A Biofuel Proposal: making alternatives work
I have been thinking about biofuels recently. I think it has been on my mind thanks to a recent car rental experience Joy and I had in California, and thanks to a proposal my City Councilman is making that would over time require all heating oil in New York City to eventually be B20 biodiesel.
Biofuels are in one way the easiest alternative to oil-based fuels for transportation and heating purposes. This is because, depending on the biofuel, it requires the least change in our infrastructure and the manufacturing process of our cars and heating systems. For example, up to B20 biodiesel, any diesel car or boiler system can run on a biodiesel/traditional mix with no modification. The modifications to use B100 biodiesel are relatively minor and could be incorporated over time. My understanding is that ethanol based fuels also can be used in mixtures with traditional fuels with no modification, and only minor modifications are needed for pure biofuel. So, in terms of conversion to a new fuel, biofuels are the easiest compared with, for example, electric or hydrogen cars.
There is one major problem with biofuels. There are, depending on where the raw materials come from, limitations on just how much biofuel can be produced without competing with food production, thus driving up food prices and reducing availability, or leading to deforestation. So the challenge is to find sources of raw materials for biofuels that are plentiful AND don't compete with food production or preservation of forests.
There is no single source that will do this. But I think there are a variety of sources that, with some coordination that would require government involvement, could help supply abundant fuel. I am not saying biofuels are the ONLY solution. But combined with other alternatives it can be a part of the solution that helps wean us off foreign oil for our transportation and steam heating systems.
I think the best source for biodiesel is used cooking oil. This is a real win-win situation where a resource currently thrown away can be processed fairly cheaply and easily into a fuel that can run diesel engines or boilers. I think in a city like NYC conversion of used cooking oil into heating oil for the old boilers is an ideal solution. In NYC I find two companies that process used cooking oil and turn it into heating oil for homes and/or use in trucks, producing a B5 to B20 blend which can be used in any truck or boiler, I am told. One is Fred M. Schildwachter & Sons, and Tri-State Biodiesel. The main difficulty with coordinating the processing of used cooking oil into fuel for diesel engines or boilers is coordination of the market with production. That is why in NYC Councilman Yassky's proposal to require homes to use first B5, going up to B20 biodiesel mixes in home heating would help because it would gradually increase the demand. I would recommend coupling this proposal with one that provides incentives to companies that convert used cooking oil to the appropriate biodiesel blend so that we ensure that this best of raw materials is encouraged rather than more controversial alternatives.
This kind of system of requiring up to B20 for heating and/or diesel engine fuels coupled with incentives for that biodiesel to be made from used cooking oil could be applied to any major city where, let's face it, used cooking oil is quite abundant from our rather over fried diets. Getting above B20 would take further government incentives, I suspect, since it would require modifications to some engines and boilers, but that, too, could be done. I should note that even outside of major cities cooking oil to biodiesel can be done. Joy and I rented a 100% biodiesel last time we were in Los Angeles, and the company we rented the car (nicknamed the "Bio-Jetta" by my three year old who loved it) is based in Maui where they also rent cars. Their fleet of cars run on B100 biodiesel produced from used cooking oil. We recommend this company, bio-beetle, to anyone traveling to Hawaii. Their Los Angeles operation may be folding due to lack of customers. Woody Harrelson along with Joy and I may have been their last LA customers...but it is possible if you contact them they may still be open to customers in Los Angeles. And if enough demand turned up they might reactivate their LA branch. We liked the company, the car, the fueling stations, and we saved some money doing it!
I should note another advantage to proposals that encourage the conversion of used cooking oil to biodiesel is that it creates LOCAL jobs in America rather than helping primarily the Saudi economy.
But used cooking oil will NOT supply all our fuel needs. Other sources of biofuels need to be approached carefully or there could be the unintended consequence of higher food prices. Here is where I have a proposal that might be appealing on several levels to the Federal government, whether run by Republicans or Democrats.
How about combining an anti-drug program with a biofuels program? One way the American government has tried combating illegal drugs is to give growers of crops like coca and opium incentives to convert to legal crops. The problem with these programs is that they have been sporadic and seldom have provided the farmers with an alternative that could actually sustain their families long term. Mostly, these farmers return to growing opium or coca because it remains their best way to support themselves. I propose an anti-drug program where the US provides incentives to communities in nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan, recently joined by none other than Iraq as top opium growing nations, and like Columbia, Peru and Bolivia, among the top coca growers, to produce crops usable for biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol. We would have to assure that the incentives were long term enough to last, and it would probably be best to help set up the processing plants within those same communities to produce the fuels near where the crops are grown, providing additional jobs. In this way we can create an alternative economy to drug production.
In general, farmers have been very willing to convert to legal crops. But only if, and this is key, the legal alternative provides them with enough income long term to support their family. Producing the fuels near where the farmers live helps to make the new, non-drug based economy sustainable.
It wouldn't take much to make it work because even producing the drugs that are sold to our kids, the farmers often are living only marginally. A Current TV segment I saw some months ago showed the farmers in Colombia who produce coca and process it into cocaine. They are exploited by the drug cartels, harassed by the anti-drug police, and still can barely support their families. The fact that the alternatives provided by the US in its sporadic anti-drug programs are WORSE suggests that we really haven't tried hard enough. A biofuels production economy could work, addressing both environmental and anti-drug needs. The biofeul produced could either be used locally within the nation of origin, or imported to America for our use, depending on demand and convenience. Or even, in the case of Afghan and Pakistani produced biofuels, go to feed the economies of India, Japan and China. Either way, it helps the environment, it reduces the hold the Saudis have on the world. AND it allows farmers a REAL choices between legitimate and illegal economic alternatives.
I should note that in my mind, another way biofuels can be produced in America without competing with food production, is incentives to convert tobacco growing into biofuel production. Somehow I think there will be far more resistance to this than my proposal above for a combined anti-drug/pro-environment program. Still...maybe at least some of those tobacco growers would like a viable alternative to slowly killing people off with their products.
A final proposal I have also might meet industry resistance, but actually was one of the very first ideas I had regarding production of biofuels, probably ethanol in this case.
Government incentives have made high fructose corn syrup almost ubiquitous in our food. The corn lobby loves this because it gives them something to do with their corn with government subsidy. The food industry loves it because, with the government incentives, it is slightly cheaper than using sugar. The problem is that there is a strong correlation between the increased use of high fructose corn syrup in foods consumed by Americans and the rise of obesity. No one knows if there is a causal relationship, but the correlation is quite striking. The bottom line is that there is evidence that high fructose corn syrup is at least partly responsible for health problems among Americans.
Seems to me a better use of that high fructose corn syrup, still providing a market for our corn farmers, would be conversion into biofuel. The switch would have to be coordinated so the incentive is in converting from high fructose corn syrup use in our foods to use for biofuels, rather than use of corn used for food directly into biofuels. So again, the proposal would have to be carried out carefully to avoid competition with regular food use. But if we can fight obesity (arguably) while also helping the environment seems worth doing. Still, I consider this proposal to be harder to sell and implement than the first two, and I consider it likely that industry resistance would be high.
We have to move from talking about alternatives to USING alternatives to oil. Biofuels are likely to be a necessary part of the solution. The above proposals would be important for implementing a conversion from foreign oil to foreign or domestic biofuels and would couple economic, environmental and, in some cases, health or anti-drug benefits.
Biofuels are in one way the easiest alternative to oil-based fuels for transportation and heating purposes. This is because, depending on the biofuel, it requires the least change in our infrastructure and the manufacturing process of our cars and heating systems. For example, up to B20 biodiesel, any diesel car or boiler system can run on a biodiesel/traditional mix with no modification. The modifications to use B100 biodiesel are relatively minor and could be incorporated over time. My understanding is that ethanol based fuels also can be used in mixtures with traditional fuels with no modification, and only minor modifications are needed for pure biofuel. So, in terms of conversion to a new fuel, biofuels are the easiest compared with, for example, electric or hydrogen cars.
There is one major problem with biofuels. There are, depending on where the raw materials come from, limitations on just how much biofuel can be produced without competing with food production, thus driving up food prices and reducing availability, or leading to deforestation. So the challenge is to find sources of raw materials for biofuels that are plentiful AND don't compete with food production or preservation of forests.
There is no single source that will do this. But I think there are a variety of sources that, with some coordination that would require government involvement, could help supply abundant fuel. I am not saying biofuels are the ONLY solution. But combined with other alternatives it can be a part of the solution that helps wean us off foreign oil for our transportation and steam heating systems.
I think the best source for biodiesel is used cooking oil. This is a real win-win situation where a resource currently thrown away can be processed fairly cheaply and easily into a fuel that can run diesel engines or boilers. I think in a city like NYC conversion of used cooking oil into heating oil for the old boilers is an ideal solution. In NYC I find two companies that process used cooking oil and turn it into heating oil for homes and/or use in trucks, producing a B5 to B20 blend which can be used in any truck or boiler, I am told. One is Fred M. Schildwachter & Sons, and Tri-State Biodiesel. The main difficulty with coordinating the processing of used cooking oil into fuel for diesel engines or boilers is coordination of the market with production. That is why in NYC Councilman Yassky's proposal to require homes to use first B5, going up to B20 biodiesel mixes in home heating would help because it would gradually increase the demand. I would recommend coupling this proposal with one that provides incentives to companies that convert used cooking oil to the appropriate biodiesel blend so that we ensure that this best of raw materials is encouraged rather than more controversial alternatives.
This kind of system of requiring up to B20 for heating and/or diesel engine fuels coupled with incentives for that biodiesel to be made from used cooking oil could be applied to any major city where, let's face it, used cooking oil is quite abundant from our rather over fried diets. Getting above B20 would take further government incentives, I suspect, since it would require modifications to some engines and boilers, but that, too, could be done. I should note that even outside of major cities cooking oil to biodiesel can be done. Joy and I rented a 100% biodiesel last time we were in Los Angeles, and the company we rented the car (nicknamed the "Bio-Jetta" by my three year old who loved it) is based in Maui where they also rent cars. Their fleet of cars run on B100 biodiesel produced from used cooking oil. We recommend this company, bio-beetle, to anyone traveling to Hawaii. Their Los Angeles operation may be folding due to lack of customers. Woody Harrelson along with Joy and I may have been their last LA customers...but it is possible if you contact them they may still be open to customers in Los Angeles. And if enough demand turned up they might reactivate their LA branch. We liked the company, the car, the fueling stations, and we saved some money doing it!
I should note another advantage to proposals that encourage the conversion of used cooking oil to biodiesel is that it creates LOCAL jobs in America rather than helping primarily the Saudi economy.
But used cooking oil will NOT supply all our fuel needs. Other sources of biofuels need to be approached carefully or there could be the unintended consequence of higher food prices. Here is where I have a proposal that might be appealing on several levels to the Federal government, whether run by Republicans or Democrats.
How about combining an anti-drug program with a biofuels program? One way the American government has tried combating illegal drugs is to give growers of crops like coca and opium incentives to convert to legal crops. The problem with these programs is that they have been sporadic and seldom have provided the farmers with an alternative that could actually sustain their families long term. Mostly, these farmers return to growing opium or coca because it remains their best way to support themselves. I propose an anti-drug program where the US provides incentives to communities in nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan, recently joined by none other than Iraq as top opium growing nations, and like Columbia, Peru and Bolivia, among the top coca growers, to produce crops usable for biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol. We would have to assure that the incentives were long term enough to last, and it would probably be best to help set up the processing plants within those same communities to produce the fuels near where the crops are grown, providing additional jobs. In this way we can create an alternative economy to drug production.
In general, farmers have been very willing to convert to legal crops. But only if, and this is key, the legal alternative provides them with enough income long term to support their family. Producing the fuels near where the farmers live helps to make the new, non-drug based economy sustainable.
It wouldn't take much to make it work because even producing the drugs that are sold to our kids, the farmers often are living only marginally. A Current TV segment I saw some months ago showed the farmers in Colombia who produce coca and process it into cocaine. They are exploited by the drug cartels, harassed by the anti-drug police, and still can barely support their families. The fact that the alternatives provided by the US in its sporadic anti-drug programs are WORSE suggests that we really haven't tried hard enough. A biofuels production economy could work, addressing both environmental and anti-drug needs. The biofeul produced could either be used locally within the nation of origin, or imported to America for our use, depending on demand and convenience. Or even, in the case of Afghan and Pakistani produced biofuels, go to feed the economies of India, Japan and China. Either way, it helps the environment, it reduces the hold the Saudis have on the world. AND it allows farmers a REAL choices between legitimate and illegal economic alternatives.
I should note that in my mind, another way biofuels can be produced in America without competing with food production, is incentives to convert tobacco growing into biofuel production. Somehow I think there will be far more resistance to this than my proposal above for a combined anti-drug/pro-environment program. Still...maybe at least some of those tobacco growers would like a viable alternative to slowly killing people off with their products.
A final proposal I have also might meet industry resistance, but actually was one of the very first ideas I had regarding production of biofuels, probably ethanol in this case.
Government incentives have made high fructose corn syrup almost ubiquitous in our food. The corn lobby loves this because it gives them something to do with their corn with government subsidy. The food industry loves it because, with the government incentives, it is slightly cheaper than using sugar. The problem is that there is a strong correlation between the increased use of high fructose corn syrup in foods consumed by Americans and the rise of obesity. No one knows if there is a causal relationship, but the correlation is quite striking. The bottom line is that there is evidence that high fructose corn syrup is at least partly responsible for health problems among Americans.
Seems to me a better use of that high fructose corn syrup, still providing a market for our corn farmers, would be conversion into biofuel. The switch would have to be coordinated so the incentive is in converting from high fructose corn syrup use in our foods to use for biofuels, rather than use of corn used for food directly into biofuels. So again, the proposal would have to be carried out carefully to avoid competition with regular food use. But if we can fight obesity (arguably) while also helping the environment seems worth doing. Still, I consider this proposal to be harder to sell and implement than the first two, and I consider it likely that industry resistance would be high.
We have to move from talking about alternatives to USING alternatives to oil. Biofuels are likely to be a necessary part of the solution. The above proposals would be important for implementing a conversion from foreign oil to foreign or domestic biofuels and would couple economic, environmental and, in some cases, health or anti-drug benefits.
posted by mole333 | 9:57 PM
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home