Photo Credit: University of Wisconsin-Madison
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (38) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 10, 2008

Green Gasoline Could Power Future Cars and Jets

Virginia, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Researchers have made a breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline," a liquid identical to standard gasoline yet created from biomass sources like switchgrass and poplar trees.

"There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating electricity, there won't be any footprint."

-- John Regalbuto, Director, Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program, NSF

Chemical engineer and National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER awardee George Huber of University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass) and his graduate students Torren Carlson and Tushar Vispute have recently announced the first direct conversion of plant cellulose into gasoline components.

At the same time, James Dumesic and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin-Madison announced an integrated process for creating chemical components of jet fuel using a green gasoline approach. While Dumesic's group had previously demonstrated the production of jet-fuel components using separate steps, their current work shows that the steps can be integrated and run sequentially, without complex separation and purification processes between reactors.

While it may be 5 to 10 years before green gasoline arrives at the pump or finds its way into a fighter jet, these breakthroughs have bypassed significant hurdles to bringing green gasoline to market.

"It is likely that the future consumer will not even know that they are putting biofuels into their car," said Huber. "Biofuels in the future will most likely be similar in chemical composition to gasoline and diesel fuel used today. The challenge for chemical engineers is to efficiently produce liquid fuels from biomass while fitting into the existing infrastructure today."

For their new approach, the UMass researchers rapidly heated cellulose in the presence of solid catalysts, materials that speed up reactions without sacrificing themselves in the process. They then rapidly cooled the products to create a liquid that contains many of the compounds found in gasoline.

The entire process was completed in under two minutes using relatively moderate amounts of heat. The compounds that formed in that single step, like naphthalene and toluene, make up one fourth of the suite of chemicals found in gasoline. The liquid can be further treated to form the remaining fuel components or can be used "as is" for a high octane gasoline blend.

"Green gasoline is an attractive alternative to bioethanol since it can be used in existing engines and does not incur the 30 percent gas mileage penalty of ethanol-based flex fuel," said John Regalbuto, who directs the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at NSF and supported this research.

"In theory it requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce," Regalbuto said. "Making it from cellulose sources such as switchgrass or poplar trees grown as energy crops, or forest or agricultural residues such as wood chips or corn stover, solves the lifecycle greenhouse gas problem that has recently surfaced with corn ethanol and soy biodiesel."

Beyond academic laboratories, both small businesses and Fortune 500 petroleum refiners are pursuing green gasoline. Companies are designing ways to hybridize their existing refineries to enable petroleum products including fuels, textiles, and plastics to be made from either crude oil or biomass. What's more, the military community has shown strong interest in making jet fuel and diesel from the same sources.

"Huber's new process for the direct conversion of cellulose to gasoline aromatics is at the leading edge of the new ‘Green Gasoline' alternate energy paradigm that NSF, along with other federal agencies, is helping to promote," said Regalbuto.

Not only is the method a compact way to treat a great deal of biomass in a short time, Regalbuto emphasized that the process, in principle, does not require any external energy. "In fact, from the extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel," he said. "There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating electricity, there won't be any footprint."

The latest pathways to produce green gasoline, green diesel and green jet fuel are found in a report sponsored by NSF, the Department of Energy and the American Chemical Society entitled "Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries" released April 1. In the report, Huber and a host of leaders from academia, industry and government present a plan for making green gasoline a practical solution for the impending fuel crisis.

"We are currently working on understanding the chemistry of this process and designing new catalysts and reactors for this single step technique. This fundamental chemical understanding will allow us to design more efficient processes that will accelerate the commercialization of green gasoline," Huber said.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
Reader Comments (38)
 
No image available
April 10, 2008
I agree that Bio-fuels are a horrible idea due to the impending starvation and riots that it will cause this later this year, Bio-fuels put the worlds poor in competition with my Chevy Suburban (12 mpg city 18 Highway). I know which one will have access to corn base products (it honks loudly) and I feel sorry for the starving masses and those who are further forced into poverty to buy their daily bread/tortillas. I have previously written this on this site and been roundly criticized. I take it, because I care more about people than most people - certainly more than the Green zealots.

I strongly believe that bio-fuels are a renewable energy by definition. Not everyone is concerned with the biblical disasters promised by the Greens and their religion on carbon emissions.

Also Bio-fuels is no stupider or cruel than most of the other Green "Save the World" religous policies that crop up in the Renewables movement. We all know food based bio-fuels will cause raise food prices for the poor and cause children to be malnourished and likely starve to death.

Other Green policies Tax people further into poverty and reduce the economy of our countries and the world. That leads to deaths, tyranny and despair too, just not as visible. But the Green zealots don't want to see the evil they cause only the promise of the heaven they seek to create.
Comment 1 of 38
No image available
April 10, 2008
No doubt, It seems like it should be more complicated, but Algae is in fact the answer to erasing dependency on oil...at least until our transportation industry runs on electricity powered by the sun or wind or water. Policy is waking up to algae, but needs to focus primarily on it.
Comment 2 of 38
No image available
April 10, 2008
That's right. Green gasoline and other biofuels are not themselves a problem. It is poorly chosen feedstocks that cause the trouble. People have to understand this distinction!

Related to what John was saying, algae farming and subsequent biodiesel production yield "waste" glycerin and simple carbohydrates that can be used to make green gasoline using the above "low footprint" catalytic process. Remaining structural carbohydrates can then be pyrolyzed for additional biogas and oil, and then resulting charcoal ("biochar" or "agrichar") can be added to agricultural land as a long term carbon storage and nutrient retainer.

Algae farming is very productive (3000 gal oil per acre possible) and can be done on land that is not suitable for other agriculture. Also, conversion of marginal land to algal production shouldn't cause the massive soil carbon loss associated with conversion of prairie to cornfield or rainforest to palm plantation.
Comment 3 of 38
No image available
April 10, 2008
All of that is true, but what about Algae? Algae does not cut into the food supply or take-up arable land. It's actually a carbon-negative system because it is a ravenous carbon eater - for every 1 ton of algae grown, 2.2 tons of carbon are consumed.

Fact: Algae is the only feedstock with the energy density and scalability to make a dent in oil independence, in a cost effective, water efficient way. The technology is readily available to refine biofuels made from algal oil just as diesel is refined from crude oil. If we dedicate the same amount of resources used for oil exploration to the commercialization of algae we'll stabilize transportation fuel costs and reduce the inherent risks of relying on foreign entities to meet our energy needs.
Comment 4 of 38
No image available
April 10, 2008
Utterly terrifying. I cannot understand why "Renewable Energy World" posts articles on biofuels at all, given the overwhelming evidence that they are not only non-renewable, but are responsible for some of the most massive environmental devastation on the planet. Alternative perhaps.

Very crafty dodge of the carbon issue:

"There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating electricity, there won't be any footprint."

The key word here is "process." Intelligent people are less interested in the carbon intensivity of your PROCESS, and much more curious about the net carbon impact of providing your FEEDSTOCK. Yet more biofuels, using more nitrogenous fertilizer, fossil fuel powered farm machinery and delivery systems, more devastation of rainforests and other wild lands, etc., etc. The public is now well aware of the end result of widespread industrial agrofuel production. I needn't repeat them all here.

How many crop cycles of naturally grown switchgrass will you get before you have to start lashing the soil with fertilizers and pesticides? Exactly how much more of the Gulf will become a dead zone due to its runoff?

Your pursuit of this cash cow in the guise of "renewable energy" disgusts me, and should disgust every reader of this blog.

Should your process succeed and be commercialized on an industrial scale, the climate consequences will be catastrophic. What you propose here could be logically considered a "climate weapon," perfectly suited to decimate our soils and atmosphere. Anyone with an interest in a livable planet 50-100 years from now should pray for your failure. I know I do.
Comment 5 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
We must remember that all energy came from the sun and all that we use today came from plant life absorbing and storing that energy. Oil is stored plant energy and there is only so much and in just 100 years we have used 1/2 of all of it that took 270 million years to make. It is up to us to make our own energy and plants today can do that (algae also). We in the US have only recently been making ethanol on any scale and to judge its history from only a year or two is narrow minded and to say it has caused food prices other than corn and in other countries to go up is showing lack of knowledge of world economics. We have millions of productive acres set aside to keep prices high , we only need to use them. I'm working with sweet sorghum which does not need nitrogen and only 40 % less water and can be grown in the same field over and over, plus it has 40 tons of biomass per acre. This is only our second year and we learn more all the time, it not only will work, it has to work in some form or fashion. I congratulate the U of Wisconsin and U mass on their efforts, keep up the good work.
Comment 6 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Anybody ever heard of kudzu? or mesquite? David Blume says the stuff cut down by lawnmowers could be a source of fuel if used (though I would never say anything encouraging to people who grow grass rather than food in their front or back yards).

If we could end our addiction to corrupt and silly farm practices, we would be well on our way to a more peaceful and prosperous society. We already have problems dealing with surplus, for cryin' out loud.
Comment 7 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Short-Term efficiencies, reduced consumption & Alternative Fuels are essential.

Don't be fuelish and buy-into the food vs. fuel myth. There are plenty of non-essential crops that are cultivated that displace fundamental food cultivation.

Food costs are driven by the points in Tim's comment, not biofuels. If alternatives to petroleum had been developed ten years ago, we would have more land dedicated to food crops, and the liquid energy to plant and harvest the crops - without being a slave to oil.

Any action that curtails the development of Biofuels is an action that perpetuates the disastorous affects of fossil fuels. Neither the economy nor the envrionment can afford this downward spiral.

Medium-Term, who knows? Hydrogen, Nuclear, Solar, Hemp or Algae. For the next 50 years, commerce, agriculture, and travel will be dependent on the vehicles that are on the ground NOW. If, at that time, there are alternatives that make Biofuels obsolete, nobody will object, but delaying development of Biofuels only hastens the grimly inevitable environmental & economic consequences of GW.

Art was correct in suggesting we should be supporting research, rather wasting our time throwing darts at potential solutions to oil-slavery
.
1) Governments must abandon subsidies to the Fossil Fuel Industry & Invest in Renwables (Electrical, Liquid, and Thermal).

2) 3rd World Economies must be stimulated by growing Biofuel crops on MARGINAL lands, and therein generating $ to buy food. The global food market pardigm needs reversal. Food prices cannot be based on a price the poorest can afford. Starvation will decrease when the poor have more than a $0.0 food budget.

3) Sustainable Farming Practises must be employed to increase food prodcution, rehabilitate marginal land, and increase the CO2 holding quality of soils.

4) Transition land from cultivation of non-essential crops to basic food crops.
Comment 8 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
A while ago, I heard about the Jatropha plant's ability to thrive in harsh climates, and otherwise low fertile land. Does anyone have an update on that?
Comment 9 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
I think the researchers are doing a fine job. The posts here are mostly just silly.

Boo!
Comment 10 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Hydrogen from renewables powered electrolysis and stored/transported in an inert state in metal hydrides can fill the carbon void now and not later.
Solar, wind, wave, hydro, etc. can all be used to produce hydrogen.
If a coal thermal generating plant can be converted to natural gas why on earth can the same consideration not be given to hydrogen.
Either produce the hydrogen on the sea shore or move the water inland thru pipelines or .... on railways just like it is done with coal.
Never did see any efficiencies from Ford on their IC hydrogen motor??
If bio-fuels must be used .... then algae and hemp are high yield, low impact feedstocks that offer sensible alternatives to environmentally disastrous attempts to use corn and palm oil and any intensive new vegetation cultivation destined as a fuel source.
One real CO2 eliminator would be to mandate everyone to become a vegetarian. Sure would free-up a lot of arable land for fuel feedstocks.
Comment 11 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Dorthy Bluouin wrote"The Scientific America study is not completely against biofuels" which is hardly a rousing call for supporting products which actually harm the environment, increase fuel consumption in the case of ethanol, increase total CO2 emissions and raise the cost of food stuffs. It is unlikely that many posters have ever set down and seriously calculated the energy required to produce one USG of ethanol from any source as they would find that it is a net energy loser. The only reasoning, a false one to start, for going the biofuels route was said to be to reduce dependence on imported crude oil and petroleum products, a problem the US brought on itself by listening to the anti- drilling and NIMBY no refineries extremists. Had the US allowed drilling, production and refining of our own crude oil we would not be importing anywhere near the record amounts imported today, primarily from Canada and Mexico our NAFTA partners. Apparently reducing imports and energy independence only applies to petroleum products as Senator Schumer and other liberals are demanding now that tariffs be reduced on ethanol so it can be imported cheaply to meet the demands mandated by Senator Schumer and his like in Congress. What happened to the hue and cry for energy independence if we have to depend on cheap, that is questionable, imported ethanol? To paraphrase Albert Einstein only two things are infinite, man's stupidity and the universe and he said he was not too sure about the universe.
Comment 12 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
to George M
What are you saying? Because there is no silver bullit we shouldn´t research something that converts cellulosic waste into something that fits into our current gasoline distribution system?. I agree hydrogen was a stupid waste but that doesn´t mean that all new ideas are stupid. We need breakthroughs and your cynicism just rejects them as a knee jerk reaction.
Comment 13 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
I want to second Georges message, that there will be no silver bullet, just many lesser bullets, a lot of conservation, and a willingness to change our wasteful habits (including having lots of kids), before humans can live sustainably on this planet.

I would like to add something else, however. While I do not support corn ethanol or palm biodiesel, please note that these products are not the major forces driving grain prices and rainforest conversion to palm plantations. These patterns are being driven mainly by (1) heavy dependence of fossil fuels in agriculture along with high crude oil prices, (2) an increasing demand worldwide for grain fed meat, (3) an increasing demand for palm oil as a cooking oil and in processed foods.
Comment 14 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Howard, per your example, I calculate a $1.46 savings in $3.50 /gal gasoline at the expense of the drivers 9 minutes which when valued at $15.00/hour amounts to $2.25 and if he has an additional passenger the cost will be $4.50.
Comment 15 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
RE: Scientific American on February 7, 2008
The Scientific America study is not completely against biofuels...

'Biofuels are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate
"....The studies do find some benefit from biofuels but only when planted on agricultural land too dry or degraded for food production or significant tree or plant growth and only when derived from native plants, such as a mix of prairie grasses in the U.S. Midwest. Or such fuels can be made from waste: corn stalks, leftover wood from timber production or even city garbage...."
Comment 16 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
It is a good idea. Congratulations to the team!
Comment 17 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
To Tom Blakeslee:

Not long ago, most people believed corn ethanol was the silver bullet. And hydrogen looked like the silver bullet until one factors in those little annoyances like actually producing it, transporting it, storing it, and so on....

Meanwhile, forest is being cleared in Brazil and Indonesia for sugar cane and other "silver bullet crops".....

There is NO silver bullet Tom. Extricating ourselves from this morass will take a myriad of partial fixes, from higher CAFE standards (too late, too little to be "the" silver bullet), PIHVs, possibly algae, diesels, solar (passive, PV AND thermal), wind, improved insulation, etc. etc. etc. All helpful, but no silver bullets here....

First and foremost remains efficiency and conservation, and it will take a lot more than 55mph to make a dent in our fuel usage. We're actually going to have to CHANGE our ways(comment # 7 above). Six or $8./gallon (as in Europe) ought to get people's attention.....

Meanwhile, let's all watch NASCAR drive around in circles, or complain about airport conjestion enroute to Cancun for holiday. Happily, we have this charade whereby the politicians knowingly lie to the voters, and the voters knowingly pick and choose which lies they prefer, while hucksters and con artists line up for federal handouts.

Wait ten years for "the" silver bullet? Why not just carve a larger stone head, like they did on Easter Island...
Comment 18 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Seriously - Are we really suggesting strictly monitoring the speed limit? Can we remind the teacher to give homework too? I'm not saying it won't aid in conservation, but it's a bandaid over an severed limb - plus, you didn't take into account how many tickets Jim Berry (really thinking myself) would get in a year and how high insurance will be - saving money will not come from strict monitoring of the speed limit.

Not to be a broken record, but i really do believe Algae is the answer - the technology exists right now to cultivate algae that can be used as fuel, using human and animal waste as fertilizer. For every 1 ton of algae grown, 2.2 tons of CO2 are consumed - it's a carbon negative system.

I don't really know about hemp (as a fuel...), but I assume it's more like Soy and Corn and Palm, which don't make sense with the amount of carbon it takes to farm, gather, and relocate to a biodiesel refinery - for every 1 unit of energy to make corn biodiesel 1.3 units are output, that ratio . Algae worst case is 1 to 6.2 and usually much higher.
Comment 19 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
I´m shocked by the negativity of Alex and some of the other posters. Yes corn ethanol is an environmental disaster and a political boondoggle but let´s keep an open mind. We must pursue all options to solve our climate crisis and this one could develop into something really practical and useful. I´m glad to hear some progress in this area. It´s too early to choose just one solution to the problem now. The winner will be quite clear in about ten years. I think it will be geothermal and wind power and electric cars but only time will tell for sure.
Comment 20 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Ron, I hate to break it to you, but diesels ARE IC engines. The only external combustion engines in current production are Stirling engines and I doubt that they are in widespread use. The cost of diesel fuel has much more to do with taxes than energy content.

A lower speed limit (or just strictly enforcing the current ones) will do more to conserve because of the lower aerodynamic drag resulting in better mileage. As for the negative economic impact of a lower speed, it is negligible to zero.

Do the math: a driver traveling at 55 MPH on a 50-mile commute will arrive at his (or her) destination in 54.5 minutes. One traveling at 65 MPH will arrive in about 46 minutes, only 9 minutes sooner. BUT, driving 55 vs. 65 yields about 10% greater fuel mileage, so if we're driving Jim Berry's Chevy Suburban at 12 MPG, we'll realize a round-trip 2.4 gallons/day savings. At a very conservative fuel price of only $3/gallon, that's about $7.20/day. Assuming Jim works 200 days/year, that's at least $1,440 that doesn't go to taxes and terrorism support.
Comment 21 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
http://www.virent.com/ has details on the UW's researchers' startup.

Diesel engines are only about 20% more energy efficient than IC engines since much of better milage is due to the 17% greater energy density of diesel fuel over gasoline which may be reflected in higher prices for diesel fuel.

A lower speed limit increases travel time which may have a negative economic impact.

Where is there information on the economics of algae farming?
Comment 22 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Glad I came to the party late!
Stay Alive @ 55! YES! Someone said an aweful truth-lowering the speed limit to 55 (90km Canadian) would help a lot. So would using diesel instead of gas engines ("outlawing gas engines", a drastic idea whose time WILL come).

Algae and possibly hemp + other "true" wastes, including methane from shit-converters (which solves major sewage problems), are OK, but,
Biofuels don't cut the consumption/emissions problems UNLESS the cost is kept high to reduce consumption. Still, how will the poor eat, heat & travel even then?

Bicycles are a good fringe urban solution. They work better in warm climates.

The Air Car has a great deal of potential for urban & suburban transport. Compressed air can come from commercial "Air-Stations" or from residential solar or wind or water-power solutions as well as regular home electrical grid supply. Hybrids, using the compressed air technology and a very small diesel engine or fuel cell would work well for rural & long distance transport.

The real work in this area is creating informed policy decision making to avoid huge boondoggles like the corn-to-ethanol fiasco. Inventors, researchers and private capital will continue churning out a cornucopia of potential solutions, have no fear, but someone needs to tell polititians and their minions how the greater good is best served by which technologies and applications.
Comment 23 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
With gasoline fuel prices in an upward trend, just maybe the populist will awaken to the fact that technology is in place to produce cars and trucks that achieve 30 - 40 mpg on diesel. Europeans are already there, yet for some strange reason the EPA (Ever protecting auto manufactures investments) has decided that these advancements are not ready for prime time in the U.S.

Just imagine an electric call fueled with a small diesel engine to recharge batteries when needed. Soon 90 - 100 mpg would become a reality, yet do you think the big auto manufactures want to scrap their huge investment in old combustion technology. Until we stand up to and tell them, and their partners the oil companies (all shielded by their government protectors) enough is enough, we will be doomed to a life of oil dependent servitude.

Pauly
Comment 24 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
A NASA friend of mine recently commented on 'energy density.' Oil is a 'very dense' feestock in its return of potential power (in the form of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.) from the amount of product (crude) involved and the processes required to get, refine, and deliver it to the marketplace. Other feedstocks and fuel concepts are not nearly as 'dense' by several orders of magnitude. As we ponder dramatic increases in the world's supply of cars (no matter what 'liquid' fuel they run on), the fact that 80% of the world's surface is covered by water and that we must provide vast amounts of food to feed ourselves from the remaining land mass, and that taking food-producing land to produce feedstocks for 'green gas' may starve people, then suddenly the good old bicycle as a prime source for transportation begins to look like a wonderful option. Or perhaps use electric cars, fueled by solar PV, power generated by wind, turbines implanted in river channels, or derived from tidal or ocean wave systems. People seem to have no concept (yet) of what a switch from high density petroleum feedstocks to some desperate attempts to fill the void caused by their depletion is REALLY going to mean to us all...!! I spent 26 years of my working career commuting to my office via bicycle and a Metro train system (in bad weather) -- year around. It works ! We've just charmed ourselves into believing that cruising 4 miles to the grocery store in a rolling bordello with 8-way leather seats, 'bun warmers' and a 500-watt 16-speaker stereo system is the only way we can go food shopping. Now that gas is above $ 3.50 a gallon, isn't ANYONE getting the message yet ??! Buy a bicycle...and get a little cargo trailer cargo trailer to pull behind it...and then REALLY reduce your carbon footprint...!! And feel better about your 'social consciousness', too. We're all in this together, and now's the time to STOP acting so damn selfishly about our patterns of consumption. Or we'll walk !
Comment 25 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
It is my understanding that using hemp as a resource for bio diesel is a viable solution to the feedstock obstacle. It is a great 'fallow' crop revitializing depleted soils and not interferring with food supply. My research indicates that Henry Ford was a huge supporter/user of hemp in manufacting and fueling vehicles. In 1937 he created a car using a hemp/soy combination for the body and fueled it with hemp fuel. It was his dream to some day grow our cars from the ground. One of the other things that can be done right now to reduce our consumption of petroleum is to return to the 55 mph speed limit. If we did this we'd continue down the road but reduce our impact on supply and harm. Allowing more time to develop viable replacement fuels.
Comment 26 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
Scientific American on February 7, 2008
'Biofuels are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate
This should end the discussion on the future of biofuels, which even at the low levels of use of today are causing major disruptions in the food chain, increased costs to feed the world's people and an inflationary upward spiral for all consumers. It is time for the government to defund research spending on and government aid to agro-businesses for biofuels.
Comment 27 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
If you truly believe we won't lose rainforest and food to this, "I have a bridge..." Algae may offer some relief. But while Nero fiddles, .......

I support the imposition if higher energy taxes (carbon, btu, etc.) both on energy producers AND consumers.

But perhaps it's time to get really serious about all this, and mandate some reductions in fuel and energy consumption before we "hit the wall". Do we really want to wait a long as some drought-stricken water districts and state legislatures did before imposing restrictions?

Consider:
- Encouraging businesses/mfg to shift from a five-day to a four-day work
schedule (4 x 10 hrs instead of 5 x 8 hrs). Manufacturers' reliance upon
JITD (just-in-time-delivery) for materials has always depended upon the
convenience furnished by cheap energy. Savings? Affected workers
reduce commuter mileage 20%.
- Ditto for schools? 4-day school week (longer days) cuts bus fuel 20%.
- Cutting postal deliveries one day/week. (ditto for UPS, Fedex, DSL, etc.
In all probability, the package really doesn't "absolutely, positively have to
get there overnight". And if it does, think "prior proper planning"...
- Large shopping malls could be required to close one day/week, on some
rotating schedule negotiated amongst themselves. Most of these energy
drains are virtually devoid of customers much of the time anyway...
- Call for a moratorium on new highways,airport expansions, etc. If you
build it, they WILL come...

These measures won't put an end to GW or our energy challenges. They'll go a long ways toward instilling a different mindset into our consumption habits and patterns.
p.s. Won't have to do much about commercial air travel. It's going the way of the dodo bird.
Comment 28 of 38
No image available
April 11, 2008
I think we should put a levy on Jim's chevy @12mpg in the City

First let us save our lungs then maybe the world!

Any fuel that can be used in a fuel cell with zero pollution at the tail end is okay by me.
Comment 29 of 38
No image available
April 12, 2008
Steven -

The government has already decided what kind of lightbulb you may screw into your lamp. My state is now considering a bill to impose a $95. fine for engine idling longer than three minutes. And Senator Clinton says she "will
make oil companies invest in renewable energies." That last one sounds confiscatory to me; there's your control freak. (And to answer the question in the front of your mind, - no, I don't own any oil stocks.)

All that aside, Al Gore - you know, the advocate who had to be "outed" into actually doing some of the things he's been preaching about for 20 years, is now mounting a $300 million campaign, because it seems Americans aren't taking him seriously.

Meanwhile, in case you haven't noticed, the airlines are lining up to declare bankruptcy(fuel costs). Given all that, yes, it would seem that NASCAR might be a luxury we can afford to do without, along with weekend jaunts to Cancun or Las Vegas, the Blue Angels and Thuderbirds flight demonstration teams, and multiple delivery services re-tracing each others' routes while competing for the same shrinking pie.

And yes - it hardly makes sense to keep expanding airports and highways when what's really needed is expanded railroads and intensified mass transportation. Think higher CAFE standards and hybrids will reduce oil consumption? Think again. If today, magically, everyone's vehicle mileage were miraculously doubled, it would be the equivalent to cutting fuel costs in half. Result? We'd all be back on the streets cruising around, full of ourselves for being so efficient. It's called Jevon's Paradox; feel free to look it up.

The RE community has successfully stymied all new domestic exploration and development. Unfortunately, they won't be able to deliver viable alternatives in sufficent time and quantity to forestall $150. -200./bbl oil. No sweat. That will surely curtail our driving habits.
Comment 30 of 38
No image available
April 12, 2008
One of the posters above wants to ban NASCAR and new highways and require shopping malls to reduce hours. I suppose he will also want us to turn our lights off and our thermostats way down. I wonder, as we shiver in the dark, how long it will take before our thoughts turn to ways to convert control freaks into biofuels....
Comment 31 of 38
No image available
April 12, 2008
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5197.html indicates that algae have a way to go to become economic.
Comment 32 of 38
No image available
April 12, 2008
The way I read it, this article was not about ethanol. It was about a new process discovered for converting cellulose materials into "green gas" which is almost identical to petroleum based gas, with much lower input costs than ethanol, that could be implemented into the existing delivery infrastructure. If applied to switch grass, or other biomass crops in a thoughtful way, this could be a giant leap forward, and could actually improve food crop production.

As far as silver bullets go. I have a personal general criteria for any new "solutions": It must solve at least three problems at once, without creating new problems that can't be solved. As far as this criteria goes, the holy grail is in converting garbage to gas.

Ultimately it would:

1). Help alleviate the decades old problem of landfill. (and waste)
2). Provide a non petroleum based fuel source (hopefully at a competitive price).
3). Should reduce green house gas emissions.

I also like the algae idea, wind, solar, small scale hydro, conservation, etc.

I think all new ideas should be considered, and not dismissed until fully evaluated.

The main economic flaw with the petroleum based economy is that it is, and acts like a monopoly with all of the market failures associated with monopolies. The more competition, the more alternatives, the more likely we are to find the right solutions.
Comment 33 of 38
No image available
April 13, 2008
Larry:
While I agree with little of what George says, one could argue that the environmental community's successful effort to prevent oil recovery in the Arctic National WIldlife Refuge (ANWR) is one example of where domestic oil development has been "stymied". Mean estimates of recoverable oil in ANWR are about 8 billion barrels. This is more than 30 times as much as the entire 2006 global ethanol production, so it is not a small amount of potential fuel. The potential environmental impact from oil recovery in ANWR is modest, whereas global warming might devastate the place. One could argue that harvesting the oil in ANWR and diverting a small portion of the profits to renewable energy development and climate change mitigation would have a far greater likelihood of preserving this patch of wilderness than the current policy....
You seem to suggest that the "fossil fuel industry" is somehow responsible for the sluggish transition to a sustainable energy system. It is not their responsibility to develop such a system, nor is it their area of expertise, so that task should be taken on by others.
Comment 34 of 38
No image available
April 13, 2008
"They(the FF industry) have put us between the rock and the hard place. For them, it has always been a matter of profit over people and planet."

Thank you for making my point.

The "Them" you abhor includes most if not all pension and retirement funds across the US. Those "profits" are taxed twice: both before, and after distribution to the investors (the "owners") who buy stocks. (It actually does make sense; but it's also worth acknowledging.)

Villifying the very energy industry that makes our lifestyle possible (both good and bad), provides ammunition and cover for the justification of NIMBY, which has now morphed into BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). Even Cape Wind is fighting uphill; new transmission corridors from remote wind/solar sites face the same opposition.

Every single thing we own, inhabit and drive, along with the heat and air conditioning most take for granted, is the result of extractive industry. And when it comes to energy, we all want all we want.
Note: Current US population 300 million. Forecast for 2050? 400 million.
Worldwide, 1.6 Billion people don't have electricity yet. They want it.
And for what it's worth, our ability to draw on those resources makes it possible for us to shape and influence the future. Energy-poor nations can't do that. The RE age will be built both upon, and by the FF age.

High energy prices? A good thing, without which RE would still be operating in the forgotten backwater. High energy prices make RE competitive.
"Saving the planet"? It's the new patriotism, the new holy grail. Caution: as Samuel Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Three years ago I met with an emerging RE company. The CEO told me "we're all whores" (in pursuit of investment tax incentives). I didn't accept it then; still don't. But neither do I dismiss it out of hand.
Comment 35 of 38
No image available
April 13, 2008
"The RE community has successfully stymied all new domestic exploration and development." That's a rather curious statement. Care to back it with a cogent argument? And just who comprises the RE community? It surely must be a large, diverse and powerful group if it can obstruct the all-powerful fossil fuel industry.

If the choice comes down to preserving the few remaining patches of wilderness in this world as opposed to facing $200 a barrel oil, the fossil fuel industry and all of its political friends will be to blame. They have put us between the rock and the hard place. For them, it has always been a matter of profit over people and planet.
Comment 36 of 38
No image available
April 14, 2008
There are a lot of good suggestions on this, but every answer here is still ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room, human population levels that are 10 to 100 times the level that can be sustained environmentally by our current technology and cultural maturity. We deal with this or nothing else matters.
Comment 37 of 38
No image available
May 5, 2008
I fear that some of the readers of this publication would rather have humanity freeze in the dark than produce one molecule of CO2. The CO2 paranoia has reached a fever pitch. It is rather obvious that the use of waste materials from biological processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere would be a positive step towards carbon reduction. It is likely not the ultimate solution, but it is a positive step to buy time to develop other technologies. We can't yet survive as a species on solar and wind power. Not at current population levels and rate of growth. Since I don't favor any "final solutions" to reduce the population, I support these types of technological advances. I applaud those that work to develop them.
Comment 38 of 38
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Aries Power & Industrial Comdel Solarfun Navigant Consulting PetersenDean Roofing and Solar Systems Interstate Renewable Energy Council
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo