Biodiesel?

I find it amusing that, in the course of my discussion on energy, the newest National Geographic comes out. What is the topic of this month's issue? Global warming and biodiesel. I have already covered global warming; to do so again would be to beat it with a stick. Instead, I shall focus on this newest topic. Fuel produced from crops such as soy beans, corn, and sugar cane. "Proponents say such renewable fuels could light a fire under our moribund rural economy, help extract us from our sticky dependence on the Middle East, and–best of all–cut our ballooning emissions of carbon dioxide."

Biodiesel: the miracle replacement for gasoline. Some cars can run completely on ethanol or biodiesel. But here's one of the major issues. Compared to a gallon of gasoline, ethanol has only 67% of the energy content. Biodiesel is better, but it is still only 86% compared to a gallon of diesel. How do we reconcile this lack? Well, one way to do so is to look at the environmental aspect of things. Since organic-based fuels use carbon that is in the ground, it is not putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere. In a manner of speaking, with the right technology and fuel efficiency, cars could become carbon neutral. Unfortunately, at current technology levels, "producing corn ethanol consumes just about as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces." Using all our crops to produce "grown fuel" would only replace approximately 6% of our diesel and gasoline consumption.

Despite this apparent disappointment however, there is a bright star. Brazil, producing diesel from sugarcane, has managed to curtail its reliance upon imported oil. The United States government has pledged nearly $200 million to research, hoping to be able to replace up to 15% of our oil reliance by 2017. But the key, overall, is to produce oil from sources other than foodstuffs. If we can manage that, we will be better off. We will still have enough food to feed our burgeoning population as well as keep out livestock fatted.

The original car models ran on alcohol, but it was expensive and didn't provide nearly as much energy as conventional refined petroleum. But that has changed some, since the introduction of ethanol-gasoline fuel mixes. Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) was the additive used by oil companies for the same purpose. However, when it began to show up in aquifers (underground layers of water-bearing porous rock from which water can be extracted via wells), its use was banned. It didn't help that MTBE was believed to be carcinogenic (a cause of cancer).

An extra benefit to the biodiesel/ethanol industry is the fact that it can jump-start small town economies. With farmers selling their crops, plants that produce these fuels create numerous job opportunities. The prices of corn and soybeans goes up, up to $4/bushel.

Again, there are issues. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) "delivers 30 percent fewer miles a gallon than gasoline." And it can only be burned in specially designed engines. BUT! It is cheaper than regular gasoline. Its transport can be rather costly, but with plants springing up (ha!) all over the place, it should keep prices comparatively low.

Ethanol is alcohol. It is distilled through a process that hasn't much changed through the centuries. The grain is ground, then mixed with water and heated. Enzymes turn starch into sugar, then yeast is added. In the fermentation tanks, the yeast converts the sugar into alcohol. The alcohol is then separated from the water. What is left is fed to cows or spread over crops to be used as fertilizer. The drawback comes from the use of fossil fuels to heat the mixture, giving off carbon dioxide (which is also produced by the yeast). Some studies claim that ethanol is a losing battle, others make it to be more beneficial. Either way, it is not a cure-all solution. "Biofuels are a total waste and misleading us from getting at what we really need to do: conservation," says Cornell University's David Pimentel, who is one of ethanol's harshest critics. "This is a threat, not a service. Many people are seeing this as a boondoggle." However, proponents of ethanol, especially those who produce it, believe they can do things better. "They plan to fire their boilers with methane from two giant four-million-gallon biodigesters fed with cattle manure from the feedlot next door–in effect using biogas to make biofuel." (This amuses me, I should like to point out.)

Good and bad go hand-in-hand in the ethanol/biodiesel industry. But look again the the example of Brazil. When OPEC put an embargo on oil, Brazil turned to ethanol for fuel. It has done so again and most Brazilian cars haven't burned gasoline in years. Ethanol has a high octane rating (113) and burns better at higher compression. What is the secret to Brazilian success? Sugar cane! Yes, the same cane used to produce refined sugar for our tables. The plant is already %20 sugar and begins to ferment almost immediately after being cut, unlike corn which needs to convert starch to sugar. And it produces nearly twice as much ethanol as corn. The wastewater from the process, just like that from corn-based ethanol, can be used as fertilizer. And that is just how Brazilian producers use it. Another plus for the Brazilians is that they do not burn fossil fuels, but waste products. A final plus, researchers believe cane-based ethanol produces less carbon dioxide than gasoline (55-90%!) and the ethanol can be made from the stalks and leaves of the cane plant.

So, how do we respond? There are at least two other possible methods of creating biofuel: cellulose (from plant material) and algae (green algae, to be exact). There are pros and cons to each process, mainly in the department of research and development. However, the processes are out there and they are gaining notoriety and popularity. I say, if we can make biofuel work, let's go for it. Thoughts? Reactions?