Biofuel

When I was planning my next issues analysis, I thought I might write about alternative energy. It’s one of the most talked-about environmental topics, and with good reason. Replacing fossil fuels with clean energy technologies in the U.S. will be, quite logically, very expensive. At the same time, there’s a lot of potential in solar, wind, and biofuel sources. For example, Dr. David Mills, the Founder, Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer of Ausra, a solar power manufacturer, estimates that all the energy needs of the U.S. can be met by a 92x92 sq. mile solar generator strategically placed in the southwest.

The more I looked at the topic, though, the more I became interested in one aspect of alternative energy. Namely, biofuel.

Using biofuel as a replacement/supplement for gasoline in the U.S. automotive fleet could be a near-term solution to global warming. By near-term, I mean that it could feasibly be implemented in the next few years on a widespread scale. Yet, ethanol, one type of biofuel, has come under increasing fire by environmentalists and other groups, who fear that the corn-based energy source suffers from an energy input-yield problem, and may endanger food supplies. David Pimental even went as far as to call the production of ethanol “unsustainable subsidized food burning."

So what does the realm of environmental blogging have to say about ethanol and other biofuels?

• Treehugger: Treehugger acknowledges that biofuels may have a role to play in battle royale against global warming, but has any number of reservations about it. According to their research in this article U.S. ethanol production accounted for 4% of the global increase in corn production in 2007. In 2004, ethanol production only accounted for roughly .33% of that increase. The writers at Treehugger question the economic rationality of that growth, and voiced concerns that biofuels were being poorly implemented. Treehugger is particularly concerned about the effects of biofuels in developing nations; here they argue that developing nations are well-suited to the production of corn or cellulosic biofuels, but that the deforestation stemming from the increasing biofuel production would offset the carbon emissions reduction caused by the widespread implementation of biofuel. Treehugger cited statistic in this article demonstrating that the production of palm oil for biofuel may currently "account for up to 8% of worldwide carbon emissions." Still, Treehugger remains cautiously optimistic about biofuel, and believes that if the alternative energy source were cut free from special interests, and developed on a limited and efficient scale, it could provide one source of fuel.
• EcoGeek: EcoGeek made a very interesting point in this article; we have been concentrating on producing a biofuel to power a vehicle, but what about using other green materials in the construction of said vehicle. For example, the article cites a car built by University of Warwick students that uses plant-based oil for a lubricant, and has "cashew nut shell brakepads." That is quite cool, if I don't say so myself. Novelty aside, EcoGeek is very negative about ethanol, but favors the production of cellulosic ethanol--a biofuel that is created from lignocellulose, which comprises the mass of plants. Using cellulosic ethanol could more than double yields, since most of the plant is converted into fuel, rather than just the starches or gluten. Currently, cellulosic ethanol is produced primarily through non-edible switchgrass. Another biofuel EcoGeek is putting stock in is butanol, a more energy dense, gasoline-like cousin to ethanol. Finally, EcoGeek had a really interesting report about the oil-giant, Shell, producing biofuel from algae, which would apparently clear up a lot of the land-use issues ethanol is being criticize for, since it would (logically) be produced in bodies of water.
• Worldchanging: My search for "biofuel" returned 256 related items on Worldchanging's blog. So, evidently they've put a lot of time and thought into this particular subject. Worldchanging shares a lot of the same concerns that TreeHugger expressed. From this article, it's clear that the blog doesn't support converting undisturbed land into cropland to support biofuel, but favors using 2nd-generation biofuel (which is effectively lignocelloluse). For a decent explanation of 2nd generation biofuels, check out this BBC article. Like TreeHugger, Worldchanging didn't toss ethanol and other energy-intensive biofuels out the window completely. Instead, Worldchanging's writers believe that ethanol, etc. needs on a sustainable scale in conjunction with other diversified energy sources. Also, thanks to Worldchanging, I discovered that people are apparently able to make a fish-oil based biofuel. This article on Worldchanging explains it all, but I guess more than 8 million gallons a year are produced in Alaska as a byproduct of fish processing plants, and the state uses it to power vehicles and generators in Denali National Park. Kudos to you, Alaska...

• Grist: Grist has a wonderfully convenient feature series on "biofuel" that has articles on everything; from the chemical construction of different biofuels to a list of prominent biofuel proponents they've got it all. Seriously, if you're interested at all in the biofuel debate, visit the above link; it explains so much. Anyway, endorsements aside, the writers at Grist have a number of reservations about biofuels. "But plant-derived fuel doesn't emerge from a vacuum. Crops must be cultivated, harvested, moved, and transformed -- processes that are hardly carbon neutral. And here is where the vast discrepancies cloaked by the term "biofuels" emerge," they stated in one of their articles. Also, Grist is the first website I've found that specifically mentioned the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit on ethanol production in the U.S. For a full explanation of what a tax credit is, click on this Energy Star link--it's basically a direct tax reduction. Juxtapose that against the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff the U.S. tacks on to sugar cane ethanol from Brazil--which is a very efficient biofuel producer, nationally. Clearly there are quite a few special interest concerns wrapped up in this debate.
• The Lazy Environmentalist: The blogs I've reviewed so far appear to have reached somewhat of a consensus of biofuels, so I was hoping that, sooner or later, I'd run into someone with a different take on the matter. Enter Josh Dorfman, the author of Lazy Environmentalist. Though his blog doesn't feature any discussions on biofuel--at least not that I could find--his nationally-syndicated radio talk show has hosted a bevy of decidedly pro-ethanol speakers. In one day, on March 27, 2007, Dorfman spoke with Derrick Earles, the then-candidate for the a Louisiana state representative position. Take a look at his Earles' endorsement of ethanol here (scroll halfway down on that page to see it). Dorfman also spoke with the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council (their "Facts" page on ethanol is rather positive about widespread ethanol production). In this case, Dorfman's support seems unconditional; where many of my previous case studies expressed reservations about ethanol, he has not (to my knowledge) brought any ethanol critics on his radio show yet, nor expressed any reservations about the fuel source on his website.
• Green Options: GO also voiced concerns about ethanol and biofuel. For reference, take a look at this article on their website, which discusses some of the negative impacts the heavy fertilization of ethanol-producing corn growers could have on groundwater (not to mention the "Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico). Though GO is definitely on the negative end of the spectrum when it comes to ethanol, they're a little more warm-hearted in their cellulosic ethanol discussion, and even labeled it a "promising technology."