Articles are showing up more and more by writers complaining about rising food costs not only in the US, but in other areas of the world. So here’s an old dude’s perspective.

Education: A Zillion Uses for Corn

Also on GO:

The Green Life Guide: Ethanol

Red, Green and Blue: A Case for Ethanol Skepticism

Red, Green and Blue: Ethanol: Fuel of the Future, or Ponzi Scheme?

4 Ways to "Cash In" on Ethanol

Climate Change, Energy Security and CAFE: With E85, the Country has a Better Mousetrap

US Drunk on Ethanol Hysteria

"It’s a proven technology, but in an unproven environment," said Mr. Butcher, 27. "The idea of growing energy crops is not necessarily a new one; the idea of growing them on distributed sites on vacant land, in an urban context, is kind of a new idea."

Kind of. It’s happening elsewhere, in dribs and drabs. Monroeville’s Cardinal Resources plants poplar trees, which suck up toxic waste, at manufacturing sites around the country, but doesn’t convert those plants into fuels. In Los Angeles, a design team funded by the Annenberg Foundation has turned a 32-acre rail yard into a massive cornfield and garden. But that project, dubbed "Not a Cornfield," is more urban artwork than laboratory. The closest parallel can be found in Michigan, where Michigan State University researchers are turning a 2-acre dump site into land for biodiesel and ethanol crops.

Using plants, enzymes, fungi, or microorganisms to depollute contaminated areas isn’t an entirely novel concept. Phytoremediation - using plants to clean up the soil - has been practiced for centuries. Due to general increases in industrial pollution and the sheer potential of the idea, using naturally and (more recently) genetically-engineered organisms to ameliorate pollution has gained special emphasis in the last 20 years.

The CMU group is taking the next logical step in bioremediation by attempting to create a usable byproduct, in this case fuel:

GTECH [Growth Through Energy and Community Health], a nonprofit that sprang out of a master’s thesis, is hoping to bring all of the divergent threads together, stitching a strategy that will cleanse contaminated industrial land, occupy vacant urban plots and produce renewable fuels, the last of which happens to be one of the hot political topics du jour.

Test crops already have been planted. At the former LTV Steel site in Hazelwood, the GTECH crew has taken over six barren acres of fill and planted hybrid poplar trees, switchgrass and sunflowers. The first two can be reduced into cellulosic ethanol — that is, ethanol that isn’t corn- or grain-based — while sunflowers become conventional biodiesel.

Testing several types of crops is important, since each plant removes different contaminants. For example, ragweed and poplar trees sequester lead. Barley and sugar beets excel at removing salt and have commonly been used to desalinate agricultural land. Naturally occurring bacteria can be harnessed to assist in cleaning up oil spills. And sunflowers are apparently well-suited to remove arsenic and uranium from soils - just in case you had a chemical explosion or a nuclear meltdown.

It’s also important to find crops with properties conducive to making biofuels. Growing ethanol- or biodiesel-producing crops on contaminated land bypasses the food vs. fuel issue and could make more land available for cultivation.

But it isn’t clear that any of these crops will actually work for the intended purpose, especially on really polluted sites. Will it take a succession of several different crops or polyculture to fully remediate the soil? Will the plants even grow under such poor conditions? And more importantly for the project, will the biofuels meet ASTM fuel standards, considering the contaminant load they could contain?

"We’re not growing on even farmland, which is hard enough to grow on," said Ms. Koch, 33. "We’re growing on vacant properties, which are usually demolished houses that have brick and glass and cement and rebar and all kinds of terrible things. [Crop] quality is going to be a concern," especially in the first years. It’s a concern at Michigan State, too. Will the end product meet industry standards — and, should they come to pass, federal standards — for what makes usable biofuel?

Time will tell.  In any case, it’s a great idea, and the group deserves a nod:

"You’re going to see a lot more land, whether it’s a brownfield or otherwise, get utilized for crops like that. I wouldn’t be surprised to someday see all the highway grass be switchgrass instead," he said. Rather than paying PennDOT workers to mow grass along the sides of highways, farmers or biofuel companies might bid for the rights to harvest the switchgrass, which sprouts perennially and grows well in poor soil and cooler climates.

CMU grads want to use blighted industrial, residential sites to produce bio-fuel crops. July 10, 2007. Post-Gazette.
Wikipedia: Phytoremediation
Wikipedia: Bioremediation

Photo Credit: Post-Gazette

Prompted by high gas prices, global warming, and good old curiosity, more and more proud diesel owners are converting their vehicles to run on 100% vegetable oil. While the concept isn’t new, the number of dedicated users is steadily increasing, and this means more potential conflict with regulators who have no idea what to do with the vegetable oil crowd. Since vegetable oil is not recognized by the EPA as an official alternative fuel, most states have not decided how to handle the issue.

Few states. . .are prepared to regulate the new fuels, says the National VegOil Board, which promotes vegetable oil fuel.

“State offices do not have the forms to appropriately and fairly deal with VegOil, nor the staff to enforce the nonexistent forms,” said director Cynthia Shelton. “So either they tell people inquiring about compliance to get lost, or they make them jump a bunch of arbitrary hoops.”

It really comes down whether revenue collectors see using a more-or-less free fuel, vegetable oil, as blatant avoidance of paying the road tax. Unfortunately, the public typically receives mixed messages from different departments within the same state. The Department of Energy in Oregon actually offers tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles and fueling stations of 25% of the conversion or construction cost (up to $750/year). That’s what the law says, but call up the office or the Department of Revenue and you may here a different story.

Under the present circumstances it seems reasonable to promote grassroots activity focused on alternative transportation, so why doesn’t Uncle Sam just leave SVO’ers alone? Obviously, the road tax is an important source of revenue ($1.2 billion/year in NC), but it no one would argue that SVO, at least today, significantly affects that.

Is there any reason why these backyarder-greaseballs should get a free ride?

Well, ingenuity perhaps? Or doing there part to reduce our nation’s reliance on foreign oil? At a time when groundbreaking biofuel legislation passes daily, and the Department of Energy is practically throwing money at anything combining the words “cellulosic” and “ethanol”, this seems a little incongruous.

State Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Denton, is known around Raleigh for his diesel Volkswagen fueled by used soybean oil. The car sports a “Goodbye, OPEC” sign. “If somebody was going to go to this much trouble to drive around in a car that uses soybean oil, they ought to be exempt” from state taxes, he said.

If you want to find out where your state stands on the issue, call your state Department of Energy and see what they have to say about it. You might also consider offering to pay road taxes for the road miles you use each year, but don’t expect this to be a straightforward process. Also keep in mind that these taxes apply to homebrew biodiesel, though proper regulation should already be in place.

If you get busted by the man for attempting sustainable transportation, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Interested in SVO or want to learn how a vehicle can actually be converted? - stay tuned for more posts on the subject. In the mean time, (and not that I’m trying to give anyone away to the Feds) check out Megan’s recent post on the subject.

Driver ticketed for using biofuel: Vegetable oil sticks him with $1,000 fine. Bruce Henderson, The Charlotte Observer

National VegOil Board

“We identified the metabolic processes and conditions that allow a known strain of E. coli to convert glycerin into ethanol,” said Ramon Gonzalez, the William Akers Assistant Professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. “It’s also very efficient. We estimate the operational costs to be about 40 percent less that those of producing ethanol from corn.”

Biodiesel is made by splitting fat molecules into smaller pieces and draining off the thicker components, better known as glycerin. Anyone familiar with homemade biodiesel knows what glycerin is: a sticky, nasty mess that’s also a disposal headache. Waste glycerin is no small problem for the commercial biodiesel industry either, since 10 lbs. of biodiesel produces 1 lb. of glycerin, and what was once a valuable commodity now frequently entails a disposal cost. In the short span of two years, glycerin commodity prices have decreased by a factor of 10, while overall production has increased by 400%. Finding a solution to the waste problem has been a top priority for some time now (check out the Glycerol Challenge):

Researchers across the globe are racing to find ways to turn waste glycerin into profit. While some are looking at traditional chemical processing — finding a way to catalyze reactions that break glycerin into other chemicals — others, including Gonzalez, are focuse on biological conversion. In biological conversion, researchers engineer a microorganism that can eat a specific chemical feedstock and excrete something useful. Many drugs are made this way, and the chemical processing industry is increasingly finding bioprocessing t be a “greener,” and sometimes cheaper, alternative to chemical processing.”

Researchers have been ‘racing’ over this issue for some time, but until now the best use of waste glycerin I’d heard of is dust suppression on country roads. But biodiesel producers are keen on finding valuable co-products that can pad their very slim profit margins ($0.079 per gallon of biodiesel according to one source).

Skeptical? By now most of us in the renewable energy crowd have to see it to believe it. Anyone familiar with the waste product produced from even the cleanest-looking waste vegetable oil would be hard-pressed to imagine it successfully converted to ethanol. If feasible, however, it could be the next big thing for commercial biodiesel producers everywhere:

“We are confident that our findings will enable the use of E. coli to anaerobically produce ethanol and other products from glycerin with higher yields and lower cost than can be obtained using common sugar-based feedstocks like glucose and xylose,” Gonzalez said.”

These statements released by Rice University stem from a scientific review paper entitled Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a path to economic viability for the biofuels industry. This scientific review paper is not available without subscription, but here are a few excerpts:

“The implementation of biorefineries has been proposed as a means to increase the economic viability of the biofuels industry [9]. In its ‘conventional’ form, a biorefinery would make use of a fraction of the feedstock (e.g. a portion of sugars or oils) to co-produce a higher value, small-market chemical along with the biofuel(s). The higher revenue from the co-product, which benefits itself from the economies of scale available in a large biofuels plant, would improve the economics of biofuel production. A more economically viable model for a biorefinery, however, should consider the use of byproducts or waste streams generated during the production of the biofuel. Glycerol-rich streams generated by the biofuels industry (Figure 1a) have the potential to be used in this context. This review focuses on the anaerobic conversion of crude glycerol into higher value products as a means to improve the economic viability of the biofuels industry.”

“For example, an analysis of the feedstock and processing costs in the production of biodiesel from soybean oil yields a gross processing margin of about $0.079 per gallon of biodiesel (including a glycerol credit of $0.021, but excluding any interest expense, tax credits or fixed costs) (04/11/2007: www.thejacobsen.com). Essentially, if 2004 glycerol prices (Figure 1b) were still valid, the glycerol revenues by themselves would amount to about three times the current gross processing margin (i.e. crude glycerol at $0.25/ lb  0.85 lb/gal would result in a glycerin credit of $0.21). Clearly, the development of processes to convert crude glycerol into higher value products is both an urgent need and a ‘target of opportunity’ for the development of biorefineries. Such technologies could be readily integrated into existing biodiesel facilities, thus establishing true biorefineries and revolutionizing the biodiesel industry by dramatically improving its economics. Moreover, waste streams containing high levels of glycerol are generated in almost every industry that uses animal fats or vegetable oils as starting material (Figure 1a). For example, the oleochemical industry generates waste streams containing 55–90% glycerol [14]. Such glycerol surplus will not only result in a further reduction in prices, but the disposal of these streams will become a major issue [12].”

“At current prices (2.5 cents/lb), glycerol is very competitive with sugars used in the production of chemicals and fuels via microbial fermentation. Given the highly reduced nature of carbon atoms in glycerol, additional advantages can be realized by using glycerol instead of sugars. For example, conversion of glycerol into the glycolytic intermediates
phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) or pyruvate generates twice theamount of reducing equivalents produced by the metabolism of glucose or xylose (Figure 2). Fermentative metabolism would then enable higher yield of fuels and reduced chemicals from glycerol compared with those obtained from common sugars such as glucose or xylose.”

Biotech breakthrough could end biodiesel’s glycerin glut (June 19, 2007)
Syed Shams Yazdani and Ramon Gonzalez. Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a path to economic viability for the biofuels industry. Current Opinion in Biotechnology: Volume 18, Issue 3, June 2007, Pages 213-219

Photo Credit: Rice University

Enter the polyethylene “photobioreactor” bag, where light, temperature, CO2, and nutrients can be tightly controlled. The CO2 concentration can be supplemented by waste CO2 from any industrial process, but especially coal-power plants. Initially, this would seem to constrain the utility of algae-farming to having a nearby coal plant, but smaller process produce wast CO2 too. Solix plans on working with the New Belgium Brewery in Ft. Colins to produce algae from waste CO2 produced in the brewing process. (Check back later for an interview with New Belgium). Under the right conditions, algae can be coaxed to double their volume overnight, and this means a lot of oil:

“If we were to replace all of the diesel that we use in the United States” with an algae derivative, says Solix CEO Douglas Henston, “we could do it on an area of land that’s about one-half of 1 percent of the current farm land that we use now.”

Idealistic? Maybe. I’ve heard this kind of thing for wind power too. But it seems possible given the proposed technology, and I know that coal power and it’s perpetual waste CO2 stream isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. The algae farm is also “infinitely scalable”, so rapid expansion seems like a no brainer:

John Sheehan, an energy analyst with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo., believes these goals are within reach. “There is no other resource that comes even close in magnitude to the potential for making oil,” says Sheehan, who worked in the lab’s algae program before it was shut down by the Department of Energy. One of algae’s great strengths, Sheehan adds, is its ability to grow well in brackish water. In the desert southwest, where much of the groundwater is saline and unsuitable for other forms of agriculture, algae can proliferate.”

All that waits to be seen now is when algae biodiesel will actually become economically viable. Keep your fingers crossed - it may be by the end of the decade.

Latest update on Algae Biodiesel: Algae Biodiesel: First Industrial Algae Plants Go Online

Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America’s New Energy (March 29th) Popular Mechanics
Solix Biofuels: Fueling a Better World
GreenFuel Technologies Corp.

Photo Credit: Solix Biofuels

First stop, the nation's capital, then to Disney World, Gettysburg, the Black Hills, Yellowstone National Park, and while you’re in the vicinity, a side trip to the Grand Canyon. You visited a few relatives along the way. You’ve stayed in hotels and motels, camped out a couple of times, and eaten at both fast food restaurants and a couple of four star eateries.

The only thing you didn't buy was gasoline. You took the SUV, the gas hog, but you didn’t put one drop of gas in the tank. Let’s see, the price of gasoline is $3 a gallon, plus or minus, and you drove at least 3000 miles in a vehicle that averages 15 mgp. Wow, that’s a savings of at least $600, not bad in this day and age.

And, as you sit at the kitchen table adding up the cost of your odyssey, you offer up a silent "thank you" to a young, disabled Navy vet, 36 year old James Hunt who lives in Galesburg, IL, and attends Carl Sandburg College.

Hunt spent a year and a half working in his garage before taking his new fuel concept project to college officials who liked what they saw, and funded a lab with all the materials needed to continue the work. Hunt formed the CSC Inventors Club, and was joined by several like-minded students who developed working bench models of his system.

What’s the secret? It's hydrogen gas, extracted from those six gallons of water by plasmatic induction, and fed to the motor as a gas to power the engine. When hydrogen burns, it gives off water, which is fed back to that six gallons; the only thing coming out the tailpipe is hot air. It's all perfectly safe: you'll never re-create the Hindenburg disaster in the car. I know, water in the gas tank, it's been done before but stay with me here…

Can this work? Yes. Jim says they have internal combustion engines running on hydrogen gas produced by the energy conversion system in the lab. In June, the students will retrofit a 1991 Chevy Cheyenne 4×4 pickup to begin road testing the system. First they'll tour the Carl Sandburg campus until they receive permission to operate a non-conventional fuel-powered vehicle on city and state thoroughfares.

Is anyone really interested? Hunt says the program manager of GM’s (that’s General Motors) Fuel Cell Technology Development Division contacted him, requesting more information. In a story from Galesburg’s Register-Mail newspaper, Hunt told reporter John R. Pullium that three Fortune 500 companies have contacted him, along with several investors and possible sponsors. In his latest communication to me, Jim said he’s received inquiries from individuals concerning expanded uses for the system, such as fuel to generate electric power for small communities. "We have started to take on private investors" he said "to help raise money for research and development of our final prototype".

How much would it cost to retrofit your vehicle? Hunt figures about $2000. Will it fit in your car? Sure, he says: just replace your fuel tank with his recovery system, add water and drive away. The only thing you’ll change are some non-lethal carbon rods, about once a year. They’ll cost somewhere in the range of what you’d pay for gasoline in one month of driving.

Will it work? Will he get his patent, and will his dream survive the anticipated onslaught from big oil corporations and other interests who’d rather not see this type of energy generation system take hold? In another Register-Mail article, Hunt is quoted as saying, “I’d like to see the world benefit” and added, “I am fearful of the bad guys in the background.” Today, he feels his future is looking up, happy that he’s apparently managed to break the hydrogen safety barrier.

Jim has promised to keep me updated on their progress, and we’ll be watching this story very closely, posting updates as they become available, regardless of the outcome.

SOURCES:

CSC Investors Club BlogSpot: Newspaper Articles

VCARS, a website to help Brits find new and used cars, has compiled a listing of "The Greenest Cars on Earth." The list contains real-world info that’s important to not only the green-minded, but also the consumer at large; CO2 emissions, MPG combined, engine type, transmission type, BHP/torque, weight, NCAP rating (European New Car Assessment Programme), top speed, 0-62 MPH, warranty info…

Cars are categorized by hybrid, electric, biofuel, and future green cars. The bonus here is that every auto is accompanied by a photo, tre-cool in the future green cars category.

Winner of the most interesting name? The Venturi Fetish (shown in photo).

The unusual idea came from Dallas Hanks, a 44-year-old biologist who is working on his doctoral degree at USU. With an initial $50,000 boost fromUDOT , Hanks aims to prove the 2,500 miles of state-owned highway right-of-way could yield an annual average of 500,000 gallons of 100 percent biodiesel, also known as B100.”

Maintaining those ubiquitous, out-of-place strips of lawn comes at a surprising price - over a million dollars each year in mowing costs alone - and keeping that grass weed-free (as if that was really necessary) generally involves considerable herbicide applications. In the spirit of turning liabilities into assets, converting that sod into a renewable fuel source would have substantial benefits. USU and UDOT’s researchers plan on starting out with a 1 mile test strip of various oil-seed crops, which will later be compared on a productivity basis to a flat, fertile farm plot.

Hanks, a former Utah Valley State College biology instructor, said he conservatively estimates planting swaths of safflower, camelina, canola and perennial flax will save about $1.6 million per year in mowing costs. UDOT officials said they wouldn’t know the total taxpayer savings until the project’s first-year experiment is finished.”

“It’s really a great opportunity to show some leadership,” said UDOT Executive Director John Njord.
By addressing efficiency, energy development and climate-change concerns, the project “has it all,” said Laura Nelson, Huntsman’s energy policy adviser.”

State agencies in Utah recently began pushing for innovation and conservation under the Governor’s order to increase energy efficiency 20% by 2015. If this experiment is successful, UDOT plans on using biodiesel produced from the freeway crops (or FREE-Diesel) in government vehicles.

For more information, see the Salt Lake Tribune.

My personal take:

This is about as cool as San Francisco’s recent decision to start making biodiesel from the city’s used restaurant oil. Depending on how much energy is used in the production of the crops, UDOT has the potential to reduced CO2 emissions by several million tons each year.

Has your city started producing its own biodiesel? If so, I’d be interested to hear and/or write about it.

Under a $1.3 million dollar program, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will turn a very large and problematic waste product into a renewable fuel:

Fats, oils and grease have been a significant problem for San Francisco’s sewers, SFPUC officials said. When not disposed of properly, the greasy waste can form thick layers inside the pipes. Sewage flow becomes constricted, which causes odors, attracts rats and leads to backups in The City’s sewer system, all of which create costly cleanup problems."

This problem is not unique to San Francisco - any restaurant with a deep fryer produces a steady stream of waste vegetable oil (WVO). The used oil is generally stored and picked up by chemical companies, who process and incorporate it into various products including animal feed and cosmetics. In some parts of the country the oil is just thrown away.

But it's relatively easy to turn WVO into a fuel, and it can be a substantial untapped resource. SFPUC official Lewis Harrison stated that at least 1 million gallons of biodiesel could be produced from left-over restaurant grease, which is "more than enough" to run the city's entire bus fleet on B20. Since WVO is a waste stream, offsetting petro-diesel usage with WVO biodiesel is particularly advantageous: the use of 1 million gallons of WVO-biodiesel would offset 19,600,000 lbs (9800 tons) of carbon dioxide emissions each year. It also has significant economic and public health benefits: municipal biodiesel production should beat the $4/gallon price of fuel in San Francisco, and B20 biodiesel blends cut diesel soot emissions by 20-40%.

SFPUC officials are hoping to have the city buses running on B20 by the end of 2007.

The Examiner (April 3, 2007) Fats to grease Muni’s wheels
More on Biodiesel: Biodiesel Mythbuster

Photo Credit: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

WASHINGTON - At 08:04 AM this morning, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) announced the end of a 21-year moratorium on commercial whaling:

The IWC has joined forces with the international community to support the development alternative fuel," said spokesman Phillip Alloway. "Due to increasing domestic oil prices and the serious implications of global warming, we understand the necessity of finding viable substitutes for petroleum. Whales represent a vast untapped, convenient, and usable source of oil that can be made into a renewable fuel, namely biodiesel.

Biodiesel, a diesel-like fuel usable in all diesel engines, can be made from any plant or animal oil, including animal fat. The raw oil is combined with methanol and lye to make biodiesel, a 'methylalkyl ester', or in this case, 'whale-oil ethyl ester' (WOME ). A whale's body mass typically contains up to 50% blubber - the portion of the animal processed into whale oil - making it the highest-producing biodiesel feedstock currently available (compared to soybeans at 14% oil, and palm kernels at 36% oil). Although thedevelopment of Whale-Oil Biodiesel (WOBD ) is novel, the use of whale oil as a 'biofuel' is nothing new. In fact, until the discovery of petroleum, whale oil was the predominant lubricant and fuel source,combusting in street lamps worldwide. It's the oil that temporarily made Nantucket the richest city in America.

ExxonMobile (EM), one of the newest leaders in renewable energy, declared plans for extensive whaling operations and a marketing campaign for the WOBD.

"We already have the ships and the infrastructure. All we needed was the go-ahead" said senior VP George Phullmaker.

In anticipation of the announcement, EM said it has reconfigured the Exxon-Bengal (one if it's largest supertankers) to accommodate whaling equipment. The ship now features 3 rocket-propelled harpoons with built-in GPS tracking devices, although one crewmember said the pride and joy is an antique wooden whaling skiff salvaged from the Essex, now mounted on the deck for "aesthetic purposes". The most important feature of the Bengal, however, may be its ability to manufacture biodiesel while at sea:

"In addition to standard boilers for converting blubber to oil, we also have a refinery that can process about 10 million gallons of oil into ASTM quality biodiesel per year. "

Since the average sperm whale weighs 80,000 lbs, that means an average of about 5,228 gallons of oil can be derived from each catch.

"In the old days, ships could only process about one whale every three days. Now we can do about 6 whales a day, which means we can collect about 219,607 gallons of oil each week. The nice thing is, was can process and even blend all this oil without ever landing in port."

From a distribution perspective, it’s a recipe for success. EM can now deliver millions of gallons of biodiesel anywhere in the world, allowing the corporation to seek out ports offering premium prices.

"We are not concerned by international regulations of any kind," the EM spokesman said.

With the price of biodiesel in the U.S. hovering around $3.00/gallon, WOBD could be a financial windfall.

ExxonMobile is very proud of supporting this new renewable fuel. The benefits of biodiesel are clearly established. Furthermore, there is no need to worry about oil spills anymore: whale oil is biodegradable and non-toxic.

But not everyone was happy about the IWC's decision, and international protest commenced immediately. Environmental groups expressed a mixture of shock and horror.

"We are speechless… I can't believe this is happening," was all one advocate could muster.

"It was only a matter of time until this feedstock was considered as viable," Jim Whaler of Whale Rights Watch said. "We thought it would take at least $5.00/gallon gas before it happened, but well, whatever…"

Others were quick to question the logic behind the proposal:

"How many whales can there possibly be? It's ridiculous! Even if they could harvest every last whale in the ocean, it would only meet about 1-2% of theUS's fuel needs."

The IWC and EM were quick to counter these comments:

Despite reports of plummeting populations, there are numerous species that have rebounded in the last 21 years. But take a worst-case scenario like the Humpback whale: most estimates put the number of Humpbacks at about 10,000 whales today. It would take at least 47 years to harvest the whole population, yielding 65,613,756 gallons of usable oil.

Critics maintain that this is only 0.23% of the alternative fuel that will be required by the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard.

GreenOptions managed to ask EM spokesman Phillip Alloway for direct comment (via personal communication):

Look, whales are doomed anyway. We all know that global warming is raising sea temperatures, right? Well pretty soon it's going to be too hot for all those phytoplankton that the whales eat, and guess what - no more whales. I know, it's a Catch-22. Nobody actually likes whaling, but at least were trying to do something for the environment… Hey, you aren't recording this are you?

David Cornell, a scientist, confirmed Alloway's prediction. "Oceanic warming will eventually inhibit formation of calcium-carbonate skeletons in animals at the bottom of the food chain," he said. "This has grave implications for all sea life, not just whales."

An international whaling frenzy is anticipated as fleets compete to be the 'first in the water'. The announcement has even inspired the decedents of Nantucketwhaleman to resurrect century-old traditions. "There's a sea of oil out there," one enthusiastic fisherman said. "You just have to go out there and get it."

No one is quite sure how the WOBD will compare to biodiesel currently available, although it's expected to be similar to fuel made other types of animal fat. One major concern is how the burning fuel will smell, and some municipalities are already murmuring about banning the fuel: "We don't want downtown to smell like Nantucket harbor in 1835."

But the bottom line is this: increasing fuel demand combined with pressure for alternative fuels could prompt a whaling boom that makes Nantucket whalemen look like a bunch of amateurs.

Quick Facts:
What it is: Whale Oil Biodiesel (or WOBD)
Who can use it: WOBD will burn in any diesel engine without modification
Where you can buy it: Look for WOBD at your local biofuel station by fall of this year
Benefits: Increased lubricity, decreased reliance on foreign oil, creates domestic jobs.

Bumper Sticker

UPDATE: April Fools! 

Want a hybrid car? There are full hybrids and mild hybrids. The Toyota Prius, a full hybrid, connects an electric motor and a battery to a standard combustion engine. A mild hybrid, like the Honda Insight, works the electric motor only when extra power is needed. This can make it slightly more efficient than a regular vehicle in stop-and-go traffic, but it can't run on battery power alone and doesn't offer the same fuel efficiency as a full hybrid.

Then there are plug-in hybrids, which are out on the roads but not yet mass produced. A plug-in hybrid has a battery pack that can power the vehicle for up to 60 miles - further than most people drive in a day. If you do have a longer trip, the engine kicks in automatically after the battery runs out of juice. You can recharge the battery using an ordinary 120-volt socket.

Let's not forget about the whole swath of alternative fuel vehicles, which can be a murkier area for a lot of people.

Efficient and cleaner diesel vehicles - which can compete with full hybrids in terms of fuel efficiency - have taken off in Europe. According to Business Week, 50 percent of all vehicles sold in Europe are diesel-powered, by only 1.5 percent of U.S. vehicles are diesel. However, a study done by JD Power & Associates predicts that number to double by 2012. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler all expect to sell diesel vehicles in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2008.

There are about 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road right now, all of which can run on a blend of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or E85. It's cleaner burning than straight gasoline, and helps strengthen rural economies. But many people don't even know whether their vehicles can handle E85, or don't have easy access to E85 pumps. Infrastructure continues to be an issue, and there's a lot of talk that we'll soon see ethanol made from a more efficient plant source than corn.

For better or for worse, there's no easy answer when it comes to "Which car is the greenest?" Whether it's hybrid, diesel, a plug-in, or ethanol, you'll want to do your homework when determining which shade of green is best for you. Click here for some of the latest models.

about.com
Business Week
Edmunds.com
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
Plug-In Partners

Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on… a cleaner environment (applause)… - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2002

Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. (Applause.) I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. (Applause.) I have sent you Clear Skies legislation… - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2003

America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources — and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. [...]

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.) - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2006

And then there was 2007:

It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology … solar and wind energy … and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

The old "nucular" "nuclear" and "clean coal" workhorses are still in the mix, but once again Bush mentioned, on national television, "solar" and "wind" power and even bioethanol (though not by that name). He also had something wholly new in store for his audience:

These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

This was Bush's seventh State of the Union Address, and the very first time he's spoken specifically of global warming or climate change. The speech was, from an environmental perspective, the most forward-thinking of Bush's political career by a wide margin. He even offered specific policy proposals such as:

Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years [...]

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — this is nearly 5 times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks — and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

An increase in CAFE standards, too? Fellow ecophiles, I cannot say for sure, but it's possible that we have entered the Matrix. And yet, much of Bush's energy rhetoric seems vaguely familiar, which freshman Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va) pointed out in the official Democratic response:

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his State of the Union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the president and his party to bring about these changes.

Given Bush's record of follow-through on past green-ish SOTU policy proposals, one could be forgiven for being entirely skeptical this time around. We have been here before, and we have been disappointed in the days, weeks, and months that followed. Think Progress has even compiled a video of unfulfilled environmental promises from previous SOTUs.

In the midst of the genuinely clean and renewable energy sources that Bush mentioned, we might also be concerned about presence of "clean coal" and "nuclear energy" in the speech along with the statement:

So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways.

Not to worry, oil companies: you've still got a friend. Make yourselves at home in our national parks, wildlife refuges, on our shores, and in our waters. Bush, not surprisingly, did not offer his blessing to the bill that passed the House last week that repeals tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and diverts the money to alternative and renewable fuel research and development.

But maybe we skeptics are not giving the president enough credit. Maybe he'd like future historians writing about his legacy to include paragraphs on issues other than Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, wiretaps, unprecedented executive secrecy, Katrina and New Orleans (conspicuously missing from the speech tonight), dismal approval numbers, Kyoto withdrawal, and special prosecutors. Again from an environmental perspective, it was a B+ speech near the end of a D- presidency from a politician who never again will be asking for our votes and from a president that for the first time must face an opposition Congress. Perhaps President George W. Bush is finally ready (and/or forced) to take the green road less traveled.

It could make all the difference.

The bill, which was unveiled on Friday and is scheduled for a vote on Thursday, is called the "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation" or "CLEAN" Act. One major focus of the bill is to eliminate a royalty loophole for Gulf of Mexico drillers:

The issue stems from an error — or perhaps something more nefarious, though nothing more has been proven — in which the Interior Department failed to include in 1998-99 leases the required language that would have forced the oil companies to pay the government royalties on the oil and gas taken if prices reached a certain level.

The contracts, which involved deep-water drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, exempted the company from having to pay royalties as a way to stimulate exploration of the deep water areas of the Gulf of Mexico. That was OK as long as oil and gas prices stayed low as they did in the 1990s.

Times and oil prices changed, but the contracts did not. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has estimated that closing the loophole will mean $9 to $11 billion in additional income for the federal government, which Hoyer also said would be used to fund alternative fuels research and development.

The proposed bill would also disallow oil companies from being classified as manufacturers, thereby excluding them from a massive 2004 tax credit for manufacturers. This component of the bill will cost oil firms $4 billion over the next ten years. Furthermore, a tax cut under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 would be repealed for the six largest American oil companies, adding another $1 billion to federal coffers over the next decade.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which represents more than 5000 mostly small oil and natural gas producers in the US, is not amused:

If the goal is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, then this bill falls far short," said IPAA President Barry Russell. "The American oil and natural gas industry is our most precious and primary defense against increased oil imports. This is a time to encourage American investment in energy projects here at home, not discourage it. This bill takes capital from U.S. oil and natural gas companies that otherwise would be spent on domestic energy exploration.

It should be noted that the Russell isn't talking about clean alternative fuels exploration and development, but simply exploration of domestic fossil fuels.

To the delight of energy policy wonks everywhere, the CLEAN Act in the House is being joined on the Senate side by an Obama/McCain/Lieberman greenhouse emissions cap proposal and by Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens' (surprising?) bill proposal that would drastically increase CAFE fuel mileage standards. It's shaping up to be a great week to introduce your TiVo to C-SPAN.