amanda photo Looking for the Amanda for Portland 2008 campaign site? Click HERE Amanda is a Registered Nurse, mother of three, and community leader in Portland, Oregon. She was the first candidate ever to qualify for Portland's Public Campaign Financing in her run for City Council in 2006. All photographs on the blog are by Steve Fritz (Amanda's husband), unless otherwise noted. navigationNavigationFavorite links:***************** Coalition for a Livable Future
syndication |
The pros and cons of biofuelsSubmitted by Amanda Fritz on October 8, 2007 - 10:50am.
The Oregonian published an interesting article by Gail Kinsey Hill and Scott Learn yesterday, on "The drive for biofuels". Since it will disappear into the paid archives after two weeks, except if you search through the Multnomah County Library site, I'm coping the parts I find most compelling here. Emphasis mine. ".... the scrutiny of corn ethanol, like other feedstocks, is rising. U.S. government researchers say burning corn ethanol averages a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gases versus gasoline. Critics -- including some researchers who've gotten grants from oil companies -- say corn ethanol can result in more greenhouse gas emissions than burning gasoline, particularly if petroleum-based fertilizers are used and coal fires the electricity in the ethanol plant. Like other biofuels, corn ethanol also takes a lot of land without making a huge dent in America's fuel use, agriculture economists say. By 2017, two University of Michigan researchers predicted this spring, corn ethanol would take half the corn crop while offsetting gasoline use by about 10 percent. Biofuel demand has helped increase corn prices and prompted concerns from livestock growers, who rely on corn for feed. Some economists -- and some United Nations officials -- worry that biofuels will drive up food prices, hurting the poor. Canola oil -- Imperium's feedstock of choice -- is good for making biodiesel, and its emissions are as much as 70 percent lower than gasoline. It's also good for the heart, however, and projections are for worldwide consumer demand to grow. It's already the highest priced biodiesel feedstock. Nancy Mills, a project manager with the Kline Group, recently researched and authored a study on biodiesel's prospects. "I went in with the general opinion that this was a great idea, but I started to see more and more caveats," Mills said. "The intentions are great -- we need to diversify our fuel supply. But there's still work to be done on how best to go about that." William Jaeger, an Oregon State University economist, worries that biofuels are taking tax subsidies and attention away from more environmentally effective -- albeit more politically difficult -- tactics. Jaeger issued a study this summer that concluded that Oregon's potential feedstock production would reduce greenhouse gasses by less than 1 percent -- the rough equivalent of raising vehicle mileage standards by 1.5 miles a gallon. Writ large, Jaeger said, "the analysis we did signals to me that it's a drop in the bucket." Biofuel advocates say the environmental payoff will improve. Technology will boost crop yields. Farmers will rotate in biofuel crops. And biofuel refineries will transition to better feedstocks. The gold standard of biofuels is "cellulosic" ethanol, using perennial switchgrass, poplar trees, and crop byproducts such as corn stalks and wheat chaff. It generates an estimated 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases versus gasoline. It also avoids using food crops for fuel. Making that a reality requires breaking down tough plant cell walls, and the technology remains unproven at large scales. But research is fast and furious, in the Northwest and elsewhere. Pacific Ethanol sees cellulosic ethanol in its future and expects Oregon to offer up plenty of fodder -- scrap from its forests, for example. As breakthrough technologies develop, the network of refineries will provide new jobs and establish Oregon as a green industry leader, said David Van't Hof, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski's sustainability adviser. "We're creating opportunities for agriculture and manufacturing to flourish in Oregon." " I'm impressed with the coverage of pros and cons in Gail and Scott's article. I've been concerned about one-sided cheerleading for biofuels for some time. Sure, they can help address energy needs and global warming. Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil, and switch to renewable energy resources. But biofuels aren't the whole answer, and they aren't without negative impacts on people or the planet. As I wrote here in April, shouldn't we discuss the morality of burning food for fuel? In July, I compiled this list of concerns, in relation to the information in the Oregon State University study. What is happening about requiring higher fuel efficiency in all vehicles, while time/money is being spent on biofuel subsidies? I want to see more emphasis on cellulosic ethanol production in Oregon. Not only does it avoid driving up the price of corn tortillas in Mexico (the topic of one of the early posts on this blog) and of heart-saving canola oil for Americans, but also the majority of cars (that use regular gasoline rather than diesel) can run on ethanol. Biodiesel can't be used in most passenger vehicles on the roads here in the United States. Before national policy encourages automakers to provide more diesel cars, as in Europe, there should be a thorough evaluation of the nation's capacity to produce biodiesel from non-food sources. In the push for green solutions, decision-makers should consider and remember how real people live. What if the biodiesel is primarily made with used cooking oil along with oil from canola seed plants as is done at the plant in Salem? And as for the stink, I'm guessing you were smelling exhaust from cars running B5 or B20 Biodiesel fuel (5% or 20% biodiesel blended with regular diesel). I'm running B99 in a 2004 VW Jetta and the smell is far less onerous than the normal diesel smell. To me my car's exhaust kind of smells oddly like crayons. From what I have read about ethanol and what supporters won’t tell you is that it takes more energy to produce and transport ethanol (it can not be transported by pipeline due to its corrosive nature) than is derived from the end product. Furthermore, not only do ethanol producers receive public dollar financed subsidies and tax breaks, but even with just the current ethanol-gasoline mix required in Oregon, fuel consumption is increased due to a reduction of the miles per gallon used. Depending on the vehicle, that can be as much as 15 percent. Economically, the ethanol craze is a scam for consumers. Terry Parker Hilsy, do you know what percentage of fuel demand could be met using used cooking oil? I agree that sounds like a perfect biofuel, as it would be waste otherwise and was manufactured to eat, first. Have studies been done calculating how much used cooking oil is produced daily by America's restaurants, and what proportion of fuel demand that could satisfy? It seems reasonable to me that it could be a part of the solution, and I'd like to know what proportion of vehicle fuel needs could be met that way. My brother in the UK says that although far more cars there are diesel there, biofuels are almost unheard of. And congestion is rising. I think total vehicle usage should be addressed as well as what fuel is used to drive. We can't keep imagining we can drive anywhere we want, any time we want, without damage to the planet as long as we use fuels with reduced impact. Liquid fuels from agricultural products are at best stop-gap and at worst a disaster for global food supplies and the environment. Growing and processing grains and legumes into liquid fuel is very energy intensive, which negates much of their value. Add to this the environmental costs of fertilizers, pesticides and genetically-modified crops, and it gets harder and harder to justify. Take a hard look at who's behind the movement, and you'll see giant agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and ADM. Hardly friends of the environment. The whole notion that the problem of environmental degradation can be solved by the very forces that are causing it -- namely, the unbridled reign of global capital -- should give pause to anybody serious about solving this crisis. We need to rethink the notion that economies must forever grow to survive. We're not going to shop our way out of climate change, and buying a Prius or converting your Jetta to biodiesel isn't helping much either. We need fundamental structural economic change. Our current system, predicated on continual growth, is nearing a tipping point. The only question is if we'll let it implode, or do something to head off disaster. "Market-based" solutions are not solutions; they are the problem. The invisible hand of the market is choking off the very source of planetary life, and it must be reigned in. Gosh darn it, Amanda, you might convince me to vote for you! :-) Tell me if I'm wrong, but I see in this posting skepticism combined with a call for good basic research and science behind policy decisions. Some of us raised these same issues with respect to the current city plans to overpay for biofuels produced in Oregon. As I commented at the time, I was worried a) about the City's expertise in identifying the right mix of incentives to spark rural economic development program (something the Federal government has clearly fumbled with respect to ethanol) and b) thinking that this program would somehow resolve urban/rural divides in the state. At the time, I was asked by a commissioner (not Randy) "who do you think should make these decisions" and I said "The market? How about buying biofuels, but from the cheapest supplier?" |
A much more micro-scale thing that concerns me about biodiesel is: it's diesel! It stinks! This year, when I've been caught behind a particularly smelly car on traffic (something you notice more on a bike), it has had a biodiesel sticker on it at least 50% of the time.