permission of David Pimentel, reworked the tables on pages 238–239 of Food, Energy, and Society (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996), which refer to sugarcane production in Brazil, up- dating the yield to the latest average yield which is being achieved over 5.2 million hectares of sugarcane. From Table 19.2 we have the answer to our question. It is that the power density achieved in producing ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is about 2.9 kW/ha—but that is on the very lenient measure of accounting only for the liquid inputs. 19 The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian Sugarcane 495 Table 19.1 Average energy inputs and output per hectare for sugarcane in Brazil Quantity/ha 10 3 kcal/ha Inputs Labor 210 hr 157 a Machinery 72 kg 1,944 Fuel 262 liters 2,635 Nitrogen (ammonia) 65 kg 1,364 Phosphorus (triple) 52 kg 336 Potassium (muriate) 100 kg 250 Lime 616 kg 192 Seed 215 kg 271 Insecticide 0.5 kg 50 Herbicide 3 kg 300 Total 7,499 Output Sugarcane (fresh) 71,400 kg b One thingtonote isthatsugarcaneis usuallygrown insunny areas, so theinsolation would be around 2200 kW/ha, so the energy capture is only a little more than 0.1% of insolation, that is a bit more than 1 part in a thousand. This is very relevant in the Table 19.2 Inputs to transform 71,400 kg of Brazilian sugarcane (fresh) to ethanol Quantity/ha 10 3 kcal/ha Inputs Sugarcane (fresh) as per Table 19.1 71,400 kg 7,499 Transport 71,400 kg 994 Water 482,140 kg 270 Stainless steel c 12 kg 174 Concrete c 31 kg 58 Bagasse (fresh) d 21,340 kg 38,760 Pollution – – Total 47,755 Gross output of ethanol = 5,525 liters = 28,343 Liquid inputs = 47,755 × 0.14 = 6,686 So output of ‘useful’ ethanol 21, 657 = 4,222 liters ethanol/ha/yr. So power density = 21,657,000 kcal/ha/yr = 90.7 GJ/ha = 2.9 kW/ha a There is some debate as to whether the energy associated with the labor input should reflect the lifestyle of the laborers, but that is not germane to this analysis. b The original tables were associated with 54,000 kg of sugarcane. No increase in inputs have been introduced into Table 19.1, and the only items that have been proportionately increased in Table 19.2, to allow for the 71,400 kg of sugarcane, are transport and the heat provided by the bagasse. c The embodied energy associated with these raw materials are amortized over their lifetime. d The calorific value of fresh bagasse is 1816 kcal/kg (see Ferguson, 1999), which is used to cal- culate the weight. Bagasse is a by-product and is used to produce the heat needed for the transfor- mation process, thus arguably its energy content need not be included in an input/output analysis. It is relevant here anyway because it helps in the assessment of the required liquid inputs. 496 A.R.B. Ferguson context of the fact that‘energyfantasists’ like to dwell atlengthon the amountofsolar power that is available, as though we are likely to capture much of it. It is not easy to conceive of the paucity of 2.9 kW/ha. Another useful way to look at the matter is to consider that while it is hard to measure the power density of oil and gas, it is clear that the figures are numerically in the region of solar insolation in the United States, that is about 2000 kW/ha. So capture of sunlight in the form of ethanol achieves a power density that is once again only a bit more than a thousandth part of what we are used to enjoying while oil and gas are available. A further point of reference is to consider how much land would be needed to provide the burgeoning U.S. population with liquid fuel using ethanol from sugar- cane. Dividing transportation fuels by the number of citizens, each American uses, on average, about 3 kW of fuel for transportation (out of a total energy use of about 10.5 kW). Virginia Abernethy (2006) has pointed out that the Census Bureau greatly undercounts the extent of illegal immigration, and that the correct figure for the growth of the U.S. population is between 4.7 and 5.7 million per year. Taking a central figure of 5.2 million, since each American would need 3/2.9 = 1.03 ha to pro- vide transport fuel from ethanol, there would be a need for an additional 1.03×5.2 million, say 5 million hectares to be put down to sugarcane every year,justsoas to keep pace with the expansion in population. It is clear that even borrowing land freely from Brazil this becomes impossible within a decade. There is also this moral question: will conscience allow us to satisfy the motoring public this way when the WHO assesses that 3700 million are suffering from mal- nutrition and over 800 million from hunger? Not everyone will be as unconcerned about that as President George Bush, who in his State of the Union address called for a 20% cut in gasoline consumption by 2017 and indicated that biofuels would pro- vide a substantial part of the solution. Yet surely his advisers told him that the power density of ethanol from corn, assessed on the same basis as above, is lower than for sugarcane, being about 2776 liters of ethanol/ha/yr = 59.0 GJ/yr = 1.9 kW/ha (see OPTJ 3/1, p. 12 for more detail), and other biofuels have even lower power densities (excepting sugarcane). Biofuels can hardly be regarded as even part of the answer when, as we have seen, the growth of biofuels could not match the growth in U.S. population. Insofar as that attempt is made, it will continue to increase the cost of food. Donald Anthrop showed that to be happening, with figures that illustrated a 94% increase in the contract price for corn, between March 2006 and March 2007. 19.2 Errors and the Potential for More Relating to Sugarcane The subject of sugarcane seems to abound in substantial errors, and perhaps the ‘energy fantasists’ cling on to them. It may be the very high moisture content of sugarcane (about 70%) which causes confusion. Anyway information sources which are otherwise reliable contain gross errors both about ethanol from sugarcane and sugarcane itself. 19 The Power Density of Ethanol from Brazilian Sugarcane 497 The most egregious must surely be that in an old book Biological Energy Re- sources, 1979, by Malcolm Slesser and Chris Lewis. Several times it is repeated therein that the yield of ethanol from sugarcane is about 17 tonnes per hectare per year. That would be 457,300 MJ = 21,520 liters of ethanol. Because Brazil is the place where the ‘energy fantasists’ assume there are boundless hectares of potential sugarcane land, we have taken Brazil as an example, but even with a high yield of 88 tonnes of sugarcane per hectare, as might be obtained in Louisiana, the ethanol yield would only be about 6290 liters. Regarding sugarcane itself, Howard Hayden, in the revised edition of his book The Solar Fraud, page 242, states that the power density of “Sugar cane (whole plant, tropical conditions, plenty of fertilizer and pesticides)” is 37 kW/ha. That is far too high. Once again taking the high yield of 88,000 kg of fresh sugarcane, the calorific value would be about 88,000 × 1212 kcal/kg = 107 million kcal/ha/yr = 446 GJ/ha/yr = 14 kW/ha. The figure is easy to cross-check, as 88,000 kg at 70% moisture content would contain 26,400 kg of dry matter, and as dry matter has an energy content in the region of 4180 kcal/kg, the calorific value must be in the region of 110 million kcal. A hope which lingers around (so far only a potential error) is that the by-product bagasse is so plentiful that it can not only provide the heat needed to carry out the distillation processes but also contribute large amounts (‘energy fantasists’ steer clear of giving actual figures!) of heat for providing electricity. That too has now been quantified, and amounts to only 0.1 kW(e)/ha. Clearly that is hardly significant, and anyhow it is doubtful that the bagasse should be put to that purpose, as the next section makes clear. 19.3 Soil Erosion Problems It will be noted from Table 19.2 that the heat value of the bagasse used to effect the transformation of the sugarcane to ethanol amounts to about 1.8 times the amount of useful ethanol produced. So it is true to say that the only reason that producing ethanol from sugarcane is not a very substantial energy loser is that the heat can be provided by the bagasse instead of from fossil fuels. However it is doubtful that much of the bagasse should be so used if the sugarcane production is to be truly sustainable, for one dire problem with sugarcane is its tendency to cause soil erosion (Pimentel, 1993). That is a matter of considerable importance to which we will now turn. Corn has a total yield of around 15 dry tonnes, half being grain and half stover (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996, p. 36). With reference to corn, David Pimentel has continually stressed the problems arising from soil erosion, and the need to keep all the stover on the ground to maintain the fertility of the soil. Thus in the case of corn about the maximum biomass that should be removed permanently is 7.5 dry t/ha/yr. The Brazilian sugarcane we are considering has an average yield of 71.4 t/ha/yr fresh which is 21 t/ha/yr dry. To remove no more dry matter than recommended for corn, 14 dry t/ha/yr (47 tonnes fresh) of sugarcane biomass should be either left on 498 A.R.B. Ferguson the soil or returned to it. Also common sense dictates that it is not sustainable to remove 21 dry tonnes of biomass from the land each year without sooner or later causing soil impoverishment and erosion. We can conclude that while it is possible to deliver a ‘useful’ 2.9 kW/ha as liquid fuel from Brazilian sugarcane, there would need to be considerable ‘external’ inputs to replace the heat provided by the bagasse if the process is to be made sustainable by maintaining soil quality and preventing soil erosion. While that is not relevant to the uncontentious power density calculations of this paper, it does remind us that the simplified calculation of power density made here—so as to escape the more philosophical points of net energy—does not paint the full dismal picture of the great difficulty of producing liquid fuels sustainably. References Abernethy, D.V. 2006. Census Bureau Distortions Hide Immigration Crisis: Real Numbers Much Higher. Population-Environment Balance. Anthrop, D.F. 2007. Limits on energy promise of biofuels. Oil and Gas Journal, Feb.5, 2007 (pp. 25–28). Ferguson, A.R.B. 1999. Sugarcane and Energy. Manchester: Optimum Population Trust. 12pp. Archived at www.members.aol.com/optjournal/sugar.doc Hayden, H.C 2004. The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World (2nd edition). Vales Lake Publishing LLC. P.O. Box 7595, Pueblo West, CO 81007-0595. 280pp. OPTJ 3/1. 2003. Optimum Population Trust Journal, Vol. 3, No 1, April 2003. Manchester (U.K.): Optimum Population Trust. 32 pp. Archived on the web at www.members.aol.com/ optjour- nal2/optj31.doc Pimentel, D. (Ed.) 1993. World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge Uni. Press. Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. 1996. Food, Energy, and Society. Niwot Co., University Press of Colorado. 363 pp. This is a revised edition; the first edition was published by John Wiley and Sons in 1979. Shapouri, H., Duffield, J.A., and Wang, M. 2002. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Economic Report Number 813. Slesser, M. and C. Lewis. 1979. Biological Energy Resources. London: E. & F.N. Spon Ltd. Chapter 20 A Brief Discussion on Algae for Oil Production: Energy Issues David Pimentel Abstract Further laboratory and field research is needed for the algae and oil theoretical system. Claims based on research dating over three decades have been made, yet none of the projected algae and oil yields have been achieved. Harvesting the algae from tanks and separating the oil from the algae, are difficult and energy intensive processes. Keywords Algae · biomass · energy · harvesting algae The culture of algae can yield 30–50% oil (Dimitrov, 2007). Thus, the interest in the use of algae to increase U.S. oil supply is based on the theoretical claims that 47,000–308,000 liters/hectare/year (5,000–33,000 gallons/acre) of oil could be pro- duced using algae (Briggs, 2004; Vincent Inc., 2007). The calculated cost per barrel would be only $20 (Global Green Solutions, 2007). Currently, a barrel of oil in the U.S. market is selling for over $100 per barrel. If the production and price of oil produced from algae were true, U.S. annual oil needs could theoretically be met, but only if 100% of all U.S. land were in algal culture! Despite all the claims and research dating from the early 1970’s to date, none of the projected algae and oil yields have been achieved (Dimitrov, 2007). To the contrary, one calculated estimate based on all the included costs using algae would be $800 per barrel, not $20 per barrel previously mentioned. Algae, like all plants, require large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer and water, plus significant fossil energy inputs for the functioning system (Goldman and Ryther, 1977). One difficulty in culturing algae is that the algae shade one another and thus there are different levels of light saturation in the cultures, even under Florida conditions (Biopact, 2007). This influences the rate of growth of the algae. In addition, wild strains of algae invade and dominate the algae culture strains and oil production by the algae is reduced (Biopact, 2007). D. Pimentel College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 5126 Comstock Hall, Ithaca, NY 15850 e-mail: Dp18@cornell.edu D. Pimentel (ed.), Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems, C  Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 499 500 D. Pimentel Another major problem with the culture of algae in ponds or tanks is the har- vesting of the algae. Because algae are mostly water, harvesting the algae from the cultural tanks and separating the oil from the algae, is a difficult and energy inten- sive process. This problem was observed at the University of Florida (Gainesville) when algae were being cultured in managed ponds for the production of nutrients for hogs (Pimentel, unpublished 1976). After two years with a lack of success, the algal-nutrient culture was abandoned. The rice total yield is nearly 50 tons/ha/yr of continuous culture and this in- cludes both the rice and rice straw (CIIFAD, 2007). The best algal biomass yields under tropical conditions is about 50 t/ha/yr (Biopact, 2007). However, the high- est yield of alga biomass produced per hectare based on theoretical calculations is 681 tons/ha/yr (Vincent Inc., 2007). Rice production in the tropics can produce 3 crops on the same hectare of land per year requiring about 400 kg/ha of nitrogen fertilizer and 240 million liters of water (Pimentel et al., 2004). Obviously, a great deal of laboratory and field research is needed for the algae and oil theoretical system. References Biopact. (2007). An in-depth look at biofuels from algae. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://biopact.com/2007/01/in-depth-look-at-biofuels-from-algae-html Briggs, M. (2004). Widescale biodiesel production from algae. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://unh.edu/p2/biodielsel/article alghae.html CIIFAD. (2007). More rice with less water through SRI – the System of Rice Intensification. Cor- nell International Institute for Food, Agriculture, and Development Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://ciifad.cornell.edu/SRI/extmats/philmanual.pdf Dimitrov, K. (2007). GreenFuel technologies: a case study for industrial photosythetic energy cap- ture. Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/ CaseStudy.pdf Global Green Solutions. (2007). Renewable energy. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www.stockupticks.com/ profiles/7-26-07.html Goldman, J.C. and Ryther, J.H. (1977). Mass production of algae: bio-engineering aspects. (In A. Mitsui et al. (Eds.), Biological Solar Energy Conversion. (pp. 367–378). New York: Academic Press.) Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, B., Clark, S., Poon, E., Abbett, E., and Nandagopal, S. 2004. Water resources: Agricultural and environmental issues. Bioscience 54(10): 909–918 Vincent Inc. 2007. Valcent Products. Initial data from the Vertigro Field Test Bed Plant reports average production of 276 tons of algae bio mass on a per acre/per year basis. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0339181.htm Index A Agriculture, 43, 51, 54, 64, 67, 68, 72, 111, 129, 158, 164, 166, 187, 188, 192, 198, 199, 201, 204, 206, 207–209, 217, 225, 235, 237, 242, 247, 249, 250, 252, 255, 259, 279, 285, 297, 313, 326, 365, 404, 425–456, 467, 469, 473, 477–479, 482, 487 Agrofuel, 19, 25, 33–44 Algae, 165, 280–281, 499–500 Alternative energy sources, 173–174, 176, 183, 186, 194–205, 206 B Bagasse, 92, 134–135, 201, 217, 219–221, 224, 225–226, 240–241, 308, 337–338, 340, 358, 361–362, 367, 475, 495, 497–498 Batteries, 8, 133, 142–145, 271 Biodiesel, 73, 81, 84, 85–86, 89–90, 91, 93, 100, 128, 129, 130, 155, 156–161, 162, 164–166, 167, 168, 231, 240, 243–245, 249, 251–252, 274, 277, 279–281, 290, 306, 308–310, 386–390, 404, 406, 408–410, 443–444, 452, 466, 469–473, 475, 477, 479, 481–486 Biodiversity, 27, 153, 162, 163, 195, 204, 208, 226, 322, 349–350, 352, 397, 402, 425–429, 435–437, 449, 453, 455, 476, 485, 486–487, 488 Bioeconomics, 173, 183–194 Bio-ethanol, 321–352, 466, 483, 484, 486 Biofuel, 2, 57–59, 62, 64, 65–66, 71–72, 73–76, 82–84, 85–86, 88, 90–104, 154–156, 161, 163–167, 173, 184, 194–195, 196–209, 216, 218, 225, 227, 231, 232, 235–238, 240–245, 252, 254–256, 274–275, 280, 289, 303, 312–315, 321–322, 323, 330, 332, 341, 351, 366, 376, 379, 382, 389, 390, 395, 396–397, 400–401, 403, 405, 407–411, 418, 426, 443–444, 448–449, 451–454, 455, 465–488, 493–494, 496 Bioheat, 395–397, 402, 403, 404, 407–411, 418 Biomass, 2, 3, 4–5, 9, 11, 19–54, 73, 91, 112, 128, 134–135, 136, 137, 147, 153–155, 160–167, 184, 191, 197, 199, 205–206, 216, 221, 231–256, 260, 269, 275, 300–301, 309, 313, 348, 357–358, 365, 367, 373, 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 390, 396–418, 426, 444, 448–451, 453–454, 465, 467–469, 475, 477, 479, 484–485, 488, 497–498, 499–500 Biomass energy, 4–5, 184, 301, 397, 468 Biophysical economics, 295 Biorefinery, 234–236, 238, 242, 243–244, 246–252 Boundary, 34, 48–49, 176, 179, 232, 238–240, 306, 311–312, 313 Brazil, 86–87, 101, 160, 161–162, 199–201, 203, 215–221, 222, 223–228, 275, 278, 321–353, 357–367, 376, 407, 475, 493–498 C Carbon dioxide emissions, 39, 119, 147, 217, 261, 263, 264, 267, 281, 288, 290, 366, 447, 479–480, 488 Cellulosic ethanol, 19, 27, 28–33, 70, 75, 85, 95, 101, 103, 313, 380–382, 395, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 426, 448–451 CO 2 balances, 224–225 CO 2 mitigation, 223–224 Coal, 1–4, 12, 19, 24, 27, 29, 32, 35, 37, 43, 93, 110, 111, 119, 128–129, 134–137, 147, 160, 186, 218, 220, 236, 238, 240–241, 259, 260–263, 265, 268, 271–272, 276, 501 [...]... Perennial grass energy crops, 403 Petroleum, 2, 11, 20 , 22 , 25 , 27 , 32, 33, 37, 57, 61, 63, 64, 71, 79, 82, 84, 86, 94, 95, 96, 103, 104, 110 –1 12, 114 , 115 , 117 119 , 121 , 128 – 129 , 153–168, 22 0, 23 8, 24 0, 24 1, 25 9 26 2, 26 4 26 5, 26 7, 27 4, 27 9 28 0, 28 6 28 7, 28 9, 300, 303, 314, 323 , 3 52, 364, 376–377, 379, 386, 400, 401 Photovoltaic Systems, 1, 7–8 Plantation, 28 , 40, 51, 163, 21 8, 22 2, 22 7, 322 , 327 , 3 32, 334,... 26 0, 26 2 26 4, 26 8, 27 0, 27 2, 28 2, 28 6, 29 1, 29 7, 29 8, 301–3 02, 313–314, 358, 366–367, 374, 379, 396, 400–401, 406, 407, 409–410, 418, 471, 476, 494 Natural resources, 5, 90, 122 , 20 5, 23 8, 3 02, 322 , 406 Net energy balance, 23 1, 24 0 24 2, 24 8, 396 value, 19, 23 1 23 3 Nuclear fission, 25 9, 26 0, 26 5 26 6, 26 8 Nuclear fusion, 25 9, 26 0, 27 2 27 4 O Oil, 1, 4, 11 12, 13, 19 28 , 33, 43, 58, 66, 71, 76, 82 85, 1 02 104,... 23 2, 23 7 23 8, 24 2, 24 4 25 5, 447, 473, 480–4 82, 485 Soil ecology, 426 , 444, 449–450 Solar, 1–14, 19, 33, 109, 111 , 127 – 129 , 178–179, 20 6, 24 0, 24 1, 26 0, 28 4, 28 9, 29 0, 29 8, 300–3 02, 313, 357–358, 373, 379, 390, 396, 398, 399, 437, 4 52, 474, 476, 496–497 Solar power, 3, 109, 25 9, 26 9 27 0, 27 1, 29 1 29 2, 496 Soybean, 11 12, 35, 58, 70–71, 93–94, 154, 158–159, 161–166, 23 1, 23 6, 24 4 24 5, 24 9 25 4, 25 6, 27 9 28 0,... ownership, 65– 72 Fischer-Tropsch, 32, 159, 160, 26 2, 3 02 303 Flex-fuel vehicles, 322 , 324 Fuel, 19–54, 23 1 25 6, 25 9 29 2, 395–418 Fuel production, 13, 94, 153, 23 7, 24 4, 29 8, 323 , 330, 400, 408 G Geothermal, 2, 3, 26 0, 27 1 27 2, 28 4 Geothermal Systems, 8–9 GHGs emission, 344, 426 , 437, 443–444, 455–456 Global warming, 128 , 163, 186, 20 5, 21 5, 22 7, 22 8, 25 9 26 4, 26 7, 27 6, 28 1 28 3, 28 5, 28 8 28 9, 29 0, 366, 390,... 1 02 103, 118 , 123 , 124 , 20 1, 20 3, 23 1, 23 2, 23 3 23 4, 23 6, 24 2, 24 6, 24 8, 25 0, 25 2, 25 5 25 6, 27 1, 28 8, 300–3 02, 304, 306, 313, 315, 340, 344, 347 Investments, 65, 67, 70, 91, 186, 188, 20 8, 28 6, 3 02, 315, 323 , 358, 478 L Labor conditions, 9, 12, 71, 75–76, 90, 127 , 178, 179, 188, 1 92 20 6, 23 5, 24 1, 24 7, 25 5, 28 1, 29 6, 29 8, 300, 301, 306, 358–360, 367, 374–375, 383, 387, 389, 470–4 72, 481–4 82, 495 Land requirement,...5 02 281, 28 2, 28 5 28 6, 29 2, 29 7 29 9, 301–303, 313, 344, 374, 376, 388, 390, 400–401, 406, 408–410, 415, 418, 476, 494 Co-generation, 23 6, 24 1 Combustion, 4, 50, 154, 156, 160, 167, 21 6, 21 8, 21 9, 22 7, 24 0 24 2, 25 1 25 2, 26 2, 26 6, 27 9, 28 1 28 2, 301–3 02, 324 , 396, 399–400, 4 02, 403, 409, 411 418, 443, 444, 447, 454, 479–480, 483 Combustion quality, 26 , 110 , 118 , 129 , 27 6, 395–418 Complex Systems, 173 20 9... 4 12, 413–417 Index T Template, 146, 23 1 23 8, 24 2, 24 4, 24 9, 25 2 25 6 Thermal energy, 3, 4, 6, 300, 308, 375, 387, 389, 395–396, 401, 407, 411, 418 Thermodynamics, 48, 50, 52, 179, 180, 29 6, 3 82, 401 Tropics, 27 , 28 , 52, 22 7, 397, 407, 500 U Uncontrollables, 133, 140, 141, 146, 149 United States, 1–5, 8–9, 12 14, 79–104, 110 –1 12, 116 , 118 , 120 , 122 , 124 , 128 – 129 , 161–1 62, 163, 168, 25 9 26 7, 26 9, 27 2, 27 3,... gas, 28 , 79, 80, 82, 99–101, 103, 104, 163, 21 6, 23 1, 25 4 25 5, 26 3, 26 6, 27 1, 27 8, 28 9, 29 7, 3 12, 321 – 322 , 330, 351, 3 52, 396–397, 407–409, 418, 454, 466 Greenhouse gas emissions, 25 4, 27 1, 29 7, 3 12, 322 , 330, 344–347, 351, 3 52, 454, 466 Index H Harvesting algae, 499 Hydroelectric power, 2 4, 111 Hydropower, 2, 3, 141, 145, 147, 26 0, 26 5, 26 9 I Infrastructure, 69, 72, 76, 91, 92, 95, 97, 1 02 103, 118 ,... 186–188, 198, 20 5 20 7, 21 5, 21 7, 21 8, 22 5, 23 6, 26 0 26 1, 26 4 26 5, 26 7, 27 0, 27 2, 27 5 27 6, 27 8 28 0, 28 6, 29 0, 29 7 29 9, 300–306, 313–315, 323 – 324 , 331, 344, 347, 358–359, 363–364, 366–367, 374, 375, 379, 383, 386–390, 397, 400–401, 406, 408, 410, 426 , 444, 4 52 453, 466, 469–474, 476–477, 4 82 484, 486, 493, 496, 499–500 Organic agriculture, 425 –456, 487 P Pellets, 3 82, 395–396, 4 02, 404–406, 408–410, 411, 414–415... requirement, 2, 7, 484–485, 488 Liebigs Law, 3 12 315 M Mass balance, 36, 48– 52, 469 Methodology, 158, 176, 23 1 25 6 Model, 39, 65, 69, 122 – 127 , 130, 175, 398, 4 42, 444 Modular, 23 2 24 0 Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism (MuSIASEM), 174, 1 92, 194–195 N Natural gas, 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 24 , 27 , 43, 62, 63, 66, 71, 103, 110 , 111 115 , 117 , 119 , 127 , 129 –130, 139, 1 42, 145, 160, 21 8, 26 0, . 27 , 29 , 32, 35, 37, 43, 93, 110 , 111 , 119 , 128 – 129 , 134–137, 147, 160, 186, 21 8, 22 0, 23 6, 23 8, 24 0 24 1, 25 9, 26 0 26 3, 26 5, 26 8, 27 1 27 2, 27 6, 501 5 02 Index 28 1, 28 2, 28 5 28 6, 29 2, 29 7 29 9, 301–303,. power, 2 4, 111 Hydropower, 2, 3, 141, 145, 147, 26 0, 26 5, 26 9 I Infrastructure, 69, 72, 76, 91, 92, 95, 97, 1 02 103, 118 , 123 , 124 , 20 1, 20 3, 23 1, 23 2, 23 3 23 4, 23 6, 24 2, 24 6, 24 8, 25 0, 25 2, 25 5 25 6,. 1 92, 194–195 N Natural gas, 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 24 , 27 , 43, 62, 63, 66, 71, 103, 110 , 111 115 , 117 , 119 , 127 , 129 –130, 139, 1 42, 145, 160, 21 8, 26 0, 26 2 26 4, 26 8, 27 0, 27 2, 28 2, 28 6, 29 1, 29 7, 29 8,