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
  • 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

Biodiesel: The Fuel That Doesn't Kill Us

By Joshua Scheer, Truthdig. Posted February 6, 2007.


Annie Nelson, wife of Willie Nelson, speaks about community-based biodiesel production as a way of restoring dignity to family farmers, the environment, the economy and national security.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: Annie Nelson, wife of Willie Nelson and co-chairperson of the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance, spoke to Joshua Scheer about the myth that alternative fuels are years away.

Scheer: Did you see the State of the Union?

Nelson: Yeah, I stomached as much as I could.

Scheer: Did you see what the president said about ethanol? ... He did say one sentence or one line about biodiesel. Did any of that resonate with you?

Nelson: Yeah, about as much as it did the last time he said it. I mean, it's all a bit of -- it's just talk. You know, they give 13 gazillion dollars to the oil and gas industry as some welfare for these people who are making phenomenal historic record-breaking profits, and less than -- I think it's 7.7 [billion] for research into alternative fuels which are already here. It's lip service. It's all lip service.

Scheer: And what's your involvement in biodiesel?

Nelson: Pretty much we're proponents. I don't know how else to say it. We're in production. We have partnerships with Pacific Biodiesel Texas and Pacific Biodiesel, and we are doing community production of biodiesel. And our intent is to keep them community [based] and then promote that idea where each community ... can and should create their own fuel, and let that be the market for the community.

Scheer: What is biodiesel?

Nelson: It is the fuel that obviously powers -- I'm going to go real elementary, right?

Scheer: Yeah.

Nelson: The fuel that powers a diesel engine. Biodiesel needs to run in a diesel engine, and what it does -- where it comes from are several sources. It can come from recycled cooking oil, which then keeps that junk out of landfills; several plant seed stocks from seeds and those types of things; the rendering of animals, just you name it. There are tons of ways to get it. There's a process where they remove the glycerin -- that's biodiesel. You can put pure cooking oil into your car, but you have to have a converter inside of it. But just any regular diesel [vehicle] can run on biodiesel because it's been refined, which means the glycerin has been taken out.

Scheer: So ... you can actually drive on recycled cooking oil?

Nelson: Yes, the diesel engine was designed to run on peanut and hemp oil, not petroleum. But then again Rudolf Diesel disappeared over the Atlantic. It never was intended to run on petroleum, and in fact I think an interesting connection is if you go -- if you check out the Prohibition era, when the government was going after stills that were on farms and such, a lot of those stills were producing ethanol and biodiesel for -- mainly ethanol -- for farm production, for their machinery. That's what happened. There were so many people involved in it, in that whole deal, that Prohibition was probably a whole lot less about alcohol and a whole lot more about killing the renewable energy possibilities. Obviously the petroleum companies were behind it.

Scheer: What's the difference between biodiesel and ethanol?

Nelson: Well, ethanol is almost like -- and I'm not an expert on ethanol at all, so let me just put that disclaimer in there immediately -- it's more like a grain alcohol, almost. It's from sugar. It's a plant that needs to have a particular cellulose to create a gasoline-type fuel. But it's mainly turning the sugar into fuel.

Scheer: With ethanol we know how much money has been given to Iowa and other states where ethanol is being produced. On Biodiesel.org, they say there's no government program to support them. Do you have an opinion on that?

Nelson: Biodiesel.org is an actual biodiesel board and there are many others. They're just one entity, and they're fine. They tend to have a lot more large producers and a lot of soybean people. Our whole deal, and we just actually formed -- Daryl Hannah and I are co-chairs and Kelly King and Laura Louie, who is Woody Harrelson's wife, and a group of us just formed the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance, where our intent is to focus specifically on sustainable community biodiesel production.

And if it ends up being ethanol as well at some future date, that's fine, but the whole point is to keep it community -- to eliminate the ADMs and the Cargills and those people ... large oil companies from just transferring their monopoly on Middle Eastern oil to home-produced, naturally produced fuel. Right now they can ... it's really a matter of connecting the farm bill with our national security bills and those types of things without allowing one group or one industry to control our energy, whether it be from the Middle East or from our own country. If it's domestically produced, that should be domestically distributed as well. We're here to protect the family farmers and the community co-ops that want to produce their own fuel and sell it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: willie nelson, annie nelson, alternative fuels, ethanol, biodiesel

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:
Ethanol - Not the way to go
Posted by: seamus on Feb 6, 2007 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bio-ethanol whether produced on a local or industrial scale may plug a gap between peak oil and the development of a solar or hydrogen-based economy but to become dependent on it would be collective suicide.
The energy gain from ethanol is marginal.
Cellulose from wood-chip has a much bigger potential energy gain but the agriculture industry has a lot to gain from ethanol which explains the hype surrounding the product.

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

» Petroleum - not the way to go Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: thanol - Not the way to go Posted by: Logic's Edge
Willie Nelson!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2007 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Bush:
Nelson: "Yeah, about as much as it did the last time he said it. I mean, it's all a bit of -- it's just talk. You know, they give 13 gazillion dollars to the oil and gas industry as some welfare for these people who are making phenomenal historic record-breaking profits, and less than -- I think it's 7.7 [billion] for research into alternative fuels which are already here. It's lip service. It's all lip service."

On farms:
Nelson: "We're already doing it. There are so many people already doing it. In fact, taking people and putting them back on land. Even if we just put them back on their land and let them buy their farms back. Put them back on land that's sitting fallow right now. Let them grow food for ourselves and fuel. Then each community would start thriving again."

The fact is, the oil industry is scared of biofuels; they're scared of losing their market share as energy efficient cars start getting 60 mpg instead of 12, and can run on biofuels instead of petroleum, and they're scared of governments enacting regulations capping fossil fuel carbon emissions over global warming.

Their response? - a truly massive blitz of propaganda, media blackouts, and blatant lies - but this is the end of the age of the fossil fuel dinosaurs, and that's the reality.

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

UK Commentator - We should ALL be afraid of Bio-Diesel
Posted by: GoodByeToAmerica on Feb 6, 2007 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the starving Mexicans who have seen their staple food source (Tortillas), rise 400% due to the corn being used for ethanol production instead will finally put paid to this riduculous idea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6319093.stm

What is so hard for people out there to understand that B-D is never going to help any one? It is a "fossil fuel" by any measure. You need to destroy plants to create it, and you need to destroy billions of tonnes of plant material to even begin to make any inroads into our Hydrocarbon consumption. In fact, that is how we should describe these fuels, "Hydrocarbons". If it's Hydrocarbon based, it is going to produce CO2 and all those other nasties and have exactly the same effect as burning oil, it's just that oil is a more concentrated form for the most part. Just as coal is concentrated wood, I don't see any one calling for wood fired power stations. Why not? It makes as much sense as growing plants for makin B-D. Just because you can grow new plants, does not make it "renewable". By that score oil is a renewable resource, it just takes a bit longer to renew. These people really have to let Bio-Diesels go, get into the real possibilities, Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Nuclear etc etc. Ethanol and Bio-Diesel are hydrocarbons; Hydrocarbons are bad.

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

» Neutral Zone Posted by: edith
» It's not carbon neutral Posted by: brad
» RE: It's not carbon neutral Posted by: drmflorida
Don't Forget The Water!
Posted by: TarryFaster on Feb 6, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ethanol, being promoted by the heavily subsidized corn industry, is contigent on there being plenty of water for the very thirsty corn. Well, the wells in the main water table of the breadbasket of America are going dry. Click here.

Hemp, on the other hand, uses far less water than corn and has a LOT of other uses, as well.

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

Biofuels
Posted by: gellero on Feb 6, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL biofuels contain less BTU's than petroleum. Takes a lot more of it to move a vehicle a mile. But here's an idea, let the majority of humans - the residents of the Third (aka Turd ) World - who are mostly involved in basic agriculture anyway, develop and use this technology. That way we'll be able to save their economies, save the world from their desire for a petroleum base life, and maintain our own petroleum based standard of living.
And for that matter, if biofuel is so good, who cares if it's not distributed widely. Let Ms. Willy push for powerplants in the corn belt that use this great stuff. Ever wonder why that's not happening???? I suspect because it WON'T WORK.

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

» Here's a fact for you... Posted by: bassman
» BS Posted by: gellero
let's kill 7 billion peoble
Posted by: swissliberal on Feb 6, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so that a quarter billion american can proceed their way of life. To use food to power cars is insane and inhumane!
If - I say if- one has to use cars, electrical power is far more efficient. But to move a ton of iron to move a 80kg person is not a very intelligent idea. For energy production use geothermics, wind, hydro and solar power and of course: saving! There are houses built which need no additional heating. To use a car which consumes 3 litres/100km instead of 12 is a good start as well.
The US population wastes above 10'000 Watts per Person, Switzerland (with higher living standard) 6'000, India 300W.

Sorry for using the metric system.

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

» RE: let's kill 7 billion peoble Posted by: richholland
» RE: I could not agree more Posted by: channing
We need to start discussing REAL alternatives
Posted by: commonMan on Feb 6, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to start discussing REAL alternatives and the UNH Biodiesel Group report is the best starting point. Proof of a sustainable fuel production from algae due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates provided here at University of New Hampshire, Physics Department UNH Biodiesel Group.

Yields from agricultural crops :

Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre
Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre
Mustard: 140 US gal/acre
Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre
Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre

Yields from algae:
Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre

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

» Glad you mentioned algae Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Glad you mentioned algae Posted by: commonMan
The false arguement concerning' waste' oil
Posted by: brad on Feb 6, 2007 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Waste oil from deep fryers and other sources does not go into the land fill as Ms. Nelson claims. It is turned into animal feed. Recently the increase in use of this 'waste' oil to make bio-fuel has forced animal feed manufacturers to include more virgin oil. So, it is not a complete solution, just a hidden one.

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

RE: Algae not an alternative.
Posted by: commonMan on Feb 6, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Straight out of the report I mentioned above:

First, we need to understand exactly how much biodiesel would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels. So, we need to start with how much petroleum is currently used for that purpose. Per the Department of Energy's statistics, each year the US consumes roughly 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel and 120 billion gallons of gasoline. First, we need to realize that spark-ignition engines that run on gasoline are generally about 40% less efficient than diesel engines. So, if all spark-ignition engines are gradually replaced with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines for running biodiesel, we wouldn't need 120 billion gallons of biodiesel to replace that 120 billion gallons of gasoline. To be conservative, we will assume that the average gasoline engine is 35% less efficient, so we'd need 35% less diesel fuel to replace that gasoline. That would work out to 78 billion gallons of diesel fuel. Combine that with the 60 billion gallons of diesel already used, for a total of 138 billion gallons. Now, biodiesel is about 5-8% less energy dense than petroleum diesel, but its greater lubricity and more complete combustion offset that somewhat, leading to an overall fuel efficiency about 2% less than petroleum diesel. So, we'd need about 2% more than that 138 billion gallons, or 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel. So, this figure is based on vehicles equivalent to those in use today, but with compression-ignition (Diesel) engines running on biodiesel, rather than a mix of petroleum diesel and gasoline. Combined diesel-electric hybrids in wide use, as well as fewer people driving large SUVs when they don't need such a vehicle would of course bring this number down considerably, but for now we'll just stick with this figure. (note - my point here is not to claim that conservation is not worthwhile, rather to strictly look at the issue of replacing our current use of fuel with biodiesel - to see how achievable that is). I would like to point out though that a preferable scenario would include a shift to diesel-electric hybrid vehicles (preferably with the ability to be recharged and drive purely on electric power for a short range, perhaps 20-40 miles, to provide the option of zero emissions for in-city driving), and with far fewer people buying 6-8,000 pound SUVs merely to commute to work in by themselves. Those changes could drastically reduce the amount of fuel required for our automotive transportation, and are technologically feasibly currently.

The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production1. The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants. Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems they encountered along the way. (Continued)

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

RE: Algae not an alternative. (continued)
Posted by: commonMan on Feb 6, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL ended.

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

The algae farms would not all need to be built in the same location, of course (and should not for a variety of reasons). The case mentioned above of building it all in the Sonora desert is purely a hypothetical example to illustrate the amount of land required. It would be preferable to spread the algae production around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in transporting the feedstocks. Algae farms could also be constructed to use waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from animal farms) as a food source, which would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae production around the country. Nutrients can also be extracted from the algae for the production of a fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous. By using waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human sewage) as the nutrient source, these farms essentially also provide a means of recycling nutrients from fertilizer to food to waste and back to fertilizer. Extracting the nutrients from algae provides a far safer and cleaner method of doing this than spreading manure or wastewater treatment plant "bio-solids" on farmland.

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

» Now the question is Posted by: WhatNow?
Corporated America is the problem
Posted by: richholland on Feb 6, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The companies want to make profit so even when you can drive a car on water or chicken shit a Profitmaking Center will control it.
And politicians will tell you that people who use water not bought at the All AmericanWatercompamy are non patriotic and probably terrorists.
So please understand that the so called Free Market Economy is responsible for many problems worldwide.
The solution is not global economy but also Community based production.

(in 1944/1945 in Amsterdam as in many European countries the municipalitybuses had a kettle on the roof a woodconverter, so there are alternatives

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

wood chip not viable
Posted by: hennep on Feb 6, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annual crops such as elephant grass (hemp too, its useful side product being the seeds for bio deisel) provide more per acre per year than wood chip coppice which is better utilised as burning fuel for electricty plants and communial heating. Ethanol from annual crops is where the cash is needed to breed more productive genotypes under less input systems (little or NO artifical fertilizers and herb/pesticides) and refine the production process.
Also ethanol poduction from corn costs more enegry to make than it gives, however from sugar cane it costs less due to it differing in its basic chemical composition which is easily converted.

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

A few more issues
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, there are far better sources of ethanol and biodiesel then fossil fuel-intensive industrial corn production. Brazils' sugarcane system, Canada's Iogen and their cellulosic ethanol system, and growing algae for both ethanol and biodiesel production - even hemp cultivation for cellulosic ethanol - are all better then corn ethanol production using fossil fuels as the energy input.

Even investment fund managers are aware of the need to switch to renewables: Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks... Cheney - by Brett Arends

The fact is you will need a whole host of combined approaches, from sustainable biofuels to solar photovoltaic and water heating to wind-powered turbines, and a vast increase in energy efficient systems - from light bulbs to hybrids to electric trains - because 'replacing current US petroleum demand' is nonsense - reducing current US petroleum demand is what's needed.

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

» You got it! Posted by: WhatNow?
Ethanol and probably BioDiesel will and already has get in the way of food production
Posted by: neogaia on Feb 6, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The price of tortillas recently went up 400% in Mexico. Why? Because more of US corn production is being diverted to the production of ethanol. This high demand is driving up the price and WALLA! poor Mexicans just find that much harder to eat because we have to have our big SUVs and can't even reduce some of our driving habit!

Using ethanol and even partially ethanol will and already has gotten in the way of food production.

Ethanol has its pros and cons and it seems like partially good alternative but this is a pretty big con.

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

» Moving or Eating: I can't decide Posted by: eddie torres
thudson56
Posted by: thudson on Feb 6, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are all aware that bio-diesel is different from ethanol, right? NOW on PBS did a show on this, and Willie Nelson and his group are using the waste product from cotton farming (i.e., the seeds that get removed) to produce the oil that can run diesel engines. And if it is regional, the fuel used in transporting it is much less, which is part of why they advocate that, along with giving local farmers a market. I would not consider ethanol from corn or sugar cane any sort of replacement for gas. It comes to an overall net loss in oil consumption because of the fuel used to cultivate it and transport it, as well as the petroleum products used to fertilize, etc. To produce enough ethanol to reduce our oil use would mean we cover every available space with crops (corn or sugar cane) just for that purpose. But biodiesel, if produced locally from waste product helps farmers stay solvent and can truly reduce our dependence on a non-renewable resource.

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

Keep dreaming.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 6, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Industrialism won't kill you as long as you use biodiesel... keep dreaming.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

» RE: Keep dreaming. Posted by: Douglas
» Thanks. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: name-calling v. criticism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Also, Brad... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Also, Brad... Posted by: brad
There IS a silver lining. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 6, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Willie talks about returning to local production of biodiesel and revitalizing small communities, he may be ahead of a coming, inevitable, shift in society. To wit:

We are about to pass peak oil, after which the supply will dwindle as demand skyrockets in places like China and India. It will become more difficult, much more difficult and expensive, to transport goods trans Pacific and Atlantic, via air cargo, or even long distances over land by truck. Biodiesel can easily be produced locally, a Willie points out, potentially making farmers the least affected by catastrophically-rising petroleum diesel prices – if they produce for local consumption.

As fossil-fuels' use is reduced because of shortages, and their affect on atmospheric heating, local production of electricity, through photovoltaic and wind generation, etc., will become more pervasive. This is already happening in places like Germany, where, through innovative loan programs, rooftops all over the country have been festooned with solar panels.

If there is any silver lining to the very dark and ominous clouds gathering over our future on this planet, it may be the inevitable move to local control of energy and food production in smaller communities. We just may get back the sense of belonging and care for each other that living in vast, impersonal cities has destroyed – and that would be a good thing for all of us.

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

Would we kill for oil?
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 6, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Report this comment]
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 6, 2007 9:11 AM
Check the archives of New York Magazine, October 14, 1974.
The comic strip style cover shows President Ford and Henry Kissinger wearing Army fatigues, leading a small band of Navy Seal types carrying bazookas onto the beach of an oil rich Arab nation, while shouting to his troops 'Are we gonna let these wogs kick sand in our faces? Notice the oil rig in the background. The title of the article was ''Would we really kill for oil?' I guess we know the answer to that question.

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

Change our behavior, not our fuel
Posted by: PT Alden on Feb 6, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to start looking at how we behave, not at newer types of fuel that allow us to keep killing ourselves and the planet so we can keep driving our cars. Americans are lazy and ignorant when it comes to looking at how we behave, and we are loathe to take any serious form of responsibility for our behavior.

This is how we've ended up where we are. I don't give a damn if Willie Nelson supports it. It's another lame idea from those in love with the status quo. Willie should stick with what he knows best, smoking pot and playing country music.


Wake Up People!

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

When do the die-offs happen?
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 6, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read through the comments to this interview. Most posters here are complete idiots, eithe rthat or having their "special" moments. The die-offs can't come too soon.

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

» You first! Posted by: MAD
Nuke it and smoke it
Posted by: solrev on Feb 6, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does nuke electricity scare you people so much. Your fears are making you irrational.

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

» Lets see... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Question Posted by: NoPCZone
We had a major energy conservation program; Bush killed it
Posted by: Rune on Feb 6, 2007 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone remember Cheney saying something about energy conservation being a sign of "personal virtue" but that it had nothing to do with a serious national energy policy? That was back in the Spring of 2001, before 9/11 seemed to warp everyone's minds and memory. The reason he was talking about conservation in such dismissive terms was that one of the first decisions reached by Cheney and his back room buddies from the energy companies was to kill a federal program Clinton had put in place before leaving office that would reduce energy consumption by 45% if fully implemented.

To put that in perspective, if we were able to magically turn every drop of waste cooking oil into biodiesel without using any energy or unpleasant chemicals, and without throwing away a bunch of waste (none of which is true), we would only offset 5% of the diesel used in the U.S., and diesel is a minor fuel source as it is. And solar amounts to only a fraction of 1% of total energy used in the U.S. These alternative fuels just won't scale up very quickly even if we throw gobs of money at them, and when we do, we end up destroying other parts of the environment that are just as critical, if not more so, to our lives and the lives of the plants and animals that keep this planet livable.

We need to consume less energy, first and foremost. And investments in energy conservation deliver about seven times more bang for the buck than new energy development. So why all the hype about minor energy sources rife with shortcomings and unintended consequences when we can use off the shelf technology and, perhaps, some social reorganization and rebuilding of infrastructure to significantly reduce the energy intensity of our lives in perpetuity?

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

Thank you Willie Nelson for bringing hemp into the discussion.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 6, 2007 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America needs to wake up and learn what hit them 70 years ago.

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

The real reason Big Oil is completely opposed to biofuel production
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact of the matter is that economist who work for oil companies probably don't think beyond the next five years, and one of their main jobs is to forecast demand for petroleum products.

Over the next five years, it's unlikely that solar, wind and electric vehicles will take up any significant share of the transportation fuel market - so the oil corporations (who mainly rely on tranportation fuel sales for their profit margins, along with government-subsidized control of foreign oilfields) don't feel threatened by such factors.

However, the existing fleet of US vehicles could switch right over to using blended fuels - 10% ethanol in gasoline and 10% biodiesel in gasoline can be run in any exisiting vehicle with no need for modification, including hybrids. Once these fuels become acceptable, you could see car companies building a lot of ethanol-electric plug-in hybrids which could get 100 miles to the gallon. This could all happen within a few years, leading to a dramatic decline in demand for petroleum products - and warm winters due to global warming have also cut into Big Oil's second-most-lucrative market, heating oil sales.

Seeing this reality, the international oil corporations have over the past year or so launched a massive and covert assault on biofuels, using the same roster of propaganda tricks that they're using to prevent action on global warming. That's the reality behind the news headlines and the spin about "Mexico can't buy corn because of ethanol" - when that particular story is all about NAFTA trade rules and corporate agribusiness monopolies.

The only truly electric vehicle on the market right now is the Tesla Motors version, and you can bet that the oil companies are working overtime to prevent a low-cost economy version from coming on the market.

"Douglas" was recently howling about the GM Volt being an 'affordable electric car' but the truth is different: 1) it's a plug-in hybrid not a true EV, and 2) despite the hype and all the press coverage that GM arranged, "... this one's just a concept for now, with no potential production plans in sight."

We should support all forms of biofuel production - it's far better than stealing oil from Iraq and Africa at the point of a gun, isn't it? At the same time, we should support sustainable agriculture, a ban on coal-fired energy generation, and an end to foreign oil imports and military adventurism overseas - and spend all that money on building a solar-wind powered renewable energy economy.

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

» I WANT my MTV Posted by: edith
» I WANT my MTV Posted by: edith
now willie
Posted by: john henry on Feb 6, 2007 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
willie is right about biodiesel you get more for the money you put in for what it cost you get 75 or 80 per cent back on the money you put in that from the seed to the tank now etanol you get about 20 or 25 per cent for you money that from seed to tank now wind power is good if it is in your back yard or on the coast on a bluff an the town is there to use it now solar panels how about a panel about the size of texas an you will get about 2 percent that state will use so here are some facts you all can look up the facts are there if anybody want to look it up on the tub

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

And What Are You Doing?
Posted by: VoxPopuli on Feb 6, 2007 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I walk a lot. Everywhere. I occasionally use public (electric) transportation. I am delightfully surprised when I hear the laboring diesel motor pass followed by the faint smell of...french fries! This is RARE. I read a lot of submissions on topics like this, but what are you doing about it? I get the feeling that, like most Americans, even the people supposedly "interested" in this topic are expecting the government, the corporations, or your mothers, to decide for you. Willie Nelson is an American Icon and a leader for a movement that others will just criticize from their ivory-petroleum tower. At least he's doing SOMETHING. By the way, the buses I ride and this computer I am using and the lamp in my office are all powered by HYDRO. Electric cars are great, but what charges the batteries?

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

You might find this article interesting: MIT algal research project
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2007 9:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up on the roof, algae appetites may transform waste into energy

Every algae's got a hungry heart, and--who knew?--some algae are especially hungry for the tasty toxins in modern smog. For example, single-cell algae readily consume carbon dioxide and other power plant emissions and emit oxygen during photosynthesis.

This makes single-cell algae tiny power plants in their own right--power plants that may transform toxic emissions to renewable energy, according to Isaac Berzin, 37, a former postdoctoral student in chemical engineering and founder of a Cambridge-based company, GreenFuel Technologies.

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

» Thanks Posted by: WhatNow?
Glad to see you are supporting sustainable well-designed biofuel programs
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2007 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See - we really can come to an agreement on this important issue! Fossil fuel-supported agriculture is a bad idea, and fossil-fuel fired ethanol distilleries are a bad idea, and fossil fuels in general should be done away with.

Cheers!

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

Wrong
Posted by: vkobaya on Feb 7, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biodiesel and ethanol are bad choices, at best, a stopgap measure when we run out of petroleum without doing anything to solve the petroleum crisis. Both add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as gasoline and raising the crops to produce either biodiesel oil or ethanol are both very energy intensive processes. Some even think that the amount of energy invested to grow biodiesl or ethanol crops is, at best, only a slightly better than break even process. We must get away from carbon combustion as an energy source to renewable energy sources, solar, wind, geothermal and eventually fusion as those are the only way to avoid adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and increasing global warming.

While on the subject of other deliberately deceptive alternate fuel sources, hydrogen is another false lead. Hydrogen is produced from the input of energy and the best possible efficiency is only 30%. The best source of hydrogen is hydrocarbons, that is petroleum. Water is the second best source of hydrogen by a long margin.

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

WVO!
Posted by: bassman on Feb 8, 2007 8:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am in a band, and we tour all around the country in a 40' diesel bus. Man, the smell out the back of that bus was gross. We did some soul searching and decided to convert the bus to run off of Waste Vegetable Oil. It takes time to collect and filter, but let me tell you, we get just as many miles and just as much power off of the fryer grease as we got off of diesel. Now, when rolling down the street, we smell like egg rolls! God bless the Nelsons and everyone else who attempts to make a difference.

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

There Is Not One Way To Repair Our Energy Problems
Posted by: 1mauimom on Feb 12, 2007 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had no idea that AlterNet had picked up this interview, bt am glad it was pointed out to me after seeing the voices of the petroleum industry had taken over the comments for the purpose of contining their dumbing down of the American people.

The SBA (SUSTAINABLE Biodiesel Alliance, Inc.) will have their website up and operating within the next 2 weeks, to counter comments just like these following my interview.

There is not only one way to solve our energy problems, biodiesel does not take food from anyone's mouth, it does not require petroleum products to produce it, biodiesel is not ethanol, passive energy (wind, geothermal, wave, solar) is not, at this point, a viable transportation energy, and we must get ourselves out of the mind set that only one type of fuel will power our country, and it's energy independence from unstable sources, in the future.

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

kaneh bosm
Posted by: garry minor on Feb 12, 2007 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cannabis, hemp, kaneh bosm!!!!!!!
The tree of life!!!!!!!

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

What a waste
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 12, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not even going to read this one.
Bio-Deisel! Yep that's what I want freaken want! higher prices on food grown with Chemicals.
What's wrong with the things tha