Alternative . Renewable . Energy

New studies say biofuels make greenhouse gases worse

This post is brought to you by  Curt Rosengren ~ Passion Catalyst TM   "Love your work. Change your world."

Two new studies are giving biofuels a big fat thumbs down when it comes to their impact on greenhouse gases. This article gives a nutshell description of what the studies have to say:

These studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse-gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted — directly or indirectly, intentionally or not — in new lands being cleared for food or fuel.

"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gases substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University.

--

Biofuels buffs beware: The taxman cometh!

This post is brought to you by  Curt Rosengren ~ Passion Catalyst TM   "Love your work. Change your world."

Let's say you've bought an old diesel Mercedes so you can run it on biofuels. And let's say you feel so good about it that you slap a bumper sticker on your car that says, "Powered by 100% vegetable oil." Now let's say your bumper sticker gets noticed by state Department of Revenue inspectors who are inspecting RVs for illegal (i.e., untaxed) fuel.

What do your efforts to use alternative fuels net you? A big fat fine.

So last fall [Bob Teixeira] spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel would cost.

His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes.

He's been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the federal government.

And to legally use veggie oil, state officials told him, he would have to first post a $2,500 bond.

On the one hand, I look at this and think that's completely out of whack. Talk about a disincentive to convert to alternative fuels. On the other hand, I look at it and think, well, fuel is fuel. Why should alternative fuels be exempt?

What do you think? Should alternative fuels be taxed? Or should the government encourage their use by letting it slide?

[via TreeHugger]

--

Lifecycle comparison study: Biodiesel vs. petroleum diesel

This post is brought to you by  Curt Rosengren ~ Passion Catalyst TM   "Love your work. Change your world."

AutoblogGreen points to the results of a study just published by The US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture. The study looks at the energy required for production through distribution and the emissions created by both biodiesel and petroleum diesel.

AutoblogGreen sums it up...

It was determined that biodiesel has a total fossil energy efficiency ratio (i.e., total fuel energy / total fossil energy used in production, manufacture, transportation and distribution) four times greater than that of petroleum diesel fuel making biodiesel far more efficient in its use of non-renewable fossil fuels.

Other key findings showed that in comparison to petroleum diesel, biodiesel had:

• 78 percent lower overall lifecycle carbon dioxide
• 35 percent lower overall lifecycle carbon monoxide
• 32 percent lower overall lifecycle particulate matter
• 68 percent lower overall bus exhaust-pipe emissions of PM10 (significant in relation to respiratory disease)
• 83.6 percent lower overall bus exhaust-pipe emissions of particulate matter soot
• 8 percent lower overall lifecycle sulphur oxides
• No bus exhaust-pipe emissions of sulphur oxides
• 3 percent lower overall lifecycle methane
• 37 percent lower overall lifecycle hydrocarbons
• 79 percent lower overall lifecycle production of wastewater
• 96 percent lower overall lifecycle production of hazardous solid wastes

--

Biorefinery turns biomass into hydrogen and fertilizer

This post is brought to you by  Curt Rosengren ~ Passion Catalyst TM   "Love your work. Change your world."

Here's a new technology that creates hydrogen fuel out of waste or other biomass:

...you can put almost any type of waste or biomass in the Noah biorefinery, and it produces gas that is mostly hydrogen, without pollution of any kind and with very little ash, according to its inventor, Mike Rogers of El Dorado.

That hydrogen gas can be used in place of propane or natural gas or to power a generator that produces electricity. And the ash makes good fertilizer, Rogers said.

The Noah, granted a patent just before Thanksgiving, is marketed by Rogers’ firm, Power Reclamation Inc.

What little ash is left is an almost perfect 3-3-5 to 7 fertilizer, suitable for vegetables, pasture, and other crops...

I like the story behind the technology and the name.

During the Noah’s eight years of development, chemists and others kept telling Rogers the concept would not work and could not work...

...Rogers wife, Ann, named the portable biorefinery after the biblical Noah, who was ridiculed during the years he was building Noah’s Ark.

“We just had naysayers and doubters, and we were sitting on the back porch one day and I said, ‘We’re just going to have to call it Noah because they’re going to stop laughing, too,’” she said.

--

Offbeat biofuel sources

If I asked you to name three biofuels sources, I'm guessing you wouldn't pick human fat, turkey bones, or dead cats. Or maybe you would if you had read this article over on Grist about the strangest biofuel sources you've never heard of.

--

Prairie grass better fuel source than corn

Given how many hundreds of thousands of acres have been converted from prairie to farmland since the European settlers first came, this one seems a bit poetic. According to a University of Minnesota press release, prairie grasses are more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly than either corn ethanol or soy biodeisel.

Jim at The Energy Blog sums it up...

The study shows that mixtures of native perennial grasses and other flowering plants provide more usable energy per acre than corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel and are far better for the environment. Grass-based fuel can lead to a net decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide, whereas ethanol and biodiesel increase it.  Grass-based fuel can even lead to a net decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide, whereas ethanol and biodiesel increase it.

--

Biofuel sustainability pros & cons

Bank Sarasin put together a report on biofuels, looking at the "strengths and weaknesses of biofuels from social and environmental perspectives, as well as positing minimum sustainability criteria to qualify for investment."

The report, titled Biofuels--Transporting Us to a Fossil-Free Future?, outlines six solid reasons why biofuels should be seen as a sustainable option.

Biofuels...

• Reduce dependence on fossil fuels
• Produce far less carbon dioxide and other GHGs than oil
• Reduce other forms of air pollution (such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide)
• Are high-quality fuels
• Are immediately usable within current infrastructure
• Support local agriculture development.

The report's author goes on to outline six risks associated with biofuels that keep him from seeing biofuels as a de facto sustainable option:

• Environmental impacts of monocultures
• Increased rainforest clearance in developing countries for growing biofuel stock
• Negative impacts on food prices
• Higher costs than other forms of carbon reductions
• Harsh agricultural labor conditions
• Increased use of genetically engineered crops.

The report is only lukewarm on biofuels from an investment perspective:

"It is clear from the sharp rise in the share prices of biofuel companies that stock markets expect high growth rates to continue in future," states Dr. Fawer.  "We advise a more cautious approach, as growth could quickly come up against natural barriers in the short term at least.

"This is mainly due to the limited availability of raw materials (arable land, competition for use by the food & beverage industry), but also due to the limited saleability of by-products," he continues. "[I]t is actually unclear how much land is available for growing energy crops without having a negative impact on the needs of the food industry, animal feed industry, fallow land, soil quality and biodiversity."

--

Biofuels pros and cons

Yesterday I posted an article slamming biofuel as a potential alternative energy solution. In the interest of a balanced look, here's an article from Popular Mechanics giving both the pros and cons, as well as the outlooks for several kinds of alternative energy sources, most of them biofuels.

--

Biofuels - a losing proposition?

I am absolutely a non-expert when it comes to the alternative energy world. I started this blog so I could learn more about the issues.

One of the things I find myself drawn to is trying to get the full picture. When you have only limited knowledge about a subject (as I and the majority of the population do), it's easy to get excited and hop on the bandwagon for this solution or that solution, but typically nothing is as rosy as its supporters like to make it seem (and that applies to just about anything in life - not just energy).

So in the interest of "counterpoint," here's an article outlining some pretty severe criticism of biofuels and their potential as an alternative energy solution.

Using the ethanol industry's own highly optimistic assumptions about energetics and crop yield, two top U.S. scientists demonstrate that corn-starch ethanol is a losing proposition as a replacement for petroleum, and that cellulosic ethanol, although providing more potential fodder for the distillery, still falls short in volume and energetics. The entire U.S. corn crop, they show, would provide only 3.7 percent of our present transportation fuel needs, and the entire U.S. cropland would produce only 15 percent of our needs—by the most optimistic of assumptions. And this option would leave us without domestic food production capability, for human or animal use!

Any biofuels supporters care to rebut any of the criticism in the article?

--

Bio-Beetle biodiesel car rentals

Headed to Los Angeles or Maui any time soon? Planning on renting a car? How about making it a biodiesel car with Bio-Beetle?

A car rental company devoted to biodiesel cars...the alternative energy market really is starting to grow. It's a small company but, still, how cool is that?

(I ran across the company in this article about the growing trend in Los Angeles towards biodiesel cars.)

--