A L TE RNA TI V E E NE RG Y B LO G -

S OL A R- ENE RG Y - W I ND-
PO W E R. COM

A LT E R N AT I V E E N E R G Y B L O G - N E W S , V I E W S A N D S T R O N G O P I N I O N S O N
A L T E R N A T E E N E R G Y R E S O U R C E S I N C L U D I N G S O L A R E N E R G Y, W I N D
P O W E R , W A V E E N E R G Y, G E O T H E R M A L & O T H E R R E N E W A B L E E N E R G Y
SOURCES + NEWS ON OTHER ENERGY ISSUES INCLUDING THE END OF
CHEAP GAS & OIL, PLUG-IN HYBRID CARS, RISING FUEL PRICES,
"CLEAN" COAL & NUCLEAR POWER

M O N D A Y, F E B R U A R Y 0 5 , 2 0 0 7

Seeing Red: Palm Oil Biodiesel

In the enthusiasm for renewable energy and taking care of our environment, it is easy to
assume that making fuel from plants (biofuel) must be by definition "green" and renewable.
However when it comes to energy issues, easy assumptions can be dangerous assumptions. In
previous years some politicians and advocates in Europe have made these assumptions
without sufficient thought and research and secured government subsidies for companies
importing palm oil from South East Asia to make biodiesel for transport and for use in
electricity generation.

The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food
and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This cheap oil can be used for a variety of purposes,
including as an ingredient about 10 percent of supermarket products, from chocolate to
toothpaste.

Promoted by hundreds of millions of dollars in national subsidies, the Netherlands quickly

became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons in 2006, nearly
double the previous year.

Now it is increasingly difficult to ignore the mounting body of scientific evidence that palm oil
plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, rather than preserving the environment are in fact
actively destroying it. By subsidising biofuels, European governments have artificially raised
demand for palm oil in Europe, and accelerated the destruction of huge areas of rainforest in
South East Asia. Palm oil plantations are often expanded by draining and burning peatland,
releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As a result Indonesia
has become the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, ranked after the United States
and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands
International and Delft Hydraulics, both based in the Netherlands.

The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which required all member states aim to have
5.75 percent of transportation run on biofuel in 2010, is now under review. In the
Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has prompted the government to suspend palm oil
subsidies.

In Europe a small amount of rapeseed and sunflower oil is used to make diesel fuel, however
increasingly plant oils are being imported from the tropics, since there is simply not enough
plant matter or land for biofuel production at home. So while the billions of dollars in
European subsidies appear to have reduced carbon emissions in European countries by
importing biofuels, this has been achieved by exporting them and increasing their impact
many times by the permanent destruction of rainforest and peatland in South East Asia.

For anyone familiar with how the ethanol industry works in the United States, they will be
unsurprised to learn that the palm oil industry was promoted long before there was adequate
research. Biofuel Watch, an environment group in Britain, now says that "biofuels should not
automatically be classed as renewable energy." It supports a stop on subsidies until more
research can determine if various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting
manner. The group also suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel be
counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer
accounting of environmental costs.

BEFORE: rainforest on the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo

Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to
2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to
palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.
AFTER: a palm oil plantation

Peat is an organic sponge composed of 90 percent water that stores huge amounts of carbon,
which when it is drained emits huges amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

Even worse peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study
estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million tons of carbon a
year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

the haze has covered much of SE Asia for extended periods of time since 1997

The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil
fuels, the researchers said. "These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were
not counted before," according to a Wetlands spokesperson. "It was a totally ignored
problem."
While for the moment the widescale destruction of rainforests in South East Asia continues,
hopefully the palm oil story will serve as a cautionary tale which will lead to much better
informed policymaking and behaviour. Politicians must resist the urge to rush to legislate and
subsidise in order to bask in the glow of being seen to be "doing something" while a number
of so-called green companies profit from taxpayer subsidised destruction. Energy policy must
make sense from a scientific (i.e. it should be energy positive), economic and environmental
viewpoint. However the continued promotion of ethanol and coal-to-liquids calls for
continued skepticism.

Labels: biodiesel, biofuels, carbon emissions, climate change, energy policy, europe, global
warming, government subsidies, palm oil, rainforest, southeast asia

P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 3 : 0 8 A M 1 4 C O M M E N T S

F R I D A Y, N O V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 0 6

City Utilities End Coal Fired Electricity Contracts in California

In what is hopefully the start of a new trend, several Southern California cities have decided
not to renew long-term contracts for coal-fired electricity, choosing instead to turn to cleaner
sources of electricity.

City officials told Utah-based Intermountain Power Agency they wouldn't be renewing their
contracts for coal-fired power, which expire in 2027, and would instead be looking for
alternative energy sources.
"It's a huge change," said Mayor Todd Campbell of Burbank, one of the cities that decided not
to renew its contract.

The cities are Pasadena, Glendale, Riverside and Anaheim. They join the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, which has already choosen not to renew the contract with
Intermountain. Currently coal fired electricity makes up a significant percentage of their
power, for example Pasadena Water & Power says that the Intermountain plant is 65 percent
of our energy.

Intermountain's general manager Reed Searle said the company had worked for three years
on the renewals and was now looking at ways to modernize its plants to bring them into
compliance with California's greenhouse gas legislation that takes effect on the first of
January.

The cities' decision came after increased pressure from politicians and environmentalists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter to an umbrella group for the cities last week saying
she was "shocked and dismayed" by an initial decision last month by Burbank to renew the
contract.

Phyllis Currie, general manager of Pasadena Water & Power said the utilities wanted to
explain how important Intermountain was to California cities. "It's a serious issue when you
tell us to walk away from that," she said.

The move could put Southern California in the forefront nationally of the commercial use of
alternative energy in coming years.

Intermountain has extended its renewal offer for power from the plants until 2023 from the
previous deadline of May 2007 in the hope state regulators will let utility officials renew the
contracts if greenhouse gases are reduced. Electricity utilities are starting to feel the pressure
for "clean" coal.
P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 3 : 5 2 P M 1 8 C O M M E N T S

W E D N E S D A Y, N O V E M B E R 2 2 , 2 0 0 6
$402m Tidal Energy Plant For New Zealand

New Zealand’s Northern Advocate reports that a US $402 million (NZ $600m) proposal to
generate electricity with 200 tidal-powered turbines submerged at the entrance to the
Kaipara Harbour could get under way next year. The harbour is one of the largest in the
world. It’s a broad shallow harbour covering an area of over three hundred square miles and
has more than two thousand miles of shoreline. It has a two and a half mile wide entrance to
the Tasman Sea halfway along its length.

Although officially called a harbour, the Kaipara is rarely used for shipping, owing to the
treacherous tides and bars at its mouth. For this reason, no large settlements lie close to its
shores, although small communities dot its coastline.

Crest Energy has applied to the Northland Regional Council for resource consent to set the
22m-tall turbines on the seafloor along about 8km of the 30m deep main channel at the
harbour entrance.
The tidal energy is expected to get the turbines generating 200 megawatts of power - enough
for 250,000 homes. The turbines, shielded from fish, would sit on heavy concrete pylons and
be at least 5m from the surface at low tide. Leisure craft and barges could pass over them, but
would be restricted from anchoring in the turbine area.

Two 30km-long cables 125mm in diameter would feed electricity into the national grid.

Crest Energy claims the size and commercial scale of the Kaipara project would make it the
largest of its kind in the world.

If the project gets the green light, possibly around the middle of next year, the company plans
to raise about $50 million to begin building turbines.

Labels: new zealand, tidal energy, tidal power

P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 4 : 3 0 P M 5 C O M M E N T S

W E D N E S D A Y, N O V E M B E R 0 1 , 2 0 0 6

Buy This Alternative Book

Here at the Alternative Energy Blog, while not underestimating the scale of the challenges
facing the world, we like to talk about solutions. Another website that has consistently done
this is World Changing, which started as an award winning group blog, became a non-profit
and has now also become a 600 page book.

This firecracker of a book is about the future of the world, full of big ideas on how humanity,
technology and our environment can interact in a positive way. If you are tired of pessimistic
doom and gloom tomes on the state of the world and the business as usual messages of many
of our political & business leaders, this is the book for you. It is a optimistic read, overflowing
with ideas for change.

What are you waiting for?

Go buy World Changing and instead of the Barefoot Contessa, let's see barefoot solar
engineers on the top sellers list.
P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 1 1 : 1 1 A M 6 C O M M E N T S

T U E S D A Y, O C T O B E R 0 3 , 2 0 0 6

Clean Coal or Dirty Coal?

When President Bush said “America is addicted to oil”, he could also have said that America
is addicted to coal.

Most Americans are not aware of the sheer scale of current coal use in the United States. Over
50% of electricity is generated from coal with 20 pounds of coal per a person being burnt
every day to generate electricity.
While questions are increasingly being raised about remaining oil and gas reserves, we are
assured that there is plenty of coal left to burn. Indeed in a talk to a meeting of builders and
contractors at the Capital Hilton on June 8, 2005 President Bush asked the audience,
"Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"

Hopefully readers will spot this obvious gaffe. The figure quoted by the coal industry is 250
years of reserves, not 250 million years. The energy illiteracy of the average person is
worrying enough, but in our political leadership it is a real cause for concern.

There are an estimated one trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world, by far the largest
reserve of fossil fuel left on the planet. The United States has over 25% of the world’s
recoverable coal reserves. An important point to remember when considering how many
years of coal we have left is that these figures are based on current rates of consumption and
do no take into account growing demand for electricity. Since 1980 coal use for power
generation has increased by over 75%.

A good percentage of the coal that’s left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants
and much of its buried in inconvenient places. In 1974 the USGS published an estimate of the
recoverable reserve base at 243 billion tons. This however failed to take into account real
world restrictions on mining: state and national parks, roads, towns, proximity to railroads,
coal quality, losses during mining and geologic limitations. When these are factored in less
than 50% of the coal estimated as “recoverable” in the 1974 study was available for mining.
This fails to taken into account how much is economically recoverable at market prices. In a
1989 study by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Kentucky, at $30 a ton 22% of coal was
economically recoverable. The author Tim Rohrbacher wrote “a strong argument can be made
that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing resource depletion
problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought”.

Recently there has been a rise in suggestions that America should replace its addiction to oil,
with diesel fuel made from American coal. There is currently in place a Coal-to-Liquids Tax
Credit of $0.50/gallon in place until 2023. The idea has been around for a long while, in the
second world war it was used by the Germans to make Nazi oil from coal when their supply of
normal gasoline was cut off. I remember when I first started researching peak oil I realised
after awhile if things got bad that coal rich countries might turn to making Nazi oil in
desperation when petroleum depletion started to bite. Of course calls to start building Coal to
Liquids plants aren’t proof that petroleum depletion is well advanced, but I hardly see it as a
source for optimism.

Fischer-Tropsch pilot plant

You don’t need to be an expert on coal liquefaction to realise that it’s a bad idea as this article
on AutoblogGreen shows. It’s expensive, uses lots of water, produces double the carbon
dioxide when compared to regular petroleum use and produces diesel when the vast majority
of the U.S. car fleet runs on gasoline. Over at the Ergosphere, the Engineer Poet crunches the
numbers and compares coal to liquids versus electric vehicles. He calculates that to replace
the United States petroleum consumption at current rates would take 214 four billion dollar
coal to liquid plants (that’s not far off a trillion dollars in investment) and the mining of an
additional one and a half billion tons of coal a year, in addition to the one billion tons already
being mined for electricity generation. It should be noted that the high percentage of
electricity currently produced from coal is not an argument against electric vehicles, this is
something I have covered in detail elsewhere on this blog. Electric motors are inherently
more efficient than the internal combustion engine. It is far easier to control emissions from
large power plant, than from the exhausts of thousands of cars. Electric vehicles are not
reliant on one source of energy and in the longer term polluting non-renewable sources of
electricity can be replaced by clean alternative energy.

The coal industry’s promotion of the idea that America has a vast reserve of coal is slowing
the transition to clean renewable sources of energy. In addition to tv spots showing child
actors extolling the virtues of coal, the industry has spent heavily to get the ear of the political
establishment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peabody Energy, the world’s
largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison
Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent.

In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion
dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.

Virtually every power plant built in America between 1975 and 2002 was fired by natural gas.
However between 1970 and 2000, the amount of coal America used to generate electricity
tripled.

Now with natural gas prices rising steeply, U.S. power utilities are expected to build the
equivalent of 280 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity power plants between 2003 and 2030.
China is already constructing the equivalent of one large coal burning power plant a week
with two thirds of energy production coming from dirty coal. 16 of the 20 most polluted cities
in the world are in China. India is the third largest producer of coal in the world, also getting
over two thirds of its energy from coal. If these new coal plants are built, they will add as
much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as has been released by all the coal burned in the last
250 years.

Acid run off from coal mining

Coal’s sale price may be low, but the true costs of its extraction, processing and consumption
are high. Our use of coal leads to ravaged mountains, air pollution from acidic and toxic
emissions and fouled water supplies. Coal mining is massively more invasive than oil or gas
drilling. Coal burning power plants account for more than two-thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22%
of nitrogen oxides, nearly 40% of carbon dioxide and a third of all mercury emissions in the
United States. Results of the largest mercury hair sampling project in the U.S. found mercury
levels exceeding the EPA’s recommended limit of one microgram of mercury per gram of hair
in one in five women of childbearing age tested. Each year coal plants produce about 130
million tons of solid waste, about three times more than all the municipal garbage in the U.S.
The American Lung Association calculates that around 24,000 people a year die prematurely
from the effects of coal fired power plant pollution.

Techniques for addressing CO2 emissions exist, although the will to quickly implement them
lags.

The techniques electric utilities could apply to keep much of the carbon dioxide they produce
from entering the atmosphere are known as CO2 capture or geological carbon sequestration.
This involves separating the CO2 as it is created and pumping it underground to be stored.

Until recently I wasn’t aware that all the technological components needed for carbon
sequestration are commercially ready (according to an article in September’s Scientific
American magazine) as they have already been proven in applications unrelated to avoidance
of climate change. However integrated systems have yet to be built on a commercial scale.

Capture technologies have been deployed extensively throughout the world both in the
manufacture of chemicals (e.g. fertilizer) and in the purification of natural gas. Industry has
gained experience with CO2 storage in operations to purify natural gas, principally in Canada,
as well as using carbon dioxide to boost oil production, mainly in the United States.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated in 2005 that it is highly
likely that geologic locations worldwide are capable of sequestering at least two trillion metric
tons of CO2 - more than is likely to be produced by fossil fuel consuming power plants this
century.

Carbon sequestration is not without risk. The two main risks are sudden escape and gradual
leakage of carbon dioxide. In 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, Africa carbon dioxide
originating from a volcano killed over 1,700 people. However according to IPCC this is
unlikely for engineered CO2 storage in carefully selected, deep porous geologic rock
formations. In regard to gradual leakage the IPCC estimated in 2005 that in excess of 99% of
carbon sequestered is “very likely” to remain in place for at least one hundred years.

Studies indicate that 85%-95% of the carbon in coal could be sequestered using existing
power generation technologies.
A key point is that fundamentally different approaches to carbon capture would need to be
pursued for power plants using the old pulverised coal technology as opposed to the newer
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). IGCC plants use heat and pressure to cook off
impurities in coal and convert it into a synthetic gas, this gas is then burnt in a turbine. These
plants are 10% more efficient than conventional plants, consume 40% less water, produce
50% less solid waste and burn almost as cleanly as natural gas plants.

Although building IGCC power plants is slightly more expensive (10%-20%), IGCC is likely to
be the most effective and cheapest option for carbon capture.
In an IGCC plant designed to capture CO2 the syngas exiting the gasifier, after being cooled
and cleaned of particles, would be reacted with steam to make a gas made up mainly of CO2
and hydrogen. The CO2 would then be extracted and pumped to a storage site. The remaining
hydrogen would be burned to generate more power. Captured carbon dioxide can by piped up
to several hundred miles to a suitable geologic storage site.

A recent study found that for carbon capture in a saline formation one hundred kilometers
from a power plant would cost an additional 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (over the generation
cost of 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for a coal IGCC plant that vents carbon dioxide), making a
40% premium. With coal generation costing 6.6 cents for a kilowatt hour, this would make
wind power cheaper than coal and with technology advances could also provide a boost to
other renewable energy sources (e.g. concentrating solar power).

However electricity producers are rushing to build conventional coal pulverisation power
plants, just as they rushed to build coal plants without sulfur scrubbers prior to legislation
coming into force. This is short-sighted as it is more expensive, more energy intensive and
less effective to attempt to capture carbon from conventional coal power plants. It is highly
likely that having built these plants, that the coal industry would expect the taxpayer to foot
the bill for the additional expense. Of the one hundred or so plants being planned or under
construction in America only a handful use IGCC technology.

Proposed Design for FutureGen

FutureGen, is the Department of Energy financed one billion dollar zero emissions plant
intended to turn coal into electricity and hydrogen. Proposed in 2003 and backed by a
consortium of coal and electric companies, it is not due to come online until at least 2013.
Many in the industry consider this date to be dubious nicknaming the project NeverGen. It is
intended to make it look like the coal industry is doing something, while actually doing very
little and in the process putting off changing how coal plants are built for a decade or two.
Indeed in its Coal Vision report(pdf), the industry does not plan on building “ultra-low
emissions” plants on a commerical scale until between 2025 and 2035. According to the
report “there is considerable debate about the need to reduce CO2 emissions”. The report also
states that “achieving meaningful CO2 reductions would require significant technical
advances”.

The report further states “large scale and long term demonstrations of carbon sequestration
technologies over a geographically and geologically diverse range of... sites are needed before
making any policy decisions concerning carbon management”. The coal industry wants
sequestration to be demonstrated not only in the United States but additionally “similar
assessments need to be conducted internationally”. In terms of who should pay for these
demonstrations the report writes “the government must play a significant role”.

It sounds that if the coal industry has its way, it won’t be using carbon capture for many
decades.

Instead of waiting until 2013 or even 2035, the coal industry could be building IGCC power
plants with carbon capture now. The rush to build conventional coal pulverisation plants is
extremely short sighted as these plants could be operating for the next fifty years or more.

In the first instance I advocate maximising our use of clean renewable energy. At the moment
wind power is being used to generate only 0.5% of electricity in the United States. Using
existing technology wind power could cost effecively generate a significant portion of many
countries electricity supply. Significant sums of money should also be invested in making
solar power and wave power more cost effective, as well as investments in energy long shots
such as cellulosic ethanol and fusion power. If we are going to continue to use coal as global
society as a major source of energy, which seems pretty much inevitable for at least the next
few decades in key countries such as the United States, China & India, then we should be
building IGCC power plants with carbon capture and retiring existing dirty coal plants now. If
there are unforeseen problems with carbon capture, we need to find out now rather than in a
few decades time. The coal industry's business as usual attitude is simply not acceptable.

Jeff Goodell in his recent book “Big Coal” concludes, “coal gives us a false sense of security, if
we run out of gas and oil, we can just switch over to coal… the most dangerous things about
our continued dependence on coal is it preserves the illusion that we don’t have to change our
thinking”.

Further Reading:
“Big Coal” by Jeff Goodell
“What to Do About Coal?” in Scientific American September, 2006

Lively Discussion of Coal to Liquids

Coal Vision by the Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group

Mountaintop Removal

A Quick Guide to Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

When Will Coal Production Peak?

P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 1 : 5 1 A M 1 7 C O M M E N T S

S U N D A Y, S E P T E M B E R 0 3 , 2 0 0 6

Plug-In Hybrid Campaign

I encourage everyone to sign this online plug in hybrid campaign urging automakers to
produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The petition basically says, 'If you build it,
we will buy it.' Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are key to energy independence and
reducing pollution.

Over 40 percent of the generating capacity in the U.S. sits idle or operates at a reduced load
overnight, when most PHEVs would be charged. That means tens of millions of plug-ins
could be charged every night without the need to build additional electric generation capacity.

According to the California Electric Transportation Coalition that commissioned a study, if

automakers begin producing Plug-Ins within the next few years, 2.5 million cars (eight
percent of the cars on America's roads) could be Plug-Ins by the year 2020. That's the
equivalent of taking as many as 5 million of today's vehicles off the road. Annually that's 11.5
million tons of CO2 which won't be emitted and 1.14 Billion gallons of gasoline would be
saved each year. For those concerned about energy security it is definitely a step in the right
direction. Less than 2% of U.S. electricity is generated from oil, so using electricity as a
transportation fuel would greatly reduce dependence on imported petroleum.

Sign the Plug-In Hybrid Petition

Labels: phev, plug in hybrids

P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 1 2 : 5 8 A M 1 3 C O M M E N T S

W E D N E S D A Y, J U L Y 2 6 , 2 0 0 6

Is Ethanol / E85 Fuel the Solution?

I've recently received a number of emails calling for me to Kick the Oil Habit by supporting
E85 which is a liquid fuel made up of 85% ethanol and 15% regular gasoline. Having
previously had my doubts about ethanol I emailed fellow blogger the Engineer Poet seeking
his opinion. A large part of this resulting post is based directly on his reply and as such the
credit belongs to him.

So is E85 fuel the answer to America's (and the world's) addiction to oil?

E85 fuel is not the solution. It is not even a part of the solution, it is a part of the problem.
Here's why, in a nutshell:

All US vehicles can burn 10% ethanol (E10), but the US does not even produce half as much
ethanol as universal E10 would require. We make about 5 billion gallons of ethanol, but use
140 billion gallons of gas.

E85 and "flex fuel" is a loophole for the automakers to sell guzzlers without having to pay
CAFE penalties. It makes the problem worse. Ending the loophole probably means ending
E85, because there is no other reason for it to exist.

Since the best estimate is that every gallon-equivalent of ethanol takes about 4/5 of a gallon-
equivalent of other fossil fuel to make it, each gallon of E85 really represents about 0.6
gallons-equivalent of various fossil fuels. Since most flex-fuel vehicles get roughly 2/3 the
mileage on E85 as they do on gasoline, they burn about 90% as much fossil energy even at
their best.

Even if we can use "cellulosic ethanol" to reduce the inputs of fossil-derived fertilizer and
whatnot, we can't make enough no matter what we do. The efficiency of the average gasoline-
powered vehicle is about 15%, and we just can't grow enough inputs to make up for throwing
85% of our produced energy away. The most efficient use of biomass is in local combined heat
and power plants, not as a feedstock for ethanol.

Low corn prices and high oil prices, and a government subsidy of 51 cents per gallon have
fuelled unprecedented growth of the ethanol industry. In the case of the U.S. ethanol
industry, fossil fueled trucks ship the fuel halfway across the country from the population
sparse corn belt to population and car dense states like California and Texas. Science
magazine found only a 13% reduction in CO2 emissions for bioethanol over gasoline (and
only 11% for E85 fuel). U.S. government federal records show a single ADM corn processing
plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004. The EPA considers an ethanol
plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant
per year. From an emissions standpoint it is far preferable to drive a fuel efficient gasoline car
than a low efficiency flex fuel vehicle running on E85.

E85 fuel is not a solution. It is a distraction, like hydrogen vehicles. Further, every E85 vehicle
is also a gasoline-compatible vehicle. It will maintain demand for petroleum as long as it is on
the road. If you want to end oil addiction you have to get rid of the things which use it.

E85 ethanol fuel may make a small contribution now, but it is a dead end. If we want to really
be free of fossil fuels (including imported oil), we have to re-think things as completely as
changing from riding horses to driving motor cars.

Ethanol has already created an addiction of its own. The farmers and agribusiness interests
which got into it found it hugely profitable, and they have big investments in its continuation.
Even if you developed a better way of using corn today, you'd still have a lot of money
lobbying to use it for ethanol, and even force it to be used for ethanol.

This is already a race between technologies which can make us independent of fossil fuel, and
technologies which get subsidy money. In that race, the subsidy seems to win every time. At
least 43 percent of Archer Daniels Midland's annual profits are from products heavily
subsidized or protected by the American government. For every $1 of profit earned by ADM's
ethanol operation (the largest in the U.S.), it costs taxpayers $30. If you subsidize a
technology which can only replace half our gasoline (and none of our diesel, jet fuel, or
anything else), you're probably going to be stuck with it.
A hobbyist wrote an article about his home-built plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). He
published this article in Mother Earth News... in 1978.

We don't need any new technology. We could be building these cars today. Heck, we could
have been building them in 1995 (when the CARB ZEV mandate came in)... or maybe even
1985. They would have been crude, but they would have gotten the job done. We can do far
better today, of course.

People finally got fed up and started building their own PHEV's out of Toyota Priuses. It's
time to quit the excuses, both making them and accepting them.

CAFE regulations utterly failed to contain U.S. motor-fuel consumption. This is not opinion,
this is historical fact. Now the E85 fuel campagin wants to do the same thing again, but
"reduce" consumption with E85 instead of directly cutting gallons-per-mile. You'll get the
same result as before - if driving doesn't cost more, people will continue to drive as much or
more.

There are roughly 200 million light-duty vehicles in the USA. One recent news item says that
there will be all of 6 million flex-fuel vehicles by 2007. That's a whole 3%.

The average flex-fuel vehicle is a guzzling truck (because they get the biggest CAFE preference
from it). If those trucks get 13 MPG on E85, and they drive the national average of 13,000
miles/year, those 6 million vehicles would consume 5.1 billion gallons of ethanol. That's
roughly the same as the total production capacity of the nation.

The E85 fuel campaign is currently sponsoring a road trip to highlight the usage of E85, but
also the difficulty of driving a car solely on E85 due to its lack of availability.
the electric Tesla Roadster - 250 mile range, one cent a mile, 0-60 in 4 seconds, 130 mph top speed - photo from Autoblog
Green

However, had this trip been made in a Tesla Roadster or tZero from AC Propulsion, it could
have instead highlighted how EASY it is to get electricity wherever you are... even if you never
stop at a filling station! Using non-toxic lithium-ion batteries they have a 250 mile range,
charging overnight from an electric outlet.

E85 fuel is a distraction, a diversion, a red herring. Just as the switch to "hydrogen economy"
(remember that?) was before it. Both require huge investment, new infrastructure and will
not lead to a post-oil economy. The hydrogen economy was promoted principally by both
automakers and oil companies as a stalling strategy to avoid having to change the way they
currently do business. Oil companies were also aware in the unlikely event that the hydrogen
economy did take off (with huge taxpayer subsidies) that they would be supplying hydrogen
produced from natural gas which they were already profitting from. The automakers sat
around lamenting the fact they couldn’t start to build cars as there are hardly any hydrogen
filling stations and the energy companies would not open commercial hydrogen filling
stations as there is no demand for them. While appearing to want to do something, both the
automakers and energy companies continued for a few more years with business as usual.
The Nissan Armada promoted on the E85 fuel site - with no fuel economy figures indicated

The campaign for E85 fuel is somewhat similar. The automakers are eager to produce flex
fuel vehicles which require a relatively cheap modification to the highly profitable gas
guzzling SUVs they already produce. By backing E85 fuel they can continue to produce the
highly inefficient vehicles while appearing to be green (as seen in GM's Live Green Go Yellow
campaign). Car and Driver magazine estimates the CAFE loophole could have saved GM more
than $200 million in fines in 2005 alone.

As GM admits the consumer can choose “to operate on gasoline or on a blend of 85% ethanol
and 15% gasoline. So, you can choose the fuel that's best for you. That's good to know,
because E85 fuel is not yet widely available.” In other words in the vast majority of cases your
new flex fuel vehicle will still be running on regular gas. Charter members of the National
Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (NEVC), which promotes E85 fuel, when it was set up in June 2000
include GM, DaimlerChrsyler, and Ford.

Meanwhile E85 fuel is also been promoted by organisations such as the National Corn
Growers Association, as well as regional and state corn growers organisations, associated
agribusinesses and biofuel companies. All of which have a commercial interest in promoting
E85 fuel. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a clearinghouse on political
donations, the agribusiness sector has funneled more than $190 million into federal election
campaigns since the 2000 election cycle. In the NEVC’s bylaws its purpose is described as to
"ensure that as decisions regarding the future of America’s use of alternative forms of
transportation fuels are being made, ethanol has a role in the nation’s alternative
transportation fuel market and support the expanded use of ethanol" and to "advance
legislative proposals" to this effect. This seems to be regardless of whether ethanol/ E85 fuel
is the best or is even a good solution to our energy challenges.

As the Engineer Poet points out in this post, burning fuel for transportation is very inefficient
way of using energy. Whether you are fed up with the current use of petroleum for
transportation for environmental, political or financial reasons E85 fuel is simply not the
answer. What we need is a step change, as represented by moving from using gas burning
vehicles to electric vehicles.

To encourage this, I urge you to sign this online plug in hybrid campaign asking automakers
to produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).

Autoblog Green's exclusive interview with Tesla Motors' chairman

Tesla Roadster Video

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) - the Largest U.S. Ethanol Producer

Vinod Khosla Debunked

Car and Driver Magazine on the Promise of Energy Independence through Ethanol

USA Today on the Ethanol Debate

Cutting Down Borneo's Rainforests to Make BioFuels

Labels: biofuels, carbon emissions, cellulosic ethanol, e10, e85 fuel, energy policy, ethanol,
government subsidies, phev, plug in hybrids, tesla

P O S T E D B Y J A M E S AT 1 1 : 1 2 A M 5 9 C O M M E N T S

SUBSCRIBE

RSS and Atom Site Feed

 PREVIOUS POSTS

• Seeing Red: Palm Oil Biodiesel

• City Utilities End Coal Fired Electricity Contract...
• $402m Tidal Energy Plant For New Zealand
• Buy This Alternative Book
• Clean Coal or Dirty Coal?
• Plug-In Hybrid Campaign
• Is Ethanol / E85 Fuel the Solution?
• Why Alternative Energy?
• $4b Investment in Wind Power by BP Alternative Ene...
• Alternative Energy Inspires Young Scientists

ARCHIVES

• August 2004
• September 2004
• October 2004
• November 2004
• December 2004
• January 2005
• February 2005
• March 2005
• April 2005
• May 2005
• June 2005
• July 2005
• August 2005
• September 2005
• October 2005
• November 2005
• December 2005
• January 2006
• February 2006
• March 2006
• April 2006
• May 2006
• July 2006
• September 2006
• October 2006
• November 2006
• February 2007

ABOUT ME

JAMES

LONDON, ENGLAND, UK,

VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE
Solar Energy

C O N TA C T E M A I L : J A M E S AT A LT E N E R G Y B L O G D O T C O M