Alternate Fuel

[Opsa]

Aggie was talking in another thread and I thought this subject deserved it's own.

Here's what he said:

"I am reading far too many depressing books lately - also recommended to avoid are "When Smoke Ran Like Water" and "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" both by Devra Davis (very good - am only halfway through either).  This morning I learned that the main reason public transit is so terrible in the US (as we were discussing elsewhere) is that the decent, well-utilized electric transit systems in the 20's were actively bought out and dismantled by the automobile and oil industries because they were a threat to the respective businesses - it was so blatant that the government (can't recall which branch offhand & am paraphrasing a bit here) actually took about 10 companies to court for conspiracy to monopolize transit and won - they were fined $5000.  Tongue  Oh, and that tetraethyl lead (leaded gas) was invented because it was cheap to produce, did not displace gasoline and patentable - as opposed to ethanol, which was know to work very well as an anti-knock agent instead but would need to displace 10% of the gasoline used by volume (loss of sales), and wasn't patentable (loss of monopoly).  They knew this stuff was toxic in the 20's (although evidence for how polluting it was came later) and it was opposed by many state health departments *cue public relations campaign*."

This is really hitting home because a very good friend of ours is leaving his high-paying job to work on Ethanol and other alternate fuels. He has asked my husband to join to help staff his office, which he hopes to open this summer. We are very excited and hopeful that he will succeed because it sounds like good work for a good cause.

What's upsetting to me is hearing people badmouthing Ethanol all the time on the news and in conversation. I feel highly suspicious that these arguements against it are paranoid propaganda by the oil companies. I keep hearing that the high prices on our groceries (and they've doubled around here in the past year- huje ouch) are because of corn being used for ethanol instead of food. To me this seems ridiculous. First- the corn that's used in Ethanol is not fit for human consumption. Yes, it may be the kind used for feeding beef cattle, but that's a pretty wasteful industry and Americans eat way too much red meat, anyway. Secondly- ethanol does not need to be made from corn. In Brazil they make it from sugarcane and I hear they've almost done away with foreign fossil fuels completely down there! Ethanol can be made from any plant product- the efficiency comes from how much sugar the plant produces. They're looking into making it from algae and saw grass. So I wish people'd get it right.

I think the oil companies are spreading a bunch of garbage because they're afraid we'll stop paying out the nose for their dirty, unhealthy fuels and wise up. If they were smart they'd invest in something better for the environment, biut they must be too set in their ways.

I hear people saying that it would be too big a change, but that's silly. We adjusted to light bulbs from candles and cars from carriages and CDs from LPs and cell phones from land lines. We can certainly adjust to  renewable fuels from the old ways that only became less available and more expensive.

It's time to change.

[pieces o nine]

...
What's upsetting to me is hearing people badmouthing Ethanol all the time on the news and in conversation. I feel highly suspicious that these arguements against it are paranoid propaganda by the oil companies. I keep hearing that the high prices on our groceries (and they've doubled around here in the past year- huje ouch) are because of corn being used for ethanol instead of food.
...

Hear, hear!

I've been watching 5 minutes of FOX news every night (building up my tolerance before total immersion at Club Neb). Recently one of the frothing heads was claiming that it costs some outrageous amount of fossil fuel to process ethanol -- something like a 4:1 (?) ratio, which seemed highly suspect to me. They coupled it with the usual diatribe about stoopid, ee-leet, librul Amurkins hatefully trying to starve the Greatest Nation on Earth in order to create a criminally wasteful (and, they confided) completely inefficient fuel source.

Officially, I don't believe in hell. Secretly, I hope something like it exists for these people.

Your friend's business venture sounds like a responsible endeavor. Please post updates on it.

[beagle]

There's quite a good article here, though The Economist may be a tad right of the centre of gravity here.

As I understand it there are some production issues (Ethanol production consumes lots of water for one thing). I think Bio-fuels don't have powerful advocates other than governments looking for fuel supply security. Oil companies aren't keen for obvious reasons, and environmentalists aren't keen because they still power cars. Also critics can use emotive arguments about how many people can be fed by the crops used to fill one SUV tank.

[Aggie]

IMHO - some of the biofuel-blame for the increase in food prices is legitimate, but it's more a case of diverting food-crop land to biofuel-feedstock lands.  I think factory farming may be equally if not more to blame for the sudden spike lately - both of these factors could apply to wheat and oilseeds. 

Indications are that the actual cost of production for many of the staples, especially rice, is directly tied to the price of oil - petroleum is vital for running the equipment, producing the fertilizer and transporting the final product. 

The current production of ethanol (again, IMHO) is not a threat to Big Oil in the immediate future as it's a very energy-intensive process and takes plenty of oil to crank out the final product.  And it's also terribly inefficient in terms of converting biomass to energy - using grain crops such as corn to make ethanol utilizes only a small portion of the biomass.  With sugar cane, the entire stalk of the plant can be squeezed for sugar, so there's increased efficiency. 

Where we will (eventually) see commercially and ecologically viable ethanol production is through cellulosic ethanol - but first we need to develop some high-power enzymes to crack what is a very stable molecule, or some strains of bacteria/fungi to do it for us.  They exist, but they are just starting to work on more than a bench scale - but with advances in biotech we should be close and this will be BIG.

Also, I've been wondering - it's tough to grow sugarcane in most parts of North America, but what about sugar beets?  Might be a great feedstock.

I do like the idea of algae-based biofuel (you can make biodiesel out of it) as a method of carbon capture from power plants & other big emissions generators.  It's actually one of the big limitations for algae farming - where to get enough CO2 to maximize algae growth?  So putting algae growth tanks next to a coal-burning monster or at an oil refinery would allow us to recapture fossil carbon for one more go-around, and the exhaust heat could make this viable even in cold but sunny locations - particularly in the case of a refinery, oilsands plant etc, it would be relatively simple to have all production occur on-site, and use existing shipping processes to move the final product (you can send different batches of different substances through pipelines, or lay another, smaller line on existing right-of-ways to minimize the footprint).


Ironically, our best bet for green energy may be the oil companies, provided it's commercially viable.  The Rockefellers are pushing Exxon-Mobil (XOM) to go green for business's sake:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN30446274

XOM is also working on batteries for hybrid cars:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5334375.html?amp;cid=1124217133&ei=mFFOR6OXGqSioAOTjcyGBQ

and is constructing a big battery plant in South Korea right now (can't find article).

I'm not backing Big Oil here, but while brewing biodiesel in your backyard lets you do your part, it's going to (regrettably & IMO realistically) take systemic change to make a global difference.  In some ways, the ridiculous oil prices we are seeing may get us there faster by making alternative energy affordable by comparison - there is little motivation to wean off of petroleum at $30/barrel.  The downside is that it's also making marginal oil (oilsands etc.) worth spending energy to recover.

I think Bio-fuels don't have powerful advocates other than governments looking for fuel supply security.

I am highly suspicious of Big Corn in the US - probably they (farmers) deserve a good turn but they are making off like thieves with the current situation.

[beagle]

Good point. The tax on Brazilian ethanol The Economist talks about does make the subsidies look more like politicking than environmentalism.

[Swatopluk]

I think the only justifiable mode of bio-fuel production is one that does not directly or indirectly cuts into food supplies.
Planting oilplants instead of foodcrops: bad
Cutting rainforest to plant oilplants in order to not use land used for foodcrops: bad
using foodcrops to produce oil instead of food: apage Satana!
Using biomass that is not used otherwise for oil production: looks good (at least on first sight)

A general problem is the energy input: industrialized agriculture needs lots of energy (e.g. gas for the machines, fertilizer production. production of other agrochemicals). Converting biomass to fuel also uses up part of the stored energy.
I have read about a poisonous African oilplant that grows in places where no normal crop grows and has an extreme oil content (much higher than e.g. rape) and can be processed locally. If used the right way that could be a real alternative but the usual suspects are already trying to run it the way they do with other resources (i.e. nothing for the locals but bullets).

[Aggie]

I have read about a poisonous African oilplant that grows in places where no normal crop grows and has an extreme oil content (much higher than e.g. rape) and can be processed locally. If used the right way that could be a real alternative but the usual suspects are already trying to run it the way they do with other resources (i.e. nothing for the locals but bullets).

I demand a species name!   Just kidding... but I'd be interested in knowing more.

I am personally getting interested in charcoal production with wood gas as a byproduct (fed to either a generator or furnace or both, and perhaps further gas production from the charcoal) - but chalk this up under "brewing biodiesel in your backyard" rather than a systemic good idea (I also plan to switch to legal bushmeat in the future, but that's again not sustainable for the general population). 

[Swatopluk]

The problem is that the article I got that from was in a printed newspaper. I kept the part but I keep so much else from it that it would take a significant amount of time to find it. I may try.

Edit:
OK, here is a link to a mirror of that article (German)
http://www.wfp.org/german/?NodeID=43&k=293

The plants name seems to be jatropha

[Aggie]

This stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha

[Swatopluk]

Looks like it (checked it immediately after my last post*). Seems also to contain links to relevant topics.


*which I herewith claim

[beagle]

"2005 Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals."

We may have to drive all day and night to keep it from taking over...

[Griffin NoName]

Yes, it may be the kind used for feeding beef cattle, but that's a pretty wasteful industry and Americans eat way too much red meat, anyway.

As others have said, I think, I've always understood it's more an issue of diversion of land use for food growth in African countries where people are starving.

Paddy Ashdown (ex leader of the Liberal Democrats here) just made a superb speech on Question Time (which got the biggest cheer from the audience I've ever heard for any politician on any programme). Essentially the question was between poilicies of Labour and Conservative, as ever, and he said, paraphrase, the differences were irrelevant and what was needed was a complete change to governments focusing on global issues such as fuel and food. Of course, it is easy for ex-leaders to say such things and even easier for ex-leaders of parties that never get elected. But his argument was coherent, totally persuasive and beautifully choreographed and the reaction of the audience was in itself quite startling - they are a Very Mixed Audience, carefully picked to have very different political views.

[Sibling Chatty]

Opsa, tell 'em don't forget about kudzu as a biofuel source.

There's certainly enough of it.

[beagle]

... what was needed was a complete change to governments focusing on global issues such as fuel and food.

Bring back the  groundnut scheme

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Cellulosic ethanol will be the key to economical biofuel.

Because, basically any plant material can be converted with that system.  Sawgrass is a prime choice for this-- it's considered a "weed" around most places.

However, it will grow in places foodcrops won't touch; arid, rocky, grassland, etc.   I can be harvested 3-4 times a year, and no need to re-seed-- you cut it like hay or straw.  It's naturally pest resistant, and naturally forces out competitive plants, once established.   In fact, there are many waste-areas here in Oklahoma that currently grow nothing, but were once farmed to oblivion (dust-bowl days, long gone).  Sawgrass planted in these field would help re-establish it as grassland, could be harvested without harming that role.  Win-win.

To make it economical, there HAS to be efficient bio-conversion.  No heat, no expensive chemicals.  Must be bacteria or similar, else you'll put more energy via fossil fuels into the conversion that what you get out-- net carbon-to-atmosphere gain.

If, however, you use bacterial fermentation process, the net carbon-to-atmosphere is zero:  the plant takes in CO2 to build cellulose using solar energy.   A loss of atmospheric carbon.  Then, the material is fermented into ethanol-- releasing some carbon into the atmosphere in the process, but less than the plant took in.  Finally the ethanol is burned, releasing the rest.  Net: zero addition to the atmosphere of CO2.   Total environmental impact, low.   Sawgrass requires little maintenance or water, or so I'm told. Once established.  Although to get 3-4 crops a year, you'd likely need regular rainfall, or have to use irrigation, which could stress existing fresh water supplies.

It all hinges on finding a single-step cellulose-to-ethanol process.  Currently, it takes more than one step to get there-- too costly, too much energy required. 

There are some promising bacterias, though.  Cow's stomachs.  Think of the fermentation that goes on in there.