Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

A Carbon Cloud Hangs Over Green Fuel

By Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor. Posted March 25, 2006.


An Iowa corn refinery, open since December, uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol. So just how green can it be?
Advertisement

Late last year in Goldfield, Iowa, a refinery began pumping out a stream of ethanol, which supporters call the clean, renewable fuel of the future.

There's just one twist: The plant is burning 300 tons of coal a day to turn corn into ethanol -- the first US plant of its kind to use coal instead of cleaner natural gas.

An hour south of Goldfield, another coal-fired ethanol plant is under construction in Nevada, Iowa. At least three other such refineries are being built in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota.

The trend, which is expected to continue, has left even some ethanol boosters scratching their heads. Should coal become a standard for 30 to 40 ethanol plants under construction -- and 150 others on the drawing boards -- it would undermine the environmental reasoning for switching to ethanol in the first place, environmentalists say.

"If the biofuels industry is going to depend on coal, and these conversion plants release their CO2 to the air, it could undo the global warming benefits of using ethanol," says David Hawkins, climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.

The reason for the shift is purely economic. Natural gas has long been the ethanol industry's fuel of choice. But with natural gas prices soaring, talk of coal power for new ethanol plants and retrofitting existing refineries for coal is growing, observers say.

"It just made great economic sense to use coal," says Brad Davis, general manager of the Gold-Eagle Cooperative that manages the Corn LP plant, which is farmer and investor owned. "Clean coal" technology, he adds, helps the Goldfield refinery easily meet pollution limits -- and coal power saves millions in fuel costs.

Yet even the nearly clear vapor from the refinery contains as much as double the carbon emissions of a refinery using natural gas, climate experts say. So if coal-fired ethanol catches on, is it still the "clean, renewable fuel" the state's favorite son, Sen. Tom Harkin likes to call it?

Such questions arrive amid boom times for America's ethanol industry.

With 97 ethanol refineries pumping out some 4 billion gallons of ethanol, the industry expects to double over the next six years by adding another 4.4 billion gallons of capacity per year. Tax breaks as well as concerns about energy security, the environment, and higher gasoline prices are all driving ethanol forward.

The Goldfield refinery, and the other four coal-fired ethanol plants under construction are called "dry mill" operations, because of the process they use. The industry has in the past used coal in a few much larger "wet mill" operations that produce ethanol and a raft of other products. But dry mills are the wave of the future, industry experts say. It's their shift to coal that's causing the concern.

More plants slated for Midwest, West

Scores of these new ethanol refineries are expected to be built across the Midwest and West by the end of the decade, and many could soon be burning coal in some form to turn corn into ethanol, industry analysts say.

"It's very likely that coal will be the fuel of choice for most of these new ethanol plants," says Robert McIlvaine, president of a Northfield, Ill., information services company that has compiled a database of nearly 200 ethanol plants now under construction or in planning and development.


Digg!

Mark Clayton is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
foolish and fuelish
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 25, 2006 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems foolish and fuelish to grow power from the ground when an epidemic of starvation is on the horizon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: foolish and fuelish Posted by: tresdelsol
» RE: foolish and fuelish Posted by: kelly.nickell
» Missing the point Posted by: peritonlogon
» Burn Republicans... Posted by: chasaturn
Corn conversion to ethanol
Posted by: wbritton on Mar 25, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The energy cost of producing ethanol goes far beyond that of simply burning either coal or natural gas to support corn's conversion. To this must be added the cost of producing the nitrogen fertilizer needed to grow the corn in the first place, which can amount to more than 100 pounds per acre. And let's not forget the energy cost of producing the nitrogen as well as other required soil nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides. Some renewable!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corn conversion to ethanol Posted by: SufiLizard
» RE: Hydrogen Economy also a FRAUD Posted by: ttmrichter
Biofuels continue our unsustainability
Posted by: brad on Mar 25, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comment on the use of a food source for fuel is partially correct, we could never grow enough biofuel to replace fosil fuels. But there really is no shortage of food, at least not now or in the near future. The world currently produces twice the food that it needs and wastes half while people starve. It is a distribution and equity problem, not a lack of food problem.

Biofuels are, from what I have researched, not a net gain for the environment. Also in the long term biofuels will only help with the malconstruction of social situations. It will only continue the sprawl and spread of US "urban" life and the global movement of goods that lock us into to unsustainable social structures. What is needed is a redesign of the very way we work, live and what we consume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Water problems, too
Posted by: anothername on Mar 25, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS03/603240370/1001/archive

The Des Moines (IA) Register had an article yesterday (3/24/06) about Iowa's rivers. They have some of the highest fertilizer-related pollution levels in the world. This is what corn hath wrought.

Ethanol may not drop water levels as oil is pulled out of the ground, and artisan water might not be polluted as the oil seeps into the drinking water level, but ethanol has its own problems.

The U.S. might learn that consumption is not sustainable at current levels. There is no technological solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another way to support big agribusiness?
Posted by: mtngoat on Mar 25, 2006 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more i read about ethanol, the more i realize it is just another boost for large agribusiness! Face it - Americans are hooked on their cars, and this is big agribusiness' way of getting a piece of the pie. They get to continue their unsustainable practices of monoculture and polluting land and water with pesticides and fertilizers (many containing petroleum!) all in the name of enviromentalism. Not to mention that something like 55% of all corn crops in this country are genetically modified, which leads to a bevy of problems for nearby farmers (and butterflies).

I agree with the previous post that said we need a shift in our way of life, but i have little hope for that. Let's at least attempt to keep a tight rein on those that use eco-terminology to describe their products. Ethanol, as it is produced now, is not a sustainable, environmentally friendly fuel, even if it is produced without coal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

energy out, energy in
Posted by: macirons on Mar 25, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
20 years ago I read an analysis that it took 50 calories of energy (mostly in the form of petroleum derivatives) to grow one calorie of food. I wonder how many calories of energy it takes to grow the corn and mine the coal. And what then is the total energy consumed to produce the ethanol? Add in the carbon dioxide and other pollutants from the combustion of the coal, compute the amount of methyl bromide used before planting the corn, stir well and what have we got for our caloric expense? And what is the real cost of the resultant polluted air and soil?

It's too much for me to compute but I think the answer would be pretty scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: energy out, energy in Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant
Hemp Biofuels
Posted by: theskywolf on Mar 25, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text

This is a good starting point to learn about Hemp fuels.

Hemp is the most efficient plant for biofuels. Seed oil is made into diesel fuel much more efficiently than other sources.

If govt and industry would pull its collective head out of its ass and make Hemp biodiesel to power the gnerators to make the ethanol, we could get around this problem.

We will, of course, need to reduce our demands regardless of what we do. We can not continue to live like there's no tomorrow...or there won't be.

But that doesn't mean we have to go back to the stone age, either.

Skywolf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Hemp = Worthless Article Posted by: YinRising
» RE: No Hemp = Worthless Article Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: No Hemp = Worthless Article Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Hemp Biofuels Here Here! Posted by: Johnny Hempseed
» RE: Hemp Biofuels Here Here! Posted by: 9wicket
Avoiding carbon
Posted by: osage on Mar 25, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol is an alternative fuel. It is an alternative to oil – primarily for use in transportation where the use of coal is impractical. It is not surprising that it requires the use of one or another fossil fuel to provide the energy needed to distill it.

It is surprising that the writer neglected to point out yet another feature of the dark cloud inside the silver lining - that ethanol is a hydrocarbon, therefore it adds further to atmospheric CO2 when it is burned.

With very few exceptions – nuclear, hydro, wind and solar – our energy sources are carbon based fuels. It is very unlikely that that will change significantly any time soon. In the meantime it will be necessary to utilize any number of alternatives, primarily for transportation, which are less energy efficient and/or add to increases in atmospheric CO2.

Get used to it or walk more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Biofuels don't add carbon Posted by: worksg
Coal to ethanol
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Mar 25, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is plain ridiculous. It is quite possible to make ethanol with solar energy - way back in the old (pre Reagan) days, Mother Earth News was frequently running plans on how to build such facilities for on-the-farm applications. It is possible to get ethanol from waste materials - Brazil is running on the stuff from bagasse (sugar cane after most of the sugar has been squeezed out of it). Every time researchers come up with an appropriate technology for a problem, it is immediately distorted by the multinational corporations into the most inappropriate application possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baby and/or Bath Water
Posted by: SufiLizard on Mar 25, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the concerns posted thus far are certainly valid, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Farming CAN be done differently than it is commonly done right now. We don't have to pollute the environment with chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicdes to grow stuff -- fifty years of brainwashing by the chemical industry notwithstanding.

The process of converting plants to ethanol CAN get more efficient. Maybe something besides corn can be used whether its hemp or switchgrass, maybe there are processes we haven't discovered yet that can use much less energy to produce the stuff.

And maybe, just maybe, this could actually save the independent farmer and stop big agribusiness' plans for global domination in its tracks.

Of course all of these 'maybe's' will require an engaged populace with the political will to put responsible, far-sighted legislators into office who will see that the healthy, sustainable practices are encouraged by government policy while the unhealthy practices are discouraged.

When we just let companies who practice business as usual buy legislators who practice politics as usual, we end up with ridiculous crap like coal-fired ethanol plants.

That doesn't mean the whole concept of ethanol is bad, it's just the way we've gone about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Baby and/or Bath Water Posted by: Fendel
» Thanks for this sensible post. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Baby and/or Bath Water Posted by: educarvalho
Ethenol-fired ethenol
Posted by: wallart2000 on Mar 25, 2006 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If ethenol is such a god-send, then why do they not use it to "fire" their own plants?

A former boss used to say that any worthwhile technology will contain within itself the seeds of the solutions of its own problems. Ethenol is not such a technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Adoption of Biofuels Would Be a Disaster
Posted by: Karen Orr on Mar 25, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movement toward biofuels as an environmentally friendly alternative
to fossil fuels is a greenscam with potentially disastrous consequences.

The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid
consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that
involve massive taxpayer funded subsidies to large environmentally
destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well
meaning but misguided groups and individuals.

Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans, and other crops are not only
environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without
massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally
viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind
and solar energy.

Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:

* The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it
produces.

* The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air
pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution,
erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides,
fertilizers and harm to animals.

* Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly
destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.

* Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in
phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed
river systems.

* Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop
production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.

The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more
corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the
environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as
conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems,
increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food
farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.

Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten
environmental destruction.

We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more
destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on
more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.

The hard decisions can no longer be avoided. There must be a massive
shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption.

The biofuels scam must be stopped in its' tracks. If it proceeds, we'll
plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and
send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.

If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network FACT SHEET
(http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about the coal
Posted by: Ming on Mar 25, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not whether the plants use gas, coal, or wood to produce ethanol. When America needs a product to help sustain the use of oil for a few more years and keep the costs of gasoline relatively low, this country will burn whatever it has to and the environment be damned. It's as if we are being told by our government that they want us to live for a few short years longer but that our quality of life during those years isn't a concern. It's purely a numbers game.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same old crap
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 25, 2006 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we decide to do away with having our energy source be a commodity, the polluters will dirty everything. Rule one of the corporate capitalist system: In order to make a profit, you must make a mess (for somebody else to clean up).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did Bush actually say...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Mar 25, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'cellulosic ethanol' in a speech? I'd like to hear that because the guy can barely speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bush NEVER says... Posted by: chasaturn
entropy
Posted by: Casey Burns on Mar 25, 2006 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line with anything that will keep an SUV running seems unsustainable to me. And the rosy predictions about biofuels commonly leave out entropic hidden costs. The way Ethanol's boosters talk, you would think the stuff is too cheap to meter, like they talked about Uranium.

Two things would lead to greater energy savings in this country and reduced carbon: reducing the size of cars and making it illegal to talk on the cell phone while driving. At least in Western Washington, this would render the roads safer for bicycling, leading to more bicycle commuting, cleaner skies, and healthier people who would then fit into their clothes again (I speak of myself). Currently, its too dangerous out there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: entropy Posted by: kelly.nickell
Efficiency... What A Concept
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 26, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If half the money that has been and is currently being poured into fuels, exploration, etc had been redirected to research and development of more efficient lighting, heating, refrigeration, motors, etc we would all be better off.

Just like the CAFE standards were used to force the automakers to double their fuel economy over a time period, the government needs to do the same with energy consuming devices. Tax inefficient devices and use them to subsidize the purchase of more energy efficient ones. Mandate higher levels of insulation and efficiency standards for appliances (including computers), HVAC and lighting.

The R&D needed to redesign everything and the plants needed to produce them will repay us, at least partially, with jobs. Afterward, we will be just as comfortable with a lower energy bill and a smaller carbon footprint.

The carrot and stick can be used to force the issue. Tax breaks for passive solar, active solar water and high efficiency appliances. Stiff taxes for inefficient crap. Use the tax revenue to pay for refits to the homes of the poor and elderly.

The other thing with coal is going to be filth. When all these coal-fired plants get cranked up, Nebraska is going to have air like Gary, Indiana. This ignorant scenario could be a massive environmental Waterloo. Once the air is poisoned over our breadbasket and the acid rain kills all of the lakes down-wind what are you going to do?

One thing is for sure: If GWB is for it, it's either rigged for the boys in the biz already or complete BS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gas efficiency
Posted by: karyse on Mar 26, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poster above said, " Just like the CAFE standards were used to force the automakers to double their fuel economy over a time period, the government needs to do the same with energy consuming devices."

Back in 1979, I bought a '73 Honda Civic that easily got 40 miles a gallon. Then my friend bought a new Civic in the mid 80s and his car listed (and got) 58 miles to the gallon.

My 1990 Ford Festiva, got mileage similar to that '73 Honda.

Today, I'm shocked by the fuel ratings on cars. None of them get anywhere near those old cars. What's up with that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biorefineries and sustainable agriculture
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 26, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is not much sense in making biofuels unless the process is energy-independent and sustainable. We are approaching peak oil, and perhaps peak natural gas, but 'peak coal' is not about to happen - there is a lot of coal still left in the ground. Coal is incredibly dirty and polluting.

Coal is the number one carbon culprit because of it's low energy density per carbon atom (C-C bonds hold less energy then C-H bonds; that's why natural gas (CH4) is the most energy-dense hydrocarbon). Coal is thus the source of 86% of the CO2 produces from electricity generation. (Note that the amount of fossil fuel used to grow the corn is an additional CO2 source).

If we cannot run a productive sustainable agriculture system without fossil fuel inputs, then we are in serious trouble. We need a nationwide sustainable agriculture program that focuses on growing crops without fossil fuels; this includes ammonia fertilizers produced at oil refineries as well as herbicides and pesticides (of course this would undercut the petrochemicals division of ExxonMobil, so they can be expected to fight this tooth and nail). Sustainable agriculture has to be the basis of any 'environmentally friendly' biofuels program.

Brazil has a pretty good system with sugar and sugarcane; after they squeeze the sugar out of the cane and ferment it to 'cane beer' they use the dry matter left over to fire their distillation plants (removing the water from the 'beer'). The leftover products (ash and yeast residues) are then trucked back out to the cane fields as fertilizer. In addition, good plant design (efficiencies, as pointed out above) saves a lot of energy.

So - perhaps we should lift the Brazilian ethanol embargo as a first step (California might be better off getting ethanol from them then from the Midwest...). Banning coal altogether would be an even better idea, given that climate change is now understood by all rational people to be a serious threat over the next century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is capitalism
Posted by: worksg on Mar 26, 2006 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We Americans use far more fuel and generate more polution than any other nation. We are experts in turning the world's resources into money profits. This is not an accident. Our economic system encourages this and indeed requires it. The system will remove any CEO or politician who resists. Capitalism does not look out for the environment, only for the bottom line. If we want humanity to survive we must manage our economy. Our non-renewable resources are priceless and must be treated as such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» EXACTLY! Posted by: brad
We're all missing the point
Posted by: IndyElliott on Mar 26, 2006 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that, when we burn wood or corn stalks or ethanol, we are also returning carbon to the atmosphere but it is this year's carbon. When we burn oil or coal or natural gas we are also 'returning' carbon to the atmosphere but it is carbon stored up over many thousands of years. It has been this process of breaking down CO2, returning the oxygen to the atmosphere and storing the carbon in the ground, that has created what we now know as the planet earth. Without photosynthesis there would be NO atmospheric oxygen. It wasn't always thus. If we don't learn this and start reversing the process - stop clear-cutting rain forests - stop digging up the stored carbon - reduce our overall energy use - we are simply going to return the planet to the way it was before life began – long before we came along to spoil it. It's that simple.

There are a few things we can do today without major investment, which would contribute to the solution rather than the disaster.
1. No couple should ever have more than one child. We simply have allowed the human population to grow to an unsustainable mass. This sounds extreme, even undoable, but look to China for guidance and we can see that it could be done. What we must face is the fact that it MUST be done. The benefits of such a policy are legion while the downside is actually zero.
2. Start replacing energy wasteful apparatus with energy efficient ones. The next time you buy light bulbs choose the fluorescent replacements instead (or the new LED lamps). If you buy an electric room heater choose the most efficient one you can find. I have a quartz infrared unit that consumes the same amount of power as my older tungsten element heater but will run you out of the room. The heater was more costly to buy but it has already paid for itself many times over. By using it I also don’t have to maintain such a high air temperature in the house as a whole.
3. Place a much greater emphasis on efficiency in the designs of our homes and places of business. Insulation, for example, is the gift that keeps on giving. It’s a one-time investment with a lifetime return. ‘Greenhouse bubbling’ can even be applied to existing structures – this can even be used to greatly enhance the living environment. You build a greenhouse around the existing house. You can remove the existing roof and replace it with a big deck which can be a very pleasant environment in itself.
4. We should take seriously the promise of telecommuting. The more we can work either from home or from a location within walking/biking distance from home the less we have to drive a vehicle.
5. Car pool, car pool, car pool
6. Mass transit.

The search for alternative fuels is a colossal waste of time AND ENERGY! Instead of looking for the back door out of our problems we should be facing the elephant in the room. He stinks and is eating us out of house and home. Maybe we can use his farts as fuel. q:-)

The oil companies say they are making a massive investment in the search for more oil. If this is supposed to reasure, I’m not getting it.

I would also add that the on-going search, by the coal industry, for a way to liquefy or gasify coal appears to have found it’s answer – burn the coal to produce ethanol. Oh, brother. How does that help reduce green house gasses? It’s just stupid!

to be continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We're all missing the point Posted by: Larry Brewer
» RE: We're all missing the point Posted by: IndyElliott
clean renewable fuel
Posted by: dkm on Mar 26, 2006 7:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For what it's worth, when I was a Peace Corps volunteer back in the early 70's in Brazil, I visited a sugar plantation where their whole system was self-contained. After they squeezed the juice out of the cane, the left over bagassa was then burned to provide heat and electricity to evaporate the water out of the syrup leaving molasses, run the machinery and distil cachaza, the national "poison."

If it was technically feasible for them then, why isn't it feasible for us now? Obviously any CO2 that went into the air came from the plants which had previously removed the CO2 from the air, so it was a net removal of CO2 because some of what had been removed went into molasses and alcohol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clean renewable fuel Posted by: Karen Orr
Fuel used vs. Fuel Produced
Posted by: plus1111 on Mar 27, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see if they get as much energy out as they put in. Considering the fertilizer and fuel required to grow corn along with the energy required to make the ethanol, I have doubts about the actual benefits, if any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the people have to plan the biofuels industry
Posted by: rtdrury on Apr 11, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Let's not pretend that laissez-faire capitalism can plan the biofuels industry for us.

The ethanol refinery should probably be fired with ethanol. Eliminates the coal mining and transport. Easily controlled burn, minimizing extraneous pollutants. Ethanol powers the field machines too.

The biofuel production/consumption cycle takes carbon out of the atmosphere and returns it for a net zero carbon gain. Using fossil fuel suppliment simply makes the biofuel industry a net carbon emitter. Fossil inputs should be detered with tax penalties.

Ethanol should be compared with biodiesel. Diesel engines are more efficient than ethanol engines so both this factor and fuel production costs should be considered in deciding which to do. Maybe both if the scrap out of the biodiesel process can become ethanol.

Biofuels production challenges include soil & water conservation and monoculture vulnerabilities. Intensive cultivation, synthetic fertilizers, irrigation, and pesticides are wasteful approaches at best, and terribly destructive at worst.

Polyculture techniques should be applied with tight management. Polyculture includes optimizing the crop genes not for profit but for true efficiency in all aspects, to minimize all those wasteful monoculture inputs. It also includes multi-cropping to maintain the soil and for efficiency. It's a complex challenge. People are working on it.

Our biofuels production can't sustain growth to billions of people driving 8 mpg SUVs 100 miles per day. Most people will drive less than 10 miles per day, and most of those will be in 150 mpg diesel hybrids with solar electric suppliment. Powerful internal combustion engines will still be used in specialty & industrial vehicles.

The people have to demand that the industry be organized efficiently. Capital can NOT perform this task independently. The people would be VERY WISE to demand strict limits on the size of biofuels enterprises to under 250 acres, the proven efficiency peak for farms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]