SOUTHEAST MISSOURI CLIMATE PROTECTION INITIATIVE Facilitators:
	Kathy Conway (573) 651 - 2445 kconway@semo.edu	Alan Journet (573) 651 - 2366 ajournet@semo.edu
ALTERNATIVE FUELS 101 Alan Journet; Nov 2007

         According to hype, alternative fuels will save us from climate change and the oil shortage, and allow us to continue our lives untroubled.  What a delight if this were the case? But is it?  Regrettably, the answer is “No!”  

         Probably the worst proposal is corn ethanol.  Currently, besides the corn kernels, 7 barrels of oil are consumed to produce 8 barrels of ethanol – not much of a plus. Since each gallon of ethanol contains about two thirds the energy of a gallon of gasoline, burning ethanol causes mileage to drop.  The mathematics alone should nix corn ethanol! Furthermore, distilling a gallon of ethanol requires 4 – 5 gallons of water, so ethanol distillers deplete local water supplies.  Since current U.S. ethanol production amounts to just 3% of our annual fuel consumption, even if the entire U.S. corn crop were distilled, we would only meet 16% of our fuel demand. Meanwhile, as farmers pay more for corn-based animal feed, our food prices rise.  The plight is worse for third world peoples for whom food prices are rising even as rainforests are cleared and food products are diverted to serve U.S. fuel demands.  The corn required to fill a 25 gallon tank would feed a person for a year. Even though burning ethanol reduces carbon dioxide production, it produces volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides contributing to smog – a serious problem in car dependent 21^st century cities.  While corn distillers rely on coal and oil to power their plants, the pollution from ethanol is no better than gasoline. Since corn production causes soil erosion and uses abundant water, fertilizer, and pesticides, the crop itself is environmentally destructive. Without the huge taxpayer subsidies largely going to the distillers and agri-business corporations (not the family farmers), corn ethanol would neither exist nor be required.

         Cellulosic Ethanol (same product but from biomass such as organic waste, switchgrass, or wood) is potentially superior to corn so long as forest is not cleared and agricultural productivity not diverted to grow biomass for fuel.  Furthermore, the technique yet to be perfected sufficiently well to make it commercially viable and corn ethanol corporations are already consuming vast taxpayer subsidies for their product and suppressing development of this process.

         While burning Hydrogen is clean, it has to be produced; this occurs at the expense of electricity.  If this is generated conventionally – from coal or oil – pollution and greenhouse gas savings are totally forfeited.  Furthermore, this technology is nowhere near available, and probably will not be for decades. For $3 million, however, you can own a Hydrogen-powered vehicle.

         Petro-diesel is an improvement over gasoline, especially since the sulfur content has been reduced.  However, it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline, thus depleting our oil reserves that much faster.  Biodiesel (diesel from biomass) is far superior in terms of environmental costs. However, the source of some imported biodiesel is already plantations where tropical rainforests once grew.  We cannot all use waste oil from fast food restaurants; if we grow crops for making biodiesel, again we divert cropland to the fuel line.

         While natural gas would be an improvement over gasoline and already natural gas powered buses are available, there is no gas-powered passenger car.  Meanwhile, the fuel itself is also a finite resource.

         The best current technologies for reducing gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are hybrid vehicles.  Two types exist:  Most folks are familiar with gas-electric hybrids such as the Prius and Civic, each of which achieves greater than 40 miles to the gallon by combining an electric motor with a conventional gasoline engine when driving recharges the battery.  After years of resistance, American auto manufacturers are belatedly realizing that international competition requires they develop hybrid vehicles also.  Less well-known is the plug-in hybrid which allows the user to plug the vehicle in overnight to charge for short trips, and incorporates the same gas-electric hybrid ability as above for longer trips. The drawback to this vehicle is the source of the plug-in electricity.  If electricity is obtained through renewable energy sources, the vehicle is a clear winner.  Nevertheless, it is still the best option available. We should encourage manufacturers to develop these vehicles while simultaneously encouraging utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources rather than coal, and oil.

         Confronted with these realities, talk of resuscitating our nuclear program has surfaced. Unfortunately, the prospect of proliferating nuclear power plants poses more concerns now than ever.  We still have no way to deal with the highly toxic radio-active nuclear waste with its half life and danger period lasting many thousands of years.  We also now live in a time when constructing targets for terrorists seems folly at best.

          There is no panacea for our transportation energy demands.  The best approach involves conserving what we have by increasing energy efficiency (CAFE - the Corporate Average Fleet Economy standards) and promoting genuine renewable vehicular energy technologies.  We should insist that mileage be increased, from the current 1975 standard of 27.5 m.p.g., to 40 m.p.g. by 2012 (as hybrids already testify, the technology is here), to 60 m.p.g. by 2054, and to zero emissions by the end of the century.  Whenever possible, we also should minimize driving and buy vehicles that maximize fuel efficiency. 

IF NOT US, WHO?                       
                                 IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

When future generations ask: will we be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Number of Site Visits