Especially if the electricity to charge the cars didn’t necessarily come from no-carbon sources? What about when you include all ancillary costs and pollution from the two different technologies?
How would you harvest this biofuel?
On the surface it looks much better, with current technology, but you have to figure in growing area. Does it compete with the food supply? Native wild life? Can it meet energy needs?
Ultimately I think fuel cells would best. You could crack water with any electrical source such as wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear. Then haul it around like fuel.
It would be a catastrophic mistake if we decided to replace oil-based fuels with biofuel derived from organic matter that has to compete with foodstuffs for arable land, regardless of carbon emission levels.
Electric cars with reasonable range aren’t a feasible technology right now, and neither is producing the equivalent of 140 billion gallons of gas in biofuels. So comparing the environmental effects is difficult, as well as not particularly meaningful. But even a pro-biofuels guy like me agrees that if we tried to scale up with current technology, we’d be in a world of hurt, so I’d go with electric cars.
That said, we don’t need to choose. The easiest path to carbon reduction is personal transportation is through gas-electric hybrid vehicles that can be plugged into the grid, and which can get gas mileages in the 100s. That would roughly quarter our need for gasoline, from 140 billion gallons to 35 billion gallons if used across the entire fleet. Under the existing renewable fuel standard, we’ll be producing 15 billion gallons of ethanol from corn by then, plus potentially some other amount up to 20 billion additional gallons from cellulose, depending on if the technology gets developed or not. So we’d go from needing 140 billion gallons of gas a year to needing something like 20 or 25 billion plus some small additional amount of coal or natural gas for electricity production. And that’s without much increase in biofuel production over today, and no reliance on yet-to-be-developed technology. It’s not too hard to imagine that number approaching zero if we can increase corn yields significantly or make use of the cellulose.
We’d either be raising the price of food by using current food growing land for biofuels or be hastening the water crisis that we’re going to face in the not too distant future that no one seems to talk about if we expand our agricultural imprint in a significant way. Even offsetting a small fraction of our oil consumption with farms dedicated to biofuels would use crazy amounts of land. And the energy to harvest the crops reduces the net gain.
Expanded nuclear power along with plug in hybrids and a better power grid seems to me like such a no brainer that it’s staggering that it doesn’t seem to be under serious consideration.
Lumpy it does depend on which assumptions we make.
If one assumes that a biofuel was completely life cycle carbon neutral (including the carbon cost of “indirect land use change”) and assumes that electricity is generated by current older coal power plants then biofuels would come out on top.
If one assumes that biofuels are not completely carbon neutral after accounting for those land use changes and for transport costs and that marginal increases in electricity generation are more likely than the general generation mix to be coming from cleaner sources such as renewables, then generally electricity comes out on top.
Vary those assumptions and the real life answer will vary as well.
SenorBeef, how do you get the impression that it is not under serious consideration? Plug-in hybrids are being encouraged (along with EREVs and BEVs). Grid improvements are being funded in the stimulus package. And if nuclear can be done cost competitively with the current supply chain of parts, materials, trained workers, and lending sources, then a cap and and trade system (planned for even if it might not make through Congress this year) will make it happen.
If the biofuel is harvested from some bioengineered algae grown on a farm in the desert or out in the ocean, absolutely. If it is harvested from corn and soybeans grown on prime midwest farmland… Not so much.
Some amount of electrical cars will be good though, especially in cities, in order to use up the excess electrical generating capacity we have.
The grid improvements are preliminary at best - about 2-4% of what we’d need to actually upgrade our grid substantially. The nuclear part of what I mentioned is important - switching our cars from gas to coal is an improvement but a waste when we could both increase our energy independence and help the environment at the same time with this opportunity instead.
I’ve been thinking about starting this very thread.
I’ve wondered about just how much more efficient electric cars would be than a completely renewable fuel since you still have to pull the power out of the wall and that has to come from somewhere.
As **CutterJohn **mentions, and as I have long believed, algae harvested biodieselseems to be the ultimate fuel source. It’s oil yield, according to the wiki, is at minimum 7 times greater than the next best source, Chinese tallow, at 5,000 gallons per acre; with potential to increase that efficiency ten-fold.
Not only is it completely renewable, but it can be grown with salt and/or waste water. As well, being a plant after all, it is its own carbon capturing and converting device. I don’t see it in the link, and actually forget where I had heard it, but IIRC the byproduct could also be used to make biodegradable plastics.
It really seems like a miracle option, and I’m surprised more isn’t talked about. Only one time have I heard it mentioned on any of the news channels, though it was by a Congresswoman who sounded very excited about it, however, it was completely ignored and passed over in the “conversation”.
Likewise I’m also surprised that there is not a bigger push to round up all the restaurant/fryer grease to make biodiesel and make a market of that. There was a great episode of *Dirty Jobs *where a guy up here in WA makes all his own fuel by way of local restaurants. If any country had the established infrastructure to use fryer grease as a fuel source, this is certainly it.
Putting on my tinfoil hat for a bit, it seems like there has been a quiet push to do away with diesel and diesel engines. I really have no idea why it has become so much more expensive than unleaded. Only my WAG but could that market manipulation? I remember specifically noting to myself that during his 15 minutes during the campaign, including an appearance on Leno, that T.Boone Pickens was very explicit in the trashing of diesel and the promotion of converting our trucks and fleet vehicles to natural gas engines. Another plus of biodiesel is that no modifications need to be made to a regular diesel engine. I can only think of maybe only two car companies that make diesel passenger cars(not trucks), Volvo and VW; if they even still do. Diesel cars are almost impossible to find and cost a premium up here, as there are some biodiesel offering gas stations.
Basically, if it looks too good to be true then it probably is. And if it looks like a miracle solution and you think that there is a conspiracy to hold it back then you aren’t thinking about the other side of the equation…that is, if it’s REALLY such a great deal then it will make someone a mountain (literally) of money, and no matter how much Big Oil or Big Auto (or Big Whatever) might want to keep a lid on it (though why they would do so is a mystery…they aren’t exactly allergic to money after all) SOMEONE out there is going to want that money.
I found this site that discusses some of the down sides to bio diesel:
I don’t think any of these are show stoppers, and I think there is a lot of promise in bio diesel…but there are down sides to everything, and nothing is ever as easy as it looks when they talk about this stuff on Discovery or Learning Channel. If it’s not already out there and totally in production then there is probably a good reason for that, usually dealing with either engineering or straight economics.
Personally, I think that hydrogen fuel cell hybrid electric (i.e. plug in batteries with hydrogen fuel cells) will eventually win out as the next great personal transport (if we ever get the nuke plants up and running), as it seems to be the most carbon neutral of all…but maybe Mr. Fusion will win, or maybe it will be something no one sees coming (perhaps methane fuel cells or magic ponies).
-XT
Yeah! We can burn them for fuel!
This is incorrect. Bio-diesel fuel made from algae produces 1500 gallons per acre minimum compared to 40 gallons per acre per year of soy based diesel.
The algae needs co2 so these plants can be used next to clean coal plants that strip out the co2. It’s already being done now so it isn’t a pie-in-the-sky technology.
Since there are already diesel engines in production in Europe it would be an overnight switch to ramp up production in the US.
The advantage of doing this is that it uses the same fuel distribution nodes, the
same manufacturing processes for cars, and is cheaper to produce than a hybrid. It involves cars that get better gas mileage on the highway than hybrids with the added benefit of better torque so they can tow trailers.
The final advantage is that we can produce all of the fuel necessary so it cuts off importing oil which means all that money leaving the country stays and is reinvested in the economy.
As an immediate solution for co2 reduction this is a win/win/win/win/win. We get better cars, less co2 emissions, a reduction of coal co2, energy freedom, and a huge shot in the arm for Detroit.
The advantage to this is that we can do it NOW without any investment and it produces immediate gains. Better technology WILL follow but our best foot forward is bio-diesel from algae.
What is the cost per gallon of biodiesel from algae assuming we scale up to several billion gallons per year?
Right now, the cheapest way to produce a high-energy density (energy per unit volume) fuel without using fossil fuels is by producing biofuels. Of course this takes land, but we need energy as well as food, and continuing to dig up and burn fossils is proving to have some pretty severe problems.
Of course we’re offsetting a small fraction of our oil consumption now with the ethanol program. Is that using “crazy amounts of land?”
Of course. Like how the energy to pump oil out of the ground, refine it, and ship it around the world reducing its net gain too. So?
In general, I agree, though it doesn’t necessarily have to be nuclear. Intermittent sources like solar and wind would work fine for charging plug-in hybrids as well.
Being limited to liquid-fueled engine is an issue we’re starting to overcome.
I don’t know how much land it uses. It’s probably a very inefficient use of land. The number that I recall from an ethanol argument I read was that the amount of land needed per year to grow enough ethanol to power a jet flight between NYC and London would be the size of four football fields.
Ethanol requirements are essentially a way for the government to give money to the rich agricultural megacorporations. From what I understand, corn is not a great crop for this purpose but corn is what the big companies control. I’ve read that sugar cane and other crops are far more efficient at being converted to a usable fuel, but our limitations on sugar importation (in part due to the influence of our agricultural megacorps and in part a way for us to influence central and south american policy) keep us from using it.
It also raises the costs of food by shortening the supply of corn or other land available for crops.
Yeah, that was poorly worded. I’ve read that we use more energy to harvest ethanol than we get out of it. Is the situation significantly different for land based biofuel? If not, then this is just stupid and counterproductive - actually hurting our cause in order to feel like we’re doing something.
Nuclear is much, much closer to being a practical heavy lifter than solar or wind are. Wind, even if the technology and the will were there, just probably won’t ever be that good - there aren’t that many places with prime conditions. Solar needs tons of advances in terms of efficiency and cost. Nuclear, though, basically needs political will. We could double or triple our nuclear capacity quite quickly if nuclear development wasn’t as drawn out and expensive as it is now.
This algae biofuel stuff sounds interesting. Far more practical than land based biofuels.
Hopefully, yes. But for the foreseeable future, our best personal transportation technology will be the plug-in hybrid, not the all-electric vehicle.
I’m not sure a jet can use ethanol at all. They definitely don’t today. So I’m not sure how relevant this comparison is. But yield today is approximate 400 gallons of ethanol per acre. If the average person drove a plug-in hybrid that got 100 mpg for 12000 miles a year, they’d need 120 gallons of gas per year, or perhaps 150 gallon of ethanol since it has lower energy density than gas. So your average joe needs an extra 3/8 acre to grow his transportation fuel.
Support for ethanol out of the farm states is probably based more on special interest than good public policy, but that doesn’t mean it’s not good public policy. Growing sugar for conversion to ethanol in the tropics and subtropics is more efficient than corn in the mid-latitudes. This is true, but not particularly relevant. The US has vast areas of agricultural land that really isn’t good for much other than growing corn. That corn’s gonna get grown - it’s just a matter of what the best thing for it to go to is. I personally think using it for fuel is a better use than animal feed and conversion to high-fructose corn syrup, which are the other major uses of field corn. And there’s nothing inconsistent about being in favor of the corn-ethanol program and supporting the abolition of our sugar tariffs. But we won’t import enough sugar to replace corn ethanol.
Perhaps to a small degree. But most of our corn growing belt just isn’t great at growing other crops. And corn isn’t food: it gets converted to food at an incredibly inefficient ratio of around 8:1 when we use it for animal feed, or as a cheap source of calories that do us no good at all when we convert it to HCFS.
Yeah, there’s the Pimentel study that says that. But it’s pretty much widely contested by everyone else that studies the issue.
I’m not opposed to nuclear, but it’s absurd to claim that wind can’t be a major part of our energy mix. It’s major drawback is intermittency, but that just doesn’t matter too much for the issue of charging a battery.
Except that AFAIK it’s not “practical” yet at all: it’s in science experiment mode. Whereas the ethanol program is producing on the order of 10 billion gallons of fuel now, every year.
I don’t know. there are too many wild claims on the net to speculate.
Regardless of the price, it would have to be subsidized or imported oil would have to be taxed to avoid attempts to destroy it by undercutting the price.
What if the price is US$10 / gallon? Then should it be subsidized?
Ethanol is being produced that much because it is hugely subsidized.
As far as competing with fossil fuels … the equation may change once the cost of the carbon emissions is included.
One thing I see rarely mentioned is the notion that a centralized place to create pollution makes that pollution much easier to contain. If we are producing almost all of our pollution in centralized loctions, sequestering it is a far cheaper task than equipping every single vehicle with extra weight for the purpose of limiting emissions. The reason I don’t see it mentioned much is that, after all, I may be wrong about it.