Tragedy of the Commons: ethanol

Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts

Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Tech Watch

Joule Biotechnologies has announced what could be quite a revolution in 3rd generation biofuels. They claim to have created a process using engineered microorganisms that can convert CO2 and sunlight directly into fuel.

This eco-friendly, direct-to-fuel conversion requires no agricultural land or fresh water, and leverages a highly scalable system capable of producing more than 20,000 gallons of renewable ethanol or hydrocarbons per acre annually—far eclipsing productivity levels of current alternatives while rivaling the costs of fossil fuels.

They claim to be able to one day compete with $50 per barrel oil and are forecasting commercial scale ethanol production in 2010.

Liquid fuel technology will continue to play a pivotal role in transportation until battery technology is radically improved. If able to scale, this seems to be a great way to keep downward pressure on fuel costs, recycle CO2, reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and perhaps export technology and clean fuel around the globe.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Why Ethanol - Not Electric Cars and Hybrids - Is the Answer

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures explains why biofuels are the answer for fossil fuel replacement for personal transportation in the near term. As I have said before, liquid fuels are key to providing economical transportation. He also brings up the point that first generation biofuels (corn ethanol) are only stepping stones to more viable and efficient future fuels.

Also important to remember is the busted link between corn ethanol and American food prices. This "fact" was thrown around in the media last year as food and fuel prices soared. In hindsight, the sharp increase in corn prices had a much stronger correlation to the commodities bubble than an increase in ethanol production, which is conveniently overlooked.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Ethanol Petition

If you'd like the option to buy E15 rather than just E10, please sign the petition at ethanol.org:

http://www.ethanol.org/petition/

I believe we should be allowed to choose more clean, American-made renewable fuel for our cars. The federal government arbitrarily limits the use of ethanol in a gallon of gasoline to just 10 percent, a regulation that is standing in the way of new green jobs, jeopardizing progress toward advanced biofuels, and putting energy security at risk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering whether to allow the use of up to 15 percent ethanol, which would enable consumers to choose between fuels that contain no ethanol and any blend up to 15%.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

America's First Biofuels Corridor

Interstate 65 is now America's first biofuels corridor. E85 Ethanol and B20 Biodiesel blends are available the entire length of the Interstate, from Gary, Indiana to Mobile, Alabama. A driver is now no more than a quarter-tank's drive from a fuel retailer carrying E85.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53773

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Strategies for the Energy Crisis

Here's an interesting interview examining energy policy and greenhouse emissions.

After nearly 30 years at Caltech as a professor of theoretical physics and, eventually, provost, Steven Koonin took a leave of absence in 2004 to become BP's chief scientist. After a year of study, he recommended a strategy for the company that has included investments in unconventional sources of oil as well as renewable energies such as solar.
...

TR: What's the best way to reduce gas consumption?

SK: Raising the price of driving is the simplest way to induce conservation and efficiency. Look at how much response we saw when the price of gasoline went up to $4.50 a gallon. We've seen it work over the last year. But raising gas prices is very difficult politically to do. In fact, you see the candidates going in the opposite direction.

The prices for gas and for carbon need to be high enough to make some difference, so that means there will be some pain. And it needs to be stable enough so that people can make long-term investments for deploying alternative technologies.
...
TR: So the markets aren't going to solve these problems?

SK: Left to its own devices, the market will not price the externality of carbon dioxide, nor will it effectively deal with the security-of-supply problem. I think [that's] because it's longer term, and the markets have a shorter-term focus. I think markets are good for tactical allocation, but it's not obvious to me that they're the right thing for strategic allocation [or] longer-term planning.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Newspeak?

Begin rant...

Why does everything have to be black or white, one or zero, good or evil?

In the infinite wisdom of Forrest Gump contemplating the true meaning of life, "I, I think maybe it's both".

This has manifested itself to me in many current subjects (war in Iraq, any political debate, American Idol). As an example, let's reflect on bio-fuels...

Up until recently, ethanol was good. But not just good, it was our savior. It would save the earth, our pocketbooks and eliminate our reliance on foreign fossil fuels. Now, when we need it most, there has been a small, but vocal up swell of dissidence. Ethanol is not good, it is ungood, it is EVIL! It kills babies, makes your food double in cost, creates unmentionable environmental degradation and actually takes more energy than it produces!!! O.K. Hmmmm. Let's step back a bit and really think a minute. Perhaps there are many shades of gray in the world. Maybe things aren't one or zero. Maybe there are fractions.

I pinpoint this to a 'chicken or egg' scenario, one that I fully do not have a complete explanation for, and certainly do not have a solution.

I can either blame the media...the 24 hour news cycle, the over-sensationalizing nature of delivery, Headline News (who needs the whole story, anyway?), Hollywood, TMZ, Fox News, CNN, everything is a crisis...ad nauseum, ad infinitum...doubleplusgood...doubleplusungood...

Or I could blame us, the American public...perhaps the media is only filling a need, providing a service, trying their damnedest to stimulate the few remaining over-stimulated brain cells we have left...while we muddle through our lives that are continuing to decline in meaning, the great Idiocracy, expecting our problems to be solved by anyone other than ourselves, complaining when they are not immediately remedied at zero personal cost...

So which is it?

"I, I think maybe it's both".

...end rant.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap?

Here's a Business Week article from May '08 that provides a level and even tempered report on the present state of ethanol.

Ethanol is taking a tumble. Once hyped as a magic brew for reducing both oil addiction and global warming, alcohol made from corn kernels is now being accused both of triggering a global food crisis and doing more ecological harm than good. Ethanol critics, ranging from environmental groups to pig farmers facing high feed prices, blame mandates from Washington and Brussels stating that billions of gallons of fuel must come from ethanol or other plant-based fuels.

There are grains of truth in this backlash, experts say. "There are bad biofuels and good biofuels," says Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis. Corn-based ethanol ranks as mediocre. Yet it is only a minor cause of high food prices, and better biofuels are on the horizon...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083060454256.htm

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Bio-fuels, Mandates and Energy Policy

Here is an article from the spring of 2007 that investigates bio-fuels and public policies that affect their development and production.

The fact that current policy increases energy security and reduces greenhouse gas emissions does not imply, however, that we cannot do better. History has demonstrated that policy objectives can be met most efficiently when private entrepreneurs are allowed to determine the means by which objectives are achieved. So, for example, if the United States has an objective of diversifying its energy sources at minimum cost, Congress should specify a numerical diversification target, the types of energy sources that count toward diversity (would increased coal and nuclear energy qualify?), and the penalties for non-achievement. Competition between alternative energy sources would reveal the most efficient set and allow the United States to meet its policy objectives at least cost. If Congress truly wants increased energy security, then Congress should be neutral to the means by which this is achieved.

The article highlights some possible changes in current policy, ultimately suggesting a BTU tax credit that would help any alternative energy source.

I tentatively agree with the main points of this article. However, I think there probably should be a inclination towards liquid fuels. Liquid fuels currently provide the necessary energy density for our transportation needs. Electric and hydrogen vehicles cannot yet fulfill the same requirements at a similar cost. Also, there will be much debate on whether "clean" coal and nuclear are considered alternative energy and/or suitable environmental substitutes.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_07/article1.aspx

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Ethanol is an "Ugly Baby"

Ethanol is “an ugly baby but it’s ours and it will move cars,” according to billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens.

Even some oilmen are on board...Mr. Pickens has diversified his portfolio quite a bit.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Algenol - Third Generation Ethanol

More exciting news about bio-fuels. A US company plans to create millions of gallons of ethanol by 2009 out in the Mexican desert. One benefit of this technology...

Woods said Algenol will use a process he invented in the 1980s to coax
individual algal cells to secrete ethanol. That way, the fuel can be taken
directly from the vats where the algae is grown while the organism lives on, using far less energy than drying and pressing the organisms for their oil.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1032368520080611?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

Official site that highlights the many other benefits of this technology:

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/

Saturday, June 7, 2008

New Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Opens

A small step in the right direction...cellulosic ethanol is on its way!

A biorefinery built to produce 1.4 million gallons of ethanol a year from cellulosic biomass will open tomorrow in Jennings, LA. The plant will make ethanol from agricultural waste left over from processing sugarcane.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20828/?a=f

Unfortunately this part makes me pause a bit:

The five-carbon sugars in hemicellulose are then fermented using
genetically modified E. coli. The cellulose is broken down with enzymes and
fermented with another type of bacteria called Klebsiella oxytoca.

Let's hope that stuff doesn't get loose. I realize there will need to be breakthroughs in enzyme technology, but I can't help but have visions of Outbreak, 28 Days Later or I Am Legend. Yikes.

Friday, May 30, 2008

The Citizen-Powered Energy Handbook

The Citizen-Powered Energy Handbook: Community Solutions to a Global Crisis, Greg Pahl

As conventional energy sources begin to dwindle, we will need to rely heavily on renewable and alternative sources to provide the basic services we once took for granted. Researching and employing these sources can be a daunting task. This book provides a basic tutorial on many of these sources as well as strategies for adaptation for individuals, small businesses and communities. As the title suggests, it is geared heavily for small communities, so many of the projects highlighted are at a larger scale than the individual homeowner. Still, I found it to have some good information.

The first chapters recap reasons why we desperately need alternative energy sources, namely peak oil. The author references The Long Emergency as an inspiration for this volume, however takes a more optimistic tack than Kunstler. While Kunstler goes out of his way to denigrate every possible alternative source, Pahl details how each of these sources are being used right now...and what the future may hold.

The book covers the following topics: solar, wind, water, biomass, liquid biofuels and geothermal. Each topic is viewed from a small community point of view, with many examples of current projects. Unfortunately, the book does not delve much into cost analysis, only showing projects in the most positive light. If these projects are cost efficient or not is left up to the reader to research for himself. In the author's defense, cost benefit analysis varies greatly on a case by case basis, and has many variables to consider.

For the casual reader, this book is not a must read. It does, however, provide a strong background in the majority of current alternative energy sources. If one is contemplating alternative sources for a small business, farm or community...I would recommend it. Also it would benefit local governmental leaders; mayors, city councils, home owner association boards, school boards, etc.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Bevy of Biofuels

Here is a great slide show synopsis of many of today's current and potential feedstocks for biofuels:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/05/0508_biofuels/index_01.htm

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

What's Right With Biofuels

Another look into the *all* the causes of food price increases and the potential for biofuels to begin to fill our massive appetite for energy.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2008/tc2008057_822792.htm

Saturday, May 10, 2008

CORN IN THE BEARD

Alright folks, finally something of substance.

For all of the E-85er's out there who have trouble finding a station that actually has the fuel (which as a side note - I scoff at the thought of ethanol being the main driving force of escalating food prices, much like Chief said in previous posts), here is a website that has station listings. Just plug in your zip code and within seconds, power and that juicy fuel is at your finger tips.

http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php

Added bonuses - E85 merchandise, recent news, and membership capability if you are interested in getting an E85 station or pump in your town. There is a ton of info and in all honestly, I have just glossed through a lot of it. Dig in, folks!

http://www.e85.us/

General info site. Surprisingly enough, maybe not as of late, but more so when I first had my E-85 capable car, most who saw the little emblem on the side of my ride did not know what it meant, and even less about E-85 capabilities.

One final note - Drink Miller products (made of corn) and Go Cubs!

Friday, May 9, 2008

5 Ways to Lower Gas Prices

Here's a video from the Heritage Foundation listing 5 ways to lower gas prices... along with my comments, of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EkL8crjNs

1. Understand the cause of high prices

This is a very key point. We all should educate ourselves on how oil (and food and other necessities) is produced and marketed. Here is an article explaining the basics.

Basic supply and demand is a main contributor to prices, but it is more complex than that. As the speaker noted there is potential for regional shortages due to refining capability and mandates for various formulations of gas. I believe there are environmental reasons for all the formulations. Less smog/particulates for higher pop. density areas, etc. I'm not real sure on how much it affects price, and if you pass that cost into externalities...smog, asthma, lung cancer, etc. are you actually saving anything? I don't know.

Supply and demand can explain a lot of the price increase...more people around the globe desire oil everyday (many middle-east countries subsidize it to their citizens), and there is a finite supply. We may have some downward price fluctuations in the near future, but I don't see how they can last. This brings us to increasing domestic supply...

2. End domestic drilling restrictions

I am not fundamentally opposed to drilling in protected federal reserves (although you have to chuckle when he claims there will be no environmental effects). However, I am skeptical of the 'enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years' figure. Estimates for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) economically recoverable reserves are anywhere from 5 to 10 billion barrels. Considering the U.S. currently consumes over 20 million bpd, this would equate to 500 days. There may be other fields that provide more, but I'd have to do some more research on that. Seems a bit fishy.

It is my view that we should probably hold off on tapping our last reserves until we *really* need it. Let's use up the Saudi's oil at $120/barrel and use ours at 200+, which actually may not be too far off...hmmm....maybe we should start looking into it a little. It does take time to begin to exploit a new field.

Bottom line, drilling more only buys us a little more time. It will give us temporary lower prices, but may remove incentive for transition off oil. We must begin to transition to cheap alternatives, which currently do not exist. After the 70s oil crises, large drilling efforts in Alaska and the North Sea led to a large oil glut that allowed us to get complacent again. There is only so long that can continue. If we could ensure that the oil was used for the transition (research, building infrastructure (nuke/solar/wind plants, maglev trains), industry, agriculture) and not for allowing folks to commute cheaply in SUVs, I'd be on board.

3. Allow refineries and nuclear plants

We need to begin construction of the latest generation nuclear plants ASAP. The latest technologies are much safer and produce much less waste than the 60s and 70s era technology that we currently are using. Considering the majority of our electricity is produced from coal and natural gas, and electric vehicles are going to increase demand in the near future, nuclear power will be imperative.

Refineries, on the other hand, may not do us much good. If peak oil is truly upon us, do we need more refining capability? There will only be less crude produced from here on out, so we should be able to handle refining it. Other than maintaining or slightly increasing the current capability, I don't see why this is necessary.

4. End expensive and wasteful mandates

By now, you should know my stance on ethanol. It is a fallacy to say ethanol is the main cause for U.S. food price increases, I'll leave it at that.

5. Free Market Alternatives

I agree that the free market is a powerful thing. It has already begun to lower demand. It will also provide alternatives to oil. Unfortunately, they may include horses and bicycles, however. Depending how gradual our transition is, the market may have time to find alternatives that continue a standard of living that is near what we currently enjoy. However, if we continue to stall and ignore the problem, the free market will solve it in sudden, and perhaps violent ways. One of the scariest statements the speaker makes is: "any fuel that needs a subsidy to compete with 120/bl oil is never going to be affordable for consumers". He is correct. There are no alternatives cheaper than oil right now. There may never be, especially without providing resources for research and development. We may have to re-adjust what we consider 'affordable'. The Heritage Foundation is not making the Long Emergency seem any less likely in my eyes.

What do you think?

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Ethanol: Crime Against Humanity?

I'd like to share my views on biofuels and corn-based ethanol in particular. With the current increase in worldwide grain prices, biofuels have come into the forefront of media scrutiny. UN expert Jean Ziegler went so far as to call them a 'crime against humanity'. Here's what I see...

World grain prices (like oil prices) are driven by extremely complex forces of supply and demand. Grain (like oil) is also a commodity that is traded in futures markets that are much too complex for me to understand right now. On the surface it is easy to make the jump from 'Americans are turning corn into fuel, thus driving up demand and lowering supply' to 'now our food prices are going up'. It sounds like an iron tight case and most 'journalists' have no reason to think much farther than that. I do agree that high grain prices are negatively affecting developing countries, and very likely will continue to cause much distress. I will make two assertions however:

1) Corn-based ethanol has a lower affect on grain prices than most people think
2) Grain prices have very little impact on American's highly processed diets

Assertion 1: I'm not going to argue that using corn for ethanol does not increase grain prices. Obviously, it has an effect. But is it the main effect as some would have you believe? Enough to be deemed a crime against humanity? There are many causes for increased prices: Higher demand...more people in general, massive amounts of populations attaining affluence allowing them to eat 'western diets' (FYI...China eats more pork than the US...PER CAPITA), biofuels, increased investment in commodities markets, lower dollar value. Lower supply: Droughts in Australia, flooding in Philippines, increased input costs (oil, petrol based fertilizers). It seems to me that all of these causes have an effect, and singling out biofuels as a main cause is a tad unfair.

One could then argue that biofuels are optional and unnecessary. My view is that grain is a commodity equal to oil. Without oil, we have no food. We are not morally obligated to provide cheap food to the world any more than the Saudis are obligated to continue to provide us cheap oil. It is imperative that we find a way to create new economical sources of fuel, or the gravy train known as the agricultural revolution is coming to an end. Corn-based ethanol is not a solution, but in my view, it IS a stepping stone to the solution.

Assertion 2: The following article does a good job of explaining exactly how much the price of corn affects grocery store prices:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/CornPrices.htm

An excerpt:

For example, an 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents (1 bushel = 56 pounds). (The remainder is packaging, processing, advertising, transportation, and other costs.) At $3.40 per bushel, the average price in 2007, the value is about 4.9 cents. The 49-percent increase in corn prices would be expected to raise the price of a box of corn flakes by about 1.6 cents, or 0.5 percent, assuming no other cost increases.

The article also does a comparison for high fructose corn syrup in soda as well as the effect on meat. Meat has a higher sensitivity to grain prices, as one would imagine, but the average American diet is hardly deficient in protein.

In summary, biofuels have very little impact on the prices you see in the grocery store. On a positive note, they do provide a market for innovation. There are many companies and universities currently researching and developing ways to create fuel from native grasses, trash, yard waste, agricultural waste products and algae. I believe these technologies are going to be one portion of the solution to prevent...The Long Emergency

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)