Following the press conference, APRN spoke with Senator Ted Stevens. Legislation sponsored by Senator Stevens and Senator Lisa Murkowski, both from Alaska, allows for drilling in a designated section of ANWR if the price of oil reaches $125 per barrel and stays at that price for five consecutive days. These two Senators are advocates of drilling ANWR to obtain our own oil in order to drastically reduce the amount of oil we import from the middle east. Based on the amount of oil currently purchased and used per day, they say the oil obtained from ANWR would reduce our price at the pump.

According to Senator Stevens’ web site he supports a balanced approach to the energy crisis which includes retrieving domestic oil, conservation, and alternative energy sources. I agree with Senator Stevens, we need a balanced approach. Is drilling ANWR the answer? In April it was reported that billions of barrels of oil are sitting under the Bakken Shale, and that area is already being drilled. Would it make more sense to continue and expand our efforts there?

The price of gas is continuing to rise, apparently we (as a country) are not going to refrain from purchasing oil to feed our gas guzzling habits. There is much discussion about what to do. Again, I return to the citizens and look beyond the politicians. Plan more and drive less. Walk, ride your bike or stay home for a change of pace. However you want to contribute there are things we can do to make a statement to our government and to those purchasing oil from the middle east.

Photo Credit: Michael P. Whelan via Flickr

Before you get too excited, please note that the unit is probably too expensive for your next block party, unless you’ve got an extra $9,995 lying around somewhere. Fortunately, state and Federal tax credits can halve this, but that still keeps it out of the price range of the average American.

How could making ethanol be so expensive? As Thomas Quinn quipped, this is “third-grade science. You just mix together water, sugar and yeast, and in a few hours, you start getting ethanol.” That’s not the hard part; what’s difficult is purifying ethanol to the degree that it can be mixed successfully with gasoline.

Ethanol has been made from yeast-fermentation of grain, fruits, and vegetables for thousands of years. Distillation, which gets around the 15% alcohol concentration limit that kills yeast, followed shortly thereafter. Adding ethanol to motor fuel takes things one step further. To mix properly with gasoline, ethanol must be anhydrous (containing no water) at 100% pure, or 200-proof. Homemade ethanol stills can easily produce 95% pure, or 190-proof, ethanol. But getting that last 5% of water out of the ethanol can require just as much energy as it did to get out the first 95%.

It could be the ingenuity of putting several thousand years of knowledge into one box makes the MicroFueler so costly. It can fill its own 35-gallon tank with E100 (100% ethanol) in about a week by fermenting the sugar, water and yeast internally, then separating out the water through a membrane filter.

Compared to homebrewing biodiesel, which can be done with less than $100 worth of equipment, making ethanol for motor fuel seems complicated and expensive. While sugar appears to be a cheap, ubiquitous resource, according to one expert it takes 10 to 14 pounds of sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Right now, raw sugar sells in the United States for about 20 cents a pound.

Although the cost of each gallon of ethanol produced in the MicroFueler depends on the price of sugar, electricity, and water, Thomas Quinn maintains that it can be made for somewhere around $1 per gallon. The company is trying to make inedible sugar available from Mexico, which can be bought for as little as 2.5 cents per pound.

I like the idea, but this probably isn’t something that will go mainstream unless the price comes down. If you want more information about homebrewing ethanol, or plans to make your own still (which would be substantially cheaper), see these resources:

• RunningOnAlcohol Library
• JourneyToForever Ethanol Resources

Posts Related to Ethanol and Biodiesel:

• Study: Your Car Can Run On 20% Ethanol
• 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere
• Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
• Cellulosic Ethanol Sugar Diverted to Algae Biodiesel Production

Via: NYT
Photo Credit: Popular Mechanics

The deal will put Marathon Oil’s Senior Vice President Cliff Cook on Mascoma’s Board of Directors. Marathon President and CEO commented: “This investment in Mascoma’s leading-edge technology reflects our commitment to address increasing energy demand by bringing to market environmentally friendly, renewable fuel derived from non-food domestic biomass.”

Cellulosic ethanol is hot. Let’s hope all this investment money puts it out on the street soon.

Via: AutoblogGreen

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.

Today is Earth Day, and it’s a great day to remind ourselves why we’re interested in things like renewable fuels and green car technology. It’s also a day to think about the role each of us plays in local and international environmental issues, from air pollution to the increasing cost of food.

Instead of bombarding you with tips on how to save gas or have a car-free day, I think everyone should take a few minutes to contemplate the local context in which these issues are playing out.

Practically speaking, the issues we’re facing can seem to overwhelm individual or even collective action. Oil is moving merrily toward economic depletion, public transportation is often nightmarish, and finding a realistic green car is almost oxymoronic.

But things are far from hopeless.

For most of us, the extent to which we can change our lives to address environmental issues depends on the amount of time and money we can spend on them. While sometimes it doesn’t seem like we’re doing enough, small things count, and they amount to a lot.

All it takes is one small step at a time, be it biking to work a few days a week, getting outside and walking more, or upgrading to a more fuel efficient car. Each step counts, and progress is emerging from our collective action.

When confronted with the question of insurmountable odds, I always remember what one of my college mentors used to say: “Just be a cascade of good effects.”

Happy Earth Day!

For more thoughts on the same topic, take a look at Michael Pollan’s article in the New York Times: The Way We Live Now, Why Bother?

Posts Related to Going Green on Earth Day:

• 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere
• Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
• DriveSlowly Encourages More Moderate Speed for Fuel Savings
• Green Auto Services Offered by AAMCO
• Smaller Is Bigger
• Need a New Car? Nope, Just a New Engine!
• Sick of Gas?: Convert Your Car To Run On Electricity
• Learn How To Make Biodiesel On YouTube

Fact: Idling for more than 10 seconds damages the engine, emits more air pollution, and of course costs more money in the long run than turning the car off and back on again. This is true for all cars built since the 1970s with a catalytic converter.

And yet…

Idling in the developing world

Oddly enough, in the “developing” world, idling your car is not only accepted, it’s a national pastime.

Here in South Korea, a country where oil is at a premium for lack of any domestic reserves, the belief seems to be, “an idle car is a happy car.” Men, especially, have a love affair with the idle car. Perhaps it says, “Hey, ladies… I have money to burn.” Perhaps it’s just a lack of knowledge about car maintenance and air pollution; perhaps it’s a lack of concern.

The problem of idling is even more severe in countries where oil is not at a premium. On my last visit to Venezuela, I spoke with a man named Pedro, who drives charter mini-buses for a living. I asked him why he idles his mini-buses for hours instead of turning off the engine. He smiled proudly. Why shouldn’t he idle his mini-buses? After all, in Venezuela, petrol is cheaper than water.

So here again, idling is a sign of wealth. It’s a case of “waste to show you want not.”

Legal penalties for idling

You may not know it, but your city, county, state, or province may be one of the many with a fine for idling a car.

In the county of Denver, Colorado, idling a car for 10 minutes could land you a fine of no less than $999 and/or imprisonment for one year. A similar penalty of one grand and a year in the slammer applies to anyone in the county of St. Louis, Missouri for idling a car for just 3 minutes. See a list of idling laws in the United States here.

In Canada, of course, fines are less draconian. Idle a car for 3 minutes in Surrey, a city within the Metro Vancouver area in British Columbia, and you’ll get “dinged” $50.

Were these laws news to you? That’s because there’s clearly a disconnect between the laws and their enforcement. Start arresting St. Louis residents for idling and you’ll have a lot of ticked off Missourians. And who really wants a lot of ticked off Missourians?

The answer, as always, is better education about the true costs of idling.

Resources:

Green automotive reading: Gas 2.0

Idling Myths and Facts | Lowering Emissions and Particulates

Turn Off Your Engine! | Environmental Defense Fund

2008 Idle Laws by State | Scribd

From http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76003

Klare points out that China will soon have the world’s largest fleet of automobiles - in decade or so - as they are following our model of auto-centric development. He had hoped that China would leapfrog oil to more sustainable mobility solutions but that is not happening.

Klare suggests that the logical thing for net importers to do is to aggressively conserve energy, wean themselves form petroleum automobiles, and ramp up renewables and oil alternatives. Not sure why he does not suggest ecocities development and localization.

Klare makes the following points:

• The U.S. is the single largest user of oil in the world
• In February, President Bush presented Congress the largest military budget since World War II - $515B not including $60B for Iraq and Afghanistan.
• A lot of the $515B is for highly sophisticated weaponry, e.g., Stealth Bombers
• This sophisticated weaponry is not to fight guerrillas in the streets of Baghdad but to fight a future enemy
• U.S. documents suggest that this future enemy is China who is also building up their military infrastructure
• If we have a cold war with China, very little attention and money will go to environmental and social causes
• Hence the number #1 thing environmental and peace activists should be working on is energy cooperation with China.

I asked him about Iran. Klare says he believes there is a 50% chance that the United States will attack Iran before the November elections. He points out that Dick Cheney was in Oman three weeks preparing for military engagement in the straight of Hormuz through which 30% of the world’s oil flows. Oman happens to be right across the straight of Hormuz from Iran.

That’s scary stuff. Obviously, we need to localize our transportation systems such that we are no longer using so much imported oil. And corn-based ethanol is not an environmentally or economically viable option, especially when you consider the impact on the price and availability of food. The smartest thing we can do is reconfigure our city ala the eco city model for less transportation and energy consumption. The extent we need transportation, it should be electrified and highly biased towards public and mass transit with the power coming from a largely renewable energy grid. We’re a long way a way from that but it is possible and we need to get started now. That is why the Community Choice Energy initiatives in California are so important.

Currently, the average price for a gallon of E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is $2.67. That’s amazing if you think about it, since a gallon of ethanol requires about 16 lbs. of corn to produce.

Take a look at this interactive map to see what E85 costs in your area.

Via: gas2.org

How many times has that been muttered over the past few years, in an attempt to bring a semblance of common sense to the world?

The answer is, obviously, far too many. But nevertheless it has once again been spoken by Margaret Williams of the World Wildlife Fund in Alaska in response to the leasing of millions of offshore acres for petroleum development in the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska.

At the beginning of the year I reported that the US had blocked “…a landmark assessment of oil and gas activity in the high north polar regions…” thus freeing up room for them to auction off drilling-exploration licenses in the Chukchi Sea.

However, this time it isn’t the wildlife that is presenting the problem – because, who cares about the, right? – but the ability to clean up a possible oil spill – something that isn’t that out of the realm of possibility.

Williams noted that no oil-spill responders have demonstrated the ability to clean up oil in broken ice that ranges from slush to cakes of ice.

Ice is a problem for clean up, because it gets in the way. Consider your normal oil spill; booms, skimmers, pumps, etc. But when you throw a whole heap of ice in to the equation, booms are broken, skimmers are jammed and pumps are clogged.

Add to that the fact that it is night a whole heap of the time, and you have conditions that, Leslie Pearson, the state of Alaska’s director of spill prevention and response, describes as a less than ideal cleanup. “It’s not one of those calls I’d like to wake up to,” she said. “It would put you in a cold sweat.”

In fact, the last time federal and state regulators evaluated an oil spill in icy conditions off Alaska’s coast, the results were less than promising. The results showed that, when ice covered more than 30% of the water, the mechanical recovery system became overwhelmed, and collapsed. In conditions less than 30%, skimmers were able to lift oil from the water, as long as tug boats ran interference for them, removing all but 10% of the ice.

This test, by the way, was conducted by BP Exploration in the Beaufort Sea in 2000.

Of course, the director of the Minerals Management Service Randall Luthi believes otherwise. “It’s my personal belief, and certainly the belief of MMS, that these two are compatible,” Luthi said, “but you’ve got to work at it.”

Oh, isn’t that positively adorable! “It’s my personal belief!”

This coming from the man who was an attorney, rancher and former speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives; definitely the qualities you want in a man making that statement.

Of course, Luthi isn’t the only one suggesting that things have changed. Ron Morris, general manager of Alaska Clean Seas, an industry cooperative that would respond to a spill in the Beaufort, noted that responders have since added ice management vessels and implemented tactics that included combinations of barge, boat and cranes, so as to remove pockets of oil trapped by ice floes.

Luthi agrees with Morris, saying that “It’s not your traditional boats with booms to trap the oil. That doesn’t work with the ice.” He added that burning is another possibility. But Leslie Pearson reminds us that burning is only an effective option within the first 72 hours; after that, oil emulsifies, and burning and dispersants are dropped from the cleanup equation.

“It takes an oil spill response to another level, as opposed to dealing with an open-water scenario,” she said.

 Image courtesy of sara.atkins via Flickr

More from GO

US Censors Arctic Oil and Gas Findings

5 Ways to Reduce Your Dependence on Foreign Oil

Red, Green & Blue: Peak Oil and the Coal Conundrum

I wasn’t sure what I was going to write tonight. A few minutes ago I found myself reading the book review section of the Chronicle. The article “Gender Identity and Phantom Genitalalia” initially caught my attention and ended with a great quote from V.S. Ramachandran, a neurologist and psychologist at UC San Diego and a leading authority on phantom limb sensations, who says it has long been known that some people who are born without arms have vivid phantom arms.

“I expect a lot of criticism,” Ramachandran says. “Those who study transsexuality tend to be territorial because they themselves have made so little progress. There is no literature that illuminates the underlying mechanisms, other than psychological mumbo jumbo. And then someone comes striding in and spends two weeks solving the riddle. It must be infuriating.”

Across the page was the article “Relying on the random” about a book called Predictably Irrational that suggests we are far less rational than standard economic theory assumes. Essentially this professor Dan Ariely is studying and thinks he understands why people do stupid things. [My words not his.]

He has some general findings (”why we often pay too much when we pay nothing?”, “why options distract us from our main objectives”) and then extrapolates to why these tendencies are important.

The first thing I’m thinking is “have I got a test group for you!” I would love to see his analysis on why we continue holding onto this vision of an infinitely globalizing and growing economy based on finite fossil fuels. After all its current incarnation is damaging the life support systems of the planet. I’d like to know why we continue to desperately and predictably cling to a culture that centers on buying things and cars even as the ecological, social, and economic mount unsustainably. Why getting priced out appears to be our only hope of getting off the growth treadmill and how high the prices have to go.

There is an alternative. Check it out later this month at the Ecocity World Summit. I will be speaking on one panel and will be moderating two others. More on the conference in the next several weeks.

Link to cool flash opening Ecocity World Summit.

But as the author suggests, we are predictably irrational.

The Bakken Shale, comprised of thin layers of rock about two miles down, holds about 3.65 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, the USGS said. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska could hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil.

Although ANWR is currently federally protected land, there are already companies retrieving the oil from the Bakken Shale. The current survey from the USGS, completed at the request of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., is viewed as good news according to a statement in the Fox News story. This is due to the 25% increase in this estimate of retrievable oil over previous estimates in years past. Senator Dorgan believes this will bring “significant new investment” into the area.

As a proponent of energy independence, I am in favor of acquiring our own oil as part of that goal. However, the focus of energy independence cannot entirely rest on obtaining our own oil for the purpose of supplying our massive oil consumption habits. That is where this type of discovery is alarming. Pursuit of this resource can be a positive thing if environmental protection policies are adhered to during the retrieving process, coupled with continued efforts in pursuing alternate renewable sources of energy.

Photo Credit: Lissa Joy on Flickr

Increased world demand for grains and vegetable oils due to population growth (esp. in China and India), the weak dollar, agricultural production problems around the world, and $100/barrel oil are some of the driving factors accounting for increasing food prices.

After covering 22 of the most popular myths about biodiesel, I realized I’d only given lip service to a major issue: increasing food prices. In Myth #2, I mentioned that the goal of biodiesel production is to move away from food-based feedstocks.

But until that happens, the question remains: if I use biodiesel made from soybeans right now, am I contributing to the larger problem of increasing commodity prices and starving poor people?

Quick Facts:

• The United States is the world’s largest producer and exporter of soybeans.
• Soybean prices approached a 33-year high last fall, while overall food prices had their biggest jump in 16 years (according to economists). Food inflation rose about 4% in 2007 compared to an annual average of 2.5%.
• World soybean consumption this year is expected to be up 13.2% over two years ago.
• Biodiesel production in the US accounted for 2.8 billion lbs. of soybean oil last year, which amounts to an estimated 20% of the total domestic consumption of soybean oil.
• Soybeans directly compete with corn for agricultural land. Soybean acreage is expected to decline over the next few years due to high demand for corn, which directly increases the price of soybeans.
• Biodiesel production in 2007 was estimated at 450 million gallons. Corn-based ethanol production is expected to exceed 10 billion gallons by 2009.

Taking this into account, it looks like both soy-based biodiesel and corn-based ethanol (even more so) are at least partly to blame for increasing food prices. But that’s not the whole story. Even corn-based ethanol, which is produced in volumes greatly exceeding biodiesel, may only be responsible for 0.2% - 0.3% of the total 4% increase in food prices over the last year.

According to Brent Searle, Special Assistant to the Director at the Oregon Department of Agriculture, food inflation as a whole can’t be pinned to a single source. Responding via email, Brent said that no single study has sorted out all the issues, but several studies have documented how much petroleum prices are affecting things. The 4-5% food price increase in 2007 has been attributed to:

• 0.2% - 0.3% due to ethanol use of corn
• 0.8% - 1% due to gasoline/fuel price increases
• 3.5 - 4 % due to other causes

Here’s an even more thorough list list of the factors affecting food prices (also received via email):

1. A growing middle class in Latin America and Asia that can afford more meat and milk, which has driven up demand for grain to feed cattle and hogs.
2. A drought in Australia in 2006 and 2007 reduced the supply of milk and wheat available for export.
3. Low worldwide wheat prices the past several years have led growers to plant less wheat; additionally, grain traders store less wheat today with “just in time” deliveries, and there are no current government incentives for farmers to store wheat on farm. All this has led to record low wheat stocks, causing wheat prices to soar.
4. Regional pests, diseases, freezes, droughts, floods and other natural disasters all impacted fresh fruits, vegetables, and other produce availability and price.
5. Increases in labor costs, as state and federal minimum wages ratchet up, from farm to processing and the restaurant, affect food prices. 40% of the retail food price is related to labor costs after food leaves the farm.
6. Rising fuel costs, over $100 per barrel, making it more expensive to grow, process, refrigerate, and transport food from the producers to stores and restaurants — impacts all aspects of the food chain.
7. Personal choices – for example, organic milk costs nearly double conventional milk; consumers are choosing to pay higher prices based on preferences.
8. Dollar decline — makes food imports more expensive at the store and creates greater demand for US ag exports. Approximately 30% of fruits and vegetables consumed in the US are imported. They are now more expensive.
9. Corporate profits — an excuse to hike prices. Kroger, 4th quarter 2007 sales up 10% and profits up 18%. Kroger stated it paid 3% more for products. “In our view, periods of moderate inflation is a positive for our business because inflation tends to improve sales.”– VP Rodney McMullen, Jan. 2008. Safeway, sales up 3%, profits up 12%.
10. Marginal impacts from Ethanol demand for corn (US) and sugarcane (Brazil).

So where does that leave us? This topic is worth more serious conversation and analysis than can be summed up in a single blog post. My gut is telling me that the most important factors affecting food prices are the price of oil and increasing worldwide food demand, but all of the factors above may play a role.

I would also wager that corn-based ethanol, which will require about 30% of the US corn harvest by 2015, is a much bigger culprit than soy-based biodiesel if either one is significantly contributing to rising food costs. If you’re worried about using retail biodiesel, talk to your supplier about the source of their oil, and do more research with the links below.

I’m sure you have an opinion about this. What do you think? (Let me just repeat that I am all in favor of non-food based biofuels, some of which were listed in the rest of the biodiesel mythbuster).

Posts Related to Increasing Food Costs:

• European Union Defends Biofuel Targets As Food Prices Soar
• “Perfect Storm” Inflating Food Prices Worldwide
• 2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline

Sources:
USDA Economic Research Service: Soybean and Oil Crops Briefing Room, and
Ethanol Expansion in the United States How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust?
Reuters (Aug. 8, 07): Cooking Oil to Further Fuel Global Food Inflation
ThePoultrySite.com (Mar. 18, 08): Weekly Outlook: Focus On Soybean Oil

Photo Credit

Special thanks to Brent Searle for providing this information.

Most of us are at least vaguely familiar with biodiesel, but how much do we really know? While biodiesel is easily the most popular alternative fuel available, it’s commonly misunderstood or misrepresented by inaccurate information. Since the most frequent question I get is, “So what exactly is biodiesel, anyway?“, I decided to write a tome covering all the basics—a one stop shop for all your biodiesel- related questions.

It’s been exactly one year since I published the first Biodiesel Mythbuster on GreenOptions.com, and its popularity made a sequel inevitable. By way of a short introduction, here’s what I wrote last year:

In case you’re new to the topic, biodiesel is a renewable fuel made from plant oils and occasionally animal fat. It can be made from both used and unused sources of oil, such as freshly-pressed soybean oil, or oil left-over from the deep fryer at your local burger joint. Biodiesel can only be used in diesel engines - no gasoline engines allowed. Biodiesel can be blended into regular diesel in any amount, such as 20% biodiesel/80% diesel (B20), or used pure 100% (B100, aka ‘neat’). As a disclaimer, this post does not address homemade biodiesel (aka homebrew), which usually does not meet the quality standards of ASTM-certified biodiesel.

Here is the new and improved Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0—yours for only $29.99 (just kidding):

MYTH #1: Biodiesel and ethanol are the same thing.

FACT: This is the most commonly held misconception about these two fuels, but ethanol and biodiesel are, in fact, completely different. Ethanol is the product of fermentation (think: SUGAR), and biodiesel is chemically-converted fat or oil (think: PLANT OIL).

• Ethanol is made from a sugar source like sugarcane in Brazil, or corn-grain in the US. In the second example, corn is ground and mixed with water to form a slurry, and treated with enzymes to break down complex sugars (dextrose) into simple sugars (sucrose). The slurry-mash is then transferred to a fermentation vat where yeast are added. The yeast turns the simple sugars (sucrose) into carbon dioxide and ethanol. You may recognize this process, because it’s the same way moonshine is made.
• Ethanol can also be made from more complex plant material containing cellulose—aka cellulosic ethanol—a process that is still being developed. The first major commercial cellulosic ethanol facility will go online in 2009. Some studies have shown that cellulosic ethanol has the potential to displace around 30% of US gasoline usage with major reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.
• Ethanol is blended into gasoline. Half the gasoline in the United States is already blended with 10% ethanol. It was commonly thought that higher blends would damage standard gas engines, but a recent study discovered that most cars can run on 20% ethanol with no problems. Ethanol is usually sold in as E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) or E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). Only Flex-Fuel vehicles can run on E85.

• Biodiesel can be made from any plant oil or animal fat. Some examples include soybean, rapeseed, and palm kernel oils, and also animal fat left over from meat processing (disgusting I know). Biodiesel can also be made from recycled restaurant cooking-oil, often called waste-vegetable-oil (WVO), and is a major feedstock for some biodiesel producers.
• Biodiesel is most commonly made by mixing plant oils with lye (sodium hydroxide, or NaOH) and methanol (CH3COH). This splits up the fat molecules in the oil leaving a less-viscous biodiesel and one waste product: glycerol.
• The dream feedstock for large-scale biodiesel production has been biodiesel from algae, a nonfood source of oil with incredible yields. The first algae-to-biofuels plant went online April 1st, 2008.
• Biodiesel can be blended into diesel fuel in any amount, but the most common blends are B5 (5% biodiesel, 95% diesel), B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% diesel), and B100 (100% biodiesel).

So, just to recap, biodiesel is chemically processed fat or oil for use in diesel engines, and ethanol is basically moonshine that can be added to gasoline.

MYTH #2: Ethanol is better than biodiesel (or vice versa).

FACT: If you read the news, you probably think biofuels are generally bad, with corn-grain ethanol being the worst of the bunch. But as usual, generalizations fail here, since every biofuel is unique in terms of manufacturing process and environmental impacts.

Corn-grain ethanol and Malaysian palm biodiesel have substantive negative impacts (like deforestation, waterway pollution) and questionable benefits. But they are completely different than US-grown soybean biodiesel or second-generation biofuels that aren’t based on food-sources—like cellulosic ethanol or algae biodiesel. Take each one for what it’s worth, and keep in mind that no reasonable person is claiming biofuels are a silver bullet. They are simply a part of the larger solution.

Here are some of the latest headlines on non-food based fuel:

• First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online: April 1, 2008
• World’s First Commercially Viable Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Online 2009
• Switchgrass Could Displace 30% of US Petroleum Usage With 94% GHG Reduction
• First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste
• First Cars Run on Algae Biodiesel; Breakthrough Production Possible
• GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?

MYTH #3: Biodiesel (and other biofuels) are a total waste of time; they’ll never solve anything.

Fact: This is a totally bogus argument. Here’s why: there isn’t a solution for our petroleum addiction. If you dismiss biofuels as a fantasy-land panacea, you’re right, because it’s going to take a combination of improved fuel economy, massive reinvestment in public transportation, new technology, new fuel sources like non-food based biofuels and electricity, and other factors to move us into transportation 2.0.

As they say, don’t make perfect the enemy of the good.

Biodiesel has already had major impacts in offsetting diesel fuel usage and reducing pollution, impacts that could not be realized if we just gave up on it because it will never meet our total fuel demand.

For example, biodiesel made from waste cooking oil that would otherwise be discarded or shipped to China for processing is displacing 1 million gallons of diesel fuel in Oregon each year. In total, 450 million gallons of biodiesel was produced in the United States in 2007, amounting to an emissions reduction of approximately 1,102,399,500 lbs. of carbon dioxide*.

(*My estimation assuming all soybean biodiesel, based on 40% lifecycle GHG reduction and 6 lbs of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel).

MYTH #4: You must convert your vehicle to run biodiesel.

FACT: Let me describe the conversion process (which is also outlined under 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere): Drive to the nearest biodiesel pump, put the spout in the side of the car, and pump the biodiesel into your fuel tank (provided it’s a diesel). That’s it. You can use biodiesel in almost any diesel engine without modification. In fact, if you own a diesel vehicle you can probably fill it up today with 100% biodiesel (B100) and should experience no problems whatsoever.

That being said, there are two major exceptions for newer vehicles: if you’re worried about voiding your warranty, or if your car’s operating manual specifically prohibits using biodiesel. I’ll deal with warranty issues further down the page, but let me say here that I’ve only heard of one manufacturer explicitly prohibiting biodiesel use in a new diesel, and that’s Audi’s A3. Personally, I think it’s bogus, but then again I’ve never paid $25-30,000 or more for a new car.

But for users where those two exceptions don’t apply, let me repeat this: you can use ANY amount of biodiesel (see cold weather considerations below), from B2 to B100, in a diesel engine with NO immediate or necessary modification to the engine.

Reasoning for this myth is based biodiesel’s solvent properties: over time it can degrade natural rubber, and it will clean out diesel sludge that has accumulated in older fuel lines. The second one is actually a good thing, but if you drive an old diesel vehicle, it’s a good idea to change your fuel filter after a tank or two of biodiesel, or your fuel filter could subsequently clog. I’ve only heard of this happening a few times, and it can be easily avoided by switching out the fuel filter yourself (get the filter at Napa or Autozone) or take it to Jiffy Lube.

As for natural rubber, it’s uncommon in post-1990 vehicles. Depending on the age of your car, you may need to swap out the rubber fuel lines and replace them with synthetic Viton hosing. But don’t lose any sleep over this. It only takes a few minutes, and if you can’t figure it out a mechanic should be able to do it in 15 minutes. You may not even need to change them out. The rubber fuel lines in my 25-year-old Datsun pickup truck did just fine when I switched to B100, and didn’t need replacement during the two years I owned it. For an excellent (if slightly technical) example of what the swap looks like, check out this post from the NissanDiesel Forums.

MYTH #5: You have to be a diesel mechanic to use biodiesel.

FACT: No, all you have to do fill up with a different fuel, just like switching between regular and premium. The ‘conversions’ mentioned above are easy, take minimal mechanical skill (being able to use a screwdriver), and shouldn’t take more than an hour. When I bought my first diesel, I’d never even changed the oil in a car, and I haven’t used petro-diesel since.

MYTH #6: Biodiesel will wreck your engine.

FACT: Nope. This is completely false. There have been reports of biodiesel damaging gasoline engines (just like diesel would), and I’ve heard that’s why some mechanics rail against using the fuel—they’ve had to deal with these hapless folks. While original engine manufacturers (OEMs) are especially cautious about new fuels, some of biggest names in the diesel world (like Cummins, Caterpillar, John Deere, and others) have cleared B20 or higher from doing any harm.

Biodiesel and diesel fuel are similar in chemical structure and have similar properties, so they burn similarly in diesel engines. But biodiesel has some specific advantages. Biodiesel adds significant lubricity to the fuel (something that sulfur formally did in diesel fuel, but has since been reduced, hence ultra-low-sulfur-diesel or ULSD), reducing engine and fuel pump wear and reportedly extending engine life. Adding just 1% biodiesel to ULSD will restore lubricity to the fuel.

Biodiesel has a higher cetane number (higher ignitability) and combusts more completely due to higher oxygen content. Biodiesel is also a good solvent and will clean out diesel fuel residue left in the fuel tank and lines. Over time, because it’s such a good solvent, biodiesel can degrade rubber fuel lines and gaskets. Most post-1990 vehicles don’t have rubber lines and gaskets, but some older vehicles do.

MYTH #7: Biodiesel will cause a noticeable power decrease.

FACT: Biodiesel contains about 8.5% less energy per gallon than petroleum diesel. For someone using B20, this means about a 1-2% loss in power, torque, and fuel efficiency. To put things into perspective, that’s about a 2 mph difference on the freeway if you were trying to go 55 mph. Millions of miles of onroad tests (aka trucking) have shown that B20 and diesel are practically indistinguishable. Biodiesel has also been used extensively in heavy-machinery, like tractors, loaders, and agricultural equipment, with no noticeable difference.

B100 users may notice a slight drop in fuel mileage based on the small difference in energy content, but torque and power are usually comparable. I’ve seen a 1-3 mpg drop in fuel efficiency running B100. As an FYI, biodiesel has the highest BTU (energy) content of any alternative fuel (falling somewhere between diesel #1 and #2). Energy content of various fuels (per gallon, low value of range):

• Regular Diesel Fuel = 128,500 BTUs
• Gasoline = 125,071 BTUs
• Biodiesel = 118,296 BTUs
• Ethanol = 76,000 BTUs

MYTH #8: Biodiesel use will void your warranty.

FACT: This myth is a little more problematic because it’s partially true. While all manufacturers have approached biodiesel cautiously, many now recognize and warranty B20 for use in new vehicles. See the table listing biodiesel manufacturer warranty information.

However, things get a little more complicated when you start to argue that the use of a fuel cannot void non-fuel system warranties. According to the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), “The use of biodiesel in existing diesel engines does not void parts and materials workmanship warranties of any major US engine manufacturer.”

Apparently, Federal law prohibits the voiding of a warranty just because biodiesel was used—it must be the cause of the damage, though some manufacturers will assume biodiesel caused the problem. Warranties generally don’t cover problems caused by external sources, i.e. bad fuel, but can’t be voided if the problem was unrelated (see NREL’s Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines, p. 47). Most manufacturers do support B5 or B20, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily prohibit higher blends.

The best thing you can do: double-check with your manufacturer!

Of course, for those of us who have never had a car warranty, no sweat! Don’t lose any sleep over this!

MYTH #9: Biodiesel doesn’t work in cold weather.

FACT: Alright, this is another potential stumbling-block, but a manageable one. Perhaps you’ve read my personal experience with biodiesel in cold weather—let me reiterate that operator error led to the breakdown. It’s true that biodiesel clouds up (starts to freeze) at higher temperatures when compared to regular diesel, and therefore it’s important to blend biodiesel with diesel fuel in the winter (depending on your climate). Here are the biodiesel cold-weather guidelines:

• B100 can be used down to about 40 degrees F
• B50 between 20-40 degrees F
• B20 below 20 degrees F

Remember that the cold-flow properties (as they’re called) vary depending on what the biodiesel is made from (feedstocks with more saturated fat, like coconut oil or animal parts tend to freeze earlier). Local producers should be able to give you more information about this, though most biodiesel you will find is going to be soy biodiesel.

In the Pacific Northwest’s rather mild (in terms of temp) climate, I typically use B100 between March and November, then switch to B50 for the winter, unless I plan on hitting much colder temperatures (I mean anything approaching 0 F). I’m aware of people using B100 all year round in Corvallis, Oregon, with no problems.

By the way, if you end up using the wrong blend, or get caught in a cold snap, it isn’t the end of the world. Your engine will shut off when the fuel filter clogs from partially-gelled biodiesel. This doesn’t cause any permanent damage, but you will have to wait for a sunny day or apply some serious heat to get things running again. (After stalling out on the freeway once in 13 degrees F and being towed to a gas station, I had to fill the empty space in the fuel tank with diesel, add an anti-gelling additive (available at any gas station), replace the fuel filter, and wait for a sunny day).

The cold-weather problem is not insurmountable, made clear by biodiesel use in snow-cats at some ski areas. All you have to do is heat the fuel system, from fuel tank to injection pump, which is precisely the same thing you do to convert a diesel to run on straight-vegetable-oil. For more information and some ideas, check out the cold-weather fuel products from Arctic Fox.

MYTH #10: Biodiesel has no quality control; you could be buying anything.

FACT: While there’s definitely room to question the consistency of biodiesel quality control (see earlier post), the industry has strict guidelines in place. Biodiesel has it’s own fuel standard, ASTM 6751, which determines whether or not a substance is actually biodiesel. The National Biodiesel Board also set up the BQ-9000 quality certification program to create a nationally-recognized list of approved distributors.

I personally wouldn’t worry about the quality of biodiesel at the pump, considering the scant attention regular petro-diesel quality receives.

Quality control can be a major issue, however, if you’re using homebrew biodiesel or biodiesel purchased from a biodiesel coop. If you choose the latter, make sure they test their fuel periodically to see how close they get to ASTM 6751.

MYTH #11: Biodiesel is impossible to find.

FACT: Many people assume this without actually looking, but biodiesel could be readily available in your area. That’s why I wrote 6 Ways To Find And Use Biodiesel Anywhere. Check it out. It will tell you how to find retail biodiesel stations, how to map them on mapquest, and how to get emergency biodiesel locations on your cell phone. Biodiesel is the most widely available renewable fuel and can be found in many major metropolitan areas.

MYTH #12: Biodiesel use requires a new fuel infrastructure.

FACT: One of the key benefits to using biodiesel is its seamless integration into existing infrastructure (unlike ethanol, which has water-collection issues). Biodiesel can be transported and stored anywhere that petroleum diesel can, and can be dispensed from the same refueling equipment.

MYTH #13: Biodiesel is too expensive.

FACT: Last time I checked, biodiesel was $3.30 per gallon. With a tax credit offered in Oregon, the final price was $2.80 per gallon. Not bad considering diesel has soared to $4.00 per gallon.

Unfortunately, biodiesel is tied to petroleum prices because of diesel use on the farm (you’d think the first thing farmers would do would be to switch to biodiesel). But in areas where biodiesel is made from non-food sources, and looking to the future when we hope all of it is made from non-food sources, biodiesel can be cheaper. Sequential Biofuels of Oregon makes biodiesel out of 1 million gallons of recycled vegetable oil each year. In any case, biodiesel is nearly price competitive with premium gasoline, and probably won’t seem that expensive in the middle of summer.

That being said, we could probably argue about the real price of petroleum for hours. Americans don’t see the real price of petro-diesel at the pump, which should probably include the cost of climate change (in the form of a carbon tax) and some of the most expensive aspects of US foreign policy (I’ll let you fill in the blank). It also doesn’t include the health care and societal cost of the estimated 15,000 premature deaths attributed to diesel exhaust each year.

The US will export an estimated $440 billion dollars in 2008 to satiate its oil demand, which represents something like half of the nation’s trade deficit. Supporting US biodiesel injects some of that money back into local economies, as opposed to say, the economy of Saudi Arabia.

So which is really more expensive? I’ll let you decide for yourself.

MYTH #14: Biodiesel requires more energy to produce than is provided by the fuel.

FACT: The vast majority of literature on the subject shows a positive energy balance, meaning that more energy is available in the fuel than is used to grow the crop, press the seeds, process the oil into biodiesel, and distribute the product. The most common numbers I’ve seen say about 2-3 times more energy is produced, or 1 unit of energy in equals 2-3 units of energy out. [don’t leave it to me, see for yourself: (1), (2)]. Compare this to corn-grain ethanol, which optimistically produces 25% more energy than is put into it (1 unit in equals 1.25 units out).

MYTH #15: Biodiesel increases net green-house gas (GHG) emissions when the entire production process is taken into account (farming, distribution, etc).

FACT: According to the University of Minnesota in 2006 (1), the production and use of soybean biodiesel decreases life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 41% over regular diesel (NREL says 78%, page 4), and also decreases other pollutants like Carbon monoxide, PM10, and SOx. In fact, pure biodiesel reduces air toxics by 90% when compared to diesel fuel.

As an aside, according to the same Minnesota study, the life-cycle of corn-grain ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 12% and actually increases emissions of five major pollutants.

MYTH #16: Biodiesel causes deforestation.

FACT: You’ve almost certainly read accounts of biodiesel production destroying the Brazilian and Malaysian rain forests, or the problems with European biodiesel mandates. What’s true there is not true in the United States.

The US already produces a great deal of biodiesel from domestically-grown soybeans. But don’t forget that biodiesel can be made from many other feedstocks, like rapeseed (Canola), algae, and waste-vegetable oil (WVO). In some areas, WVO can be a major feedstock for making biodiesel (but this might not last for long!). Like any other crops, soy and rapeseed can be grown sustainably or unsustainably.

The National Biodiesel Board has set up a Sustainability Task Force to quantify the impacts of biodiesel production and use, and to develop sustainable industry practices. Most people really aren’t interested in importing biodiesel from parts of the world where it’s questionably produced.

Want to know where your biodiesel is coming from? Ask your distributor (or the manager of the filling station)! Since biodiesel is somewhat novel and people are usually interested, they can probably tell you where it’s coming from.

MYTH #17: No way can we grow enough biodiesel to make a difference.

FACT: Some advocates, like Josh Tickell, claim there’s an additional 60 million acres of fallow US farmland available for growing soybeans. If a large portion, like 40 million acres, was put into use, it could produce 2 billion more gallons of vegetable oil (Tickell’s Biodiesel America, p. 151).

While this is theoretically possible, would inject lots of money into the US economy, and would further revitalize the agricultural sector in this country, I don’t know if it’s possible. Most people don’t like making fuel out of a food crop (even if almost all soybeans are fed to cattle).

Ultimately, if there’s any hope of biodiesel making a huge difference, like more than 10% of petro-diesel usage, it’s going to have to come from the commercial production of algae.

MYTH #18: Biodiesel exhaust smells bad.

FACT: Well, this one is personal preference. I have had people tell me that they think the smell is disgusting (as if they would prefer diesel exhaust). I think B100 exhaust smells great. Sort of like French fries but somehow…cleaner, and not as potentially nauseating. But biodiesel blends sort of smell like burnt, dirty oil (thanks to the diesel exhaust). In any case, it’s hard not to smile when you recognize the smell.

MYTH #19: Biodiesel exhaust produces more harmful emissions than diesel.

FACT: Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that has completed all the testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel contains oxygen and it burns more completely than diesel fuel, resulting in reduced emissions. All major pollutants are reduced dramatically in biodiesel exhaust (most of them at least 50% for B100), except one—nitrogen oxides (NOx)—and that’s only for blends over B20 (see my post on the subject).

The most common report when users switch to biodiesel is the noticeable decrease in diesel smoke (the black, sooty clouds). B20 reduces air toxics (the most damaging pollutants for human health) by 20-40%, while B100 reduces them by as much as 90%. Sulfur oxides and sulfates (major contributors to acid rain) are almost completely eliminated. The only caveat is that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions can increase up to 10% with B100. If you would like to evaluate this for yourself, see the National Biodiesel Board’s emissions fact sheet.

New diesel technology like the Mercedes BlueTec eliminates this problem by reducing NOx emissions by 80%.

All-in-all, biodiesel offers such a substantial reduction in emissions that it’s frequently used in sensitive areas like national parks and marine habitats. School districts all over the country have also turned to biodiesel as a way to reduce children’s’ exposure to toxic diesel exhaust.

MYTH #20: Diesel engines are more polluting than gasoline engines, so selling my car and buying a diesel is a bad idea.

FACT: It’s true that traditional diesel engines are 10-100x more polluting, in terms of soot/particulate matter, than their gasoline counterparts. But using biodiesel decreases both Carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 emissions to levels below gasoline. Additionally, new model diesel engines are more efficient and have advanced catalytic converters that make them as clean as comparable gasoline models. When combined with biodiesel, new and old engines alike should offer significant emissions reductions.

For a really sweet combination, check out the Mercedes 40 MPG diesel hybrid or VW’s 69.9 MPG diesel hybrid Golf.

While I’ve never actually seen a side-by-side comparison of B100 vs gasoline emissions in a comparable vehicles, I think it’s a safe bet that using biodiesel is better on some counts and worse on others.

No matter what, older diesels are currently in use and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future (due to long engine life). They’re also often the worst offenders in terms of air pollution. Switching these vehicles to biodiesel blends still provides tangible benefits.

MYTH #21: If I wanted to use biodiesel, there’s no way can I find a diesel to drive.

FACT: Yes, you can. I’ve written a guide to address this question. See Biodiesel Guide: 7 Steps to Buying a Diesel.

MYTH #22: Biodiesel is only used by crazy hippies and Willie Nelson.

FACT: Tell that to the US military, especially the US Navy (which is the largest single user of biodiesel), the National Parks Service, Postal Service, NASA, municipalities across the country, and more than 130 school districts and universities.

Addendum: MYTH (Or Fact?) #23: Biodiesel is Raising Food Prices

Ok, you got me. This list was only supposed to have 22 Myths, but I thought of one more that’s relatively important. Hit the link above for more…

That’s it!

Want to learn more? Biodiesel resources available at Gas 2.0:

Biodiesel Guide: 7 Steps to Buying a Diesel
6 Ways to Find and Use Biodiesel Part I
6 Ways to Find and Use Biodiesel Part II
Learn How to Make Biodiesel On YouTube
How Biodiesel Fuel Cells Could Power the Future (And Your Car)
Top 15 Unexpected Uses For Biodiesel
Fields of Fuel: Josh Tickell’s New Biodiesel Documentary

If you choose to use biodiesel, this should be enough to get you started. Clearly, I can’t cover every issue in this post, but don’t stop here. Take a look at the following resources for more information:

Journey To Forever’s Biodiesel resources page (most comprehensive)
National Biodiesel Board (The main industry group)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - Non-petroleum Based Fuels
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service - Biodiesel Primer

Studies cited in the post:

(1) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels
Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany. PNAS published July 12, 2006, 10.1073/pnas.0604600103

(2) A Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. Sheehan et al. May 1998. NREL/SR-580-24089.

Did I forget something? Feel free to add your comments below.

Photo Credit

Ford Motor Company will be replacing up to 40% of their petroleum-based seat cushions with a new material made from soybean oil. “Soy foam” costs roughly the same to manufacture as traditional petroleum derivatives, but requires less energy to produce and may reduce environmental impacts by 75%.

The new material was developed by Ford’s own researchers, and made its debut in the 2008 Ford Mustang. Soy foam has also already been incorporated into the seat cushions of Ford F-150 pickups, Expeditions, and Lincoln Navigator SUV’s. By the end the year, Ford says it will have 45,500 soy-foam vehicles on the road.

According to lifecycle analyses conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (as cited in the press release), soy-based products reduce environmental impacts by 75% when compared with petroleum-based materials.

More facts about Ford’s Soy Foam:

• Ford is using 2.2 million pounds of soy foam for Mustang production, which amounts to about 1 gallon of soybean oil per car.
• Ford estimates that the Mustang project alone will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 605,000 pounds annually.
• Ford is looking to make other materials out of soy foam too, like dashboards, armrests and sound-deadening foams.

I’ve poked some fun at Ford lately (see this year’s April Fools post on Coal Powered F-350s), but this seems like a legitimate effort to green the many toxic materials used in auto manufacturing.

Related Posts:
Mercedes 40-MPG Diesel Hybrid: Cleanest SUV on the Planet
Canada Unleashes First Carbon Tax in N. America
Top 15 Unexpected Uses For Biodiesel

Source: Ford Motor Company (Apr. 9, 08): FORD EXPANDS ECO-FRIENDLINESS WITH SOY

Photo Credit: Ford Motor Company

Ethanol plants in the US are now pumping out approximately 21.4 million gallons of corn-based ethanol every day, which has already amounted to 1.9 billion gallons for the year.

The upshot of all this production is progress toward the ethanol quotas required by the new Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates 15 billion gallons of ethanol be produced from corn in the US by 2015.

But check this out: the Renewable Fuels Association estimates that in 2015 it will take 1/3 of the total US corn harvest to meet those quotas. The estimation is based on producing 3 gallons of ethanol from one bushel of corn, and a total corn harvest of 15 billion bushels.

That’s a big increase in ethanol production: The US produced about 13 billion bushels of corn in 2007, but only produced about 6.4 billion gallons of ethanol. That means that a 16% increase in corn production will have to support a 234% increase in the amount of corn being turned into vehicle fuel.

If the food vs. fuel debate is hot now, just wait until 2015. What seems ludicrous about this situation is that we have better options going online already, like cellulosic ethanol and algae biofuel facilities. Let’s just hope they can start ramping up production before this really gets out of control.

Source: Green Car Congress (Apr. 6, 08) Report: US Ethanol Production up 37% in Q1

Related Posts:
World’s First Commercially Viable Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Online 2009
GMO Corn-Stover Eats Itself, Makes Ethanol Processing A Breeze
Which is Worse: Exporting $1 Billion Per Week or Growing Fuel?
Is Ethanol Production Fueling the Size of the Dead Zone?

Photo Credit

There’s no doubt that growing corn-based ethanol has some serious problems: the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, controversy over increasing food prices, and questionable energy return.

But how does the impact of ethanol production compare to not doing anything?

Last week, the Delta Farm Press picked up on a statement made by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens. Pickens admitted that he has opposed ethanol in the past, but on the other hand couldn’t support exporting half a trillion dollars—something the US will do this year in order to satisfy its oil addiction. Pickens said (via Delta Farm Press):

“You take 10 years, and you have $5 trillion,” said Pickens. “That’s more than $1 billion a day. We can’t stand that.” (That $500 billion per year is not far from the record federal deficit of $552 billion in 2004.)

Acknowledging he didn’t think much of ethanol’s claims in the early years, he said he now supports increased production. “I’d rather have ethanol and recirculate the money in the country, than to have it go out the back door on us.” (Pickens is investing $10 billion in wind energy.)

While corn-based ethanol is far from perfect, injecting some of that export money back into the US economy might not be such a bad idea. And even if it’s only slightly better than using gasoline in terms of energy return and pollution, it’s still slightly better. A lot of puzzle pieces are going to have to come together to solve the US’s petroleum problem, and sitting around waiting for the perfect biofuel or new technology to come along isn’t going to do it.

Whether or not ethanol is a good thing, it’s going to increase in a big way: by 2015, 30% of the US corn harvest will be made into gasoline.

Think this is a bad idea?

Source: Delta Farm Press (Mar. 28, 08): And now for the rest of the ethanol story

Photo Credit

Remember CFCs? They had the power to flavour teenage armpits and work wonders on refrigeration.

There’s two things I remember from when I was growing up. Well, not two things literally. That would suggest a woebegone adolescence. No, two things of environmental importance.

At 15, Chernobyl. A complete nuclear meltdown causing Europeans to duck for cover to avoid the prevailing winds.

Yeah, so plants are safer now, aren’t they? Well, look, personally, when you play with atoms, I still think of Hiroshima and Chernobyl, once smiling communities now nothing but cancerous shells of their former selves. Higher safety standards lead to greater complacency. No-one reading this can guarantee that another nuclear disaster won’t happen, so please, let’s leave that one alone. I’ve heard it all before.

(I don’t like things that glow in the dark really. I have innate misgivings.)

And as well as Chernobyl, we had an enormous hole in the ozone layer recognised for the first time.

But we often need a reminder of what ensued. The Montreal Protocol. Widely adhered to on an international level, a superb piece of cooperation and a credit to all involved.

Sure, the ozone layer is still in a poor state, but that should never reflect badly on what leaders are capable of when acting as one.

I guess the ozone layer was more tangible to the human eye. You see hurricanes, heat waves, enormous slabs of