Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

Five million is up for grabs as part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will target appropriated funds toward five Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. How to qualify? Innovators can receive grants for their proposals aimed at diesel emission reduction.

The EPA estimates that projects will likely include engine upgrades, cleaner fuel use, and vehicle or equipment replacement. To learn more about this campaign, click here.

Labels: biofuels, energy policy

General Motor's partnership with biology-based renewable energy firm Coskata Inc, first announced at the January 2008 North American International Auto Show, seeks to revolutionize ethanol fuels. Coskata's production scheme boasts not only $1/per gallon production costs, but minimal water use and greater energy efficiency during ethanol generation.

While cheaper than gasoline, ethanol currently available to drivers is also 25 to 30 percent less efficient than the fossil fuel. To overcome this limitation, Coskata's bioreformer method utilizes a refined microbial blend to produce a 99.7 pure ethanol end product, avoiding additional end costs which plague catalytic production systems.

GM and Coskata plan to open a 40,000 gallon capacity demonstration facility later this year, with a 100 million gallon production facility slated for 2011.

The full article is available on page 37 in the April 2008 edition of "Motor Trend," Volume 60, Number 4.

Labels: biofuels

The following article points out some of the pitfalls of biofuels, all of which help frame the need for a far greater diversity in transportation energy sources (i.e. biofuels are no silver bullet). However biofuels should also not be ruled out, as the US has idle and unfarmed lands that could provide cellulosic derived biofuels at small but meaningful levels. This is paritcularly true in the arid great plains region, where biofuel production could literally create new local economies. For more facts and figures on biofuels see our previous post here, or visit the energy comparison section of our website here.



Feb 27, 2008
Washington Post
The Problem With Biofuels
More proof that there are no easy solutions to climate change
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; A16
As the United States searches for alternative ways to feed its addiction to petroleum, ethanol and other biofuels derived from organic material have been considered a miracle motor vehicle elixir. The energy bill signed by President Bush in December mandates that at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year be used by 2020. Yet separate studies released this month by Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy reveal that biofuels are not a silver bullet in the battle against global warming. In fact, they could make things worse.
Corn and sugar cane are common sources of ethanol. Aside from emitting fewer greenhouse gases than coal or oil when burned as fuel, these biofuel crops remove carbon from the atmosphere while they are growing -- thus making them nearly carbon-neutral. But the studies show that ethanol may be even more dangerous for the environment than fossil fuels are. As the Princeton study points out, clearing previously untouched land to grow biofuel crops releases long-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. While planting corn and sugar cane in already tilled land is fine, a problem arises when farmers churn up new land to grow more fuel or the food and feed displaced by biofuel crops.
The impact of these land-use changes is enormous. As the study from the Nature Conservancy warns, "converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace." There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen-depleted waterways. The natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels.
An essay in the May-June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs by two professors from the University of Minnesota highlighted still another problem: The biofuels craze could starve people. "By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world," they wrote. "If oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum."
The problems with corn-based ethanol, long regarded as a transitional fuel source, have been debated for years. One alternative is to squeeze ethanol out of cellulose from switch grass, cornhusks and other biomass sources. But because cellulosic ethanol remains experimental, it might be years before it makes it from the laboratory to the gas tank. It all adds up to another example that there is no quick, cheap and easy way to confront the menace of global warming.

Labels: biofuels

This article, by National Geographic, does an excellent job of laying out a balanced case for and against biofuels use, and also provides baseline facts and figures for each potential source.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels

This article, from Bloomberg, provides accurate and interesting facts and figures and also discusses the oil issue from the car makers perspective.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels, energy policy

The answer this article proposes for the current production process of biofuels - yes. While I haven't seen the research in Science yet, this is the first study to take into account land use change as a factor in determining the environmental friendliness of biofuels. But before we throw out the notion of biofuels pay particular attention to the end of this piece, which states, "... [the] focus of the biofuels industry needs a rapid change of direction, away from using cropland — which is where most U.S. biofuels come from today — and toward other sources of starting material. " And, "Environmentally friendly biofuels could also be made from agricultural waste or grasses grown on land that's not suitable for crops. "

This is where the future of biofuels likely rests. On lands that are not currently used for farming (such as a huge swath of the great plains in the US) and where a net carbon gain could be realized by planting cellulosic type crops for biofuels production.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels

There has been a lot of talk lately about the environmental impact of biofuel production from a food and water supply standpoint, not to mention the impacts of changing over land use patterns to accommodate biofuel crops. All points are worthy of serious discussion, and while biofuels will likely play a role in our future energy mix it must be implemented carefully to ensure the environmental impact is positive. For the US a good example of this would be growing cellulosic crops on otherwise unused arid land in the great plains region. This could be done without irrigation and with little or no fertilizer used. The catch - how to transport either the biomass or the processed fuel to consumers.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels, environment

This article, recently published in the MIT Technology Review magazine, provides a balanced perspective on the biofuels boom. It includes possibilities for future development and is fairly accurate - containing and commenting only on credible information.

Access the article here (you will need to register for free to view this article - but its worth it!)

Labels: biofuels, economy, energy policy