Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

The first up front problem with both biodiesel and ethanol is that it requires living matter to create and the sheer amount we would need to replace current diesel and gasoline usage. If we grew enough crops to provide fuel, there would be little (if any) crop land left for food production.

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs." (Ethanol)

That is truly problematic, but it is not the only problem. Most of the vehicles in the United States cannot run pure biodiesel or ethanol. The studies seem to indicate about a 30% mixture is as far as most vehicles can take without modification. Almost 60% of our oil consumption is for transportation. Therefore, 30% mixtures would help, but not replace, oil - even imported oil.

But there are problems beyond, crop space and availability to consume. The two primary ones are efficiency and emissions. Everyone "knows" that ethanol and biodiesel burn "cleaner." While this is true in terms of CO2 emissions, it is not true in terms of NO2 (nitrous oxide) emissions. These biofuels produce more nitrous oxide that petroleum. That is highly problematic because NO2 has 310 times the global warming potential versus carbon dioxide. While one of the benefits of moving away from oil is potentially addressing global warming, if at the same time we increase NO2 emissions we could dramatically accelerate global warming. It is possible to at least partially address the NO2 emissions through catalytic or other filtering technology.

There is a mixed review on the efficiency of the bio-fuels. Some say they are more efficient and some less. A study done by the American Coalition for Ethanol seems to echo the mixed review. If you look at the Ethanol Mileage Blend portion of the study, then what vehicle you have as well as how that combines with the "blend" being used effects mileage. Generally speaking, cars running ethanol blends get lower mileage than those running straight unleaded gasoline. The exception is a with a special ethanol blend called E10 AK. This blend, in most of the vehicles studied, got equal or better mileage than gasoline alone. Since ethanol generally costs less than gasoline at this point, the cost per mile goes down as one increases the ethanol portion, but then so does mileage (and NO2 emissions increase).

The other side of the efficiency question is the amount of energy needed produce biofuels. Problematically, it takes six units of energy to produce one unit of ethanol. If one were utilizing ethanol, the overwhelming amount of ethanol would go to producing ethanol. In that same Science Daily report, Tad Patzek - bioengineer and member of the American Petroleum Institute - says that ethanol "has the highest energy cost with the least benefit." Paztek's studies showed a 65% energy loss with biodiesels over oil.

There is one more dilemma that we need to be critically aware of - the paradox of efficiency. While not a new issue, it is well discussed by Jeff Jacoby in his article The paradox of fuel efficiency. If biofuels decrease the cost of fuel, and we also improve the mileage of vehicles, then the cost of transportation is likely to drop. That makes it cheaper to actually drive more. We could very easily see increased consumption rater than decreased consumption. This only exacerbates the problems with biofuels. If demand goes up, then so does the amount of land dedicated to fuel production. Likewise, the levels of energy consumption to produce biofuels goes up. And lastly the levels of NO2 emissions (at 310 times more damaging that CO2) go up.

So where does this leave us? It is clear that job one is to reduce consumption. That means reducing the amount of miles driven. This is possible through a variety of strategies including: relocalizing, mass transportation, shifting from truck to trains for transport, walking and biking, etc. Second, would be to increase dramatically the fuel efficiency of vehicles. However, if we do not decrease the miles traveled (demand) first, then increasing efficiency will likely increase consumption rather than decrease it. Third, would be to explore replacement fuel technologies. As it stands, biofuels are not the answer - not in the short term and not in broad scale use.

The reality is that we cannot just switch from one fuel to another and go on as if nothing happened. We must address the ways that we have organized our lives, our physical society, and out cultural ideology. The longer we take to face the realities of what brought us to the current crisis, the less likely we are going to address it successfully.

Other Information
3/2/06 Planet Ark, New Ethanol Gasoline Cuts Fuel Efficiency – Expert

Wikipedia, Ethanol fuel

Wikipedia, Fuel Efficiency Alternative Fuels

Wikipedia, Biodiesel

9/21/05 Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, The paradox of fuel efficiency

4/01/06 Science Daily, Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

Health & Energy, Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as 'Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning'

5/03/04 Shelley Howard, Illumin, Biodiesel: A Realistic Alternative?

Journey To Forever, Biodiesel