Biofuels

Photo credit to treehugger.com

Electric cars may be a great option, but when biofuels come into the picture, they seem needlessly complicated.  Why would we go to the trouble of building entirely different motors and driving plug-in cars when we could just fill up our same old gas tanks with a different fuel?  Some racing series use blends, which contain a percentage of corn-based Ethanol fuel.  Not long ago, Indy Car used 100% Ethanol.  Just yesterday, I filled up my Jetta at a gas pump with a sign that said, "May contain up to 10% Ethanol."  It can't be hard to move to an entirely plant-based fuel, can it?

It turns out, there are several reasons why we can't, and on top of that, several reasons why we shouldn't. Chances are you've seen gas stations that sell Ethanol blends as well as those that advertise Ethanol-free gasoline. Those people aren't necessarily looking to avoid Ethanol on anti-environment principle.  Maybe some are, but biofuels do make engines perform differently and can cause problems. Who am I to blame someone for not wanting to use a product that doesn't work for them?

Biofuels do have environmental benefits, of course. This type of fuel is made from plants like corn or sugarcane, and since those crops can be replanted again and again, it is renewable if we use it wisely.  The funny thing is that biofuels are carbon-based, just like fossil fuels are; burning them releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  But there are two important differences between biofuels and fossil fuels: First, fossil fuels come with a lot of other harmful emissions, such as sulfur, that biofuels release in insignificant amounts. Second, the carbon dioxide emitted through the burning of biofuels was absorbed by that plant recently. Unlike fossil fuels, which have stored that carbon for millions of years, biofuels don't add new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; they just replace what was already there.  This means they aren't technically contributing to climate change.  

As nice as these benefits are, however, their are plenty of technical, social, and even environmental disadvantages that come with biofuels. As I mentioned earlier, many car owners don't like Ethanol because it can wear away rubber and metal and leave residue in the engine, and preventing that wear and tear means replacing injectors, gaskets, and fuel lines. In colder climates, different fuels can turn solid before the temperature reaches the freezing point and the driver may not be able to start the car at all.

We have bigger problems than just user-friendliness, however. In the last century, our boom in population was accompanied out of necessity by commercial agriculture. The ability to produce extremely large amounts of food has prevented widespread famine, but there is still an unacceptable number of hungry people in the world. This is partially caused by the demand for beef in the developed world, and as it continues to rise, diverts more food and water to feed livestock. If we can't feed everyone now, how can we expect to produce biofuels on a sufficient scale without causing severe starvation around the world?

The environment could face serious consequences with biofuels, too. Currently, a lot of our food is produced through monoculture, which is when farmers grow very large crops of only one type of plant. Not only does this strip nutrients from the soil creating a need for more fertilizer, it also leads to an increase in pesticide use. In the natural world, you won't find acres and acres of only one type of plant; different species interact and this helps them survive. Without this help from other species, crops are more vulnerable to pests, which necessitate the use of pesticides. But pests develop a resistance to pesticides, and each season, that means more has to be used. Overuse of fertilizer and pesticides can cause dead zones downstream--areas in water ecosystems where nothing can grow due to a lack of oxygen. This is a death sentence for that ecosystem as well as coastal economies that rely on the fish that live there. Read about more biofuel disadvantages here.

So--will biofuels completely take the place of fossil fuels? I don't think so. Nor do I want them to, unless we can find a way to make them more car-friendly, produce them on a large scale in an eco-friendly way, and keep them from taking food out of people's mouths. That said, I don't want biofuel research to stop by any means. While biofuels aren't likely to become the sole source of fuel for our cars, there's no reason they can't help us get away from fossil fuels.

Electric Cars

When we think of alternative sources of energy for cars, the first thing that comes to mind is often the electric car.  Electric cars have been on the market for a while now and have been growing, if slowly, in popularity.  The range and quality of electric options are also increasing modestly but surely.  Around the world, research is being done to make electric batteries lighter, longer lasting, and more affordable. The Formula E series is one of many indicators of curiosity about electric cars and determination to make them work for our lifestyle.  And since we're interested in this option for our personal vehicles, car companies are interested, too.

The Simpsons test drive the Elec-Taurus and subsequently
drive it into the ocean. (Please don't drive your
electric car into the ocean.) 

For some reason, the general consensus is that the economy and the environment are at odds. But nothing could be further from the truth! Economic and environmental interests agree in numerous ways, but when it comes to electric cars, the most important one is this:  globally, climate change is accepted as science and many countries are addressing it.  Technology comes into play with this kind of problem solving and the greenest options are likely to win out.  If the United States can't keep up with this ecologically friendly innovation, we're kicking ourselves out of the global market.  

Even in just the US, though, electric cars can benefit our economy. We as a society are learning about our environmental impacts and want to assuage them.  We want alternatives to fossil fuels, and automakers are listening.  It isn't just environmental scientists doing research with grant money who want to build a better battery.  GM, Nissan, Tesla, and others are working hard to respond to the problems of electric cars, because if they can, we'll buy them.  It doesn't matter if we want to save the planet, quit foreign oil, or just stop having to go to the gas station. If we want it, car companies want to sell it to us.

According to GM, 40% of car buyers would consider going electric if improvements are made, compared to the current fraction of only 5%.  What sort of improvement?  It comes down to manufacturing an electric car that keeps the consumer's peace of mind intact.  Hybrids are great for mpg but can be filled up at a gas station.  True electric cars, which use no gasoline at all, can only go a certain number of miles before they have to be recharged.  On top of that, recharging can take several hours and there aren't many convenient places to plug it in.  Even though most electric cars can easily cover the average person's daily miles, it may not be easy to commit to a car that is difficult to recharge once it runs out of power.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sufficiently increase the range of the current lithium-ion battery technology without it being too large to fit in a personal vehicle.  For this reason, some think the lithium-ion battery is on its last legs. The goal is to increase the density of energy generated by a battery, meaning a smaller battery can produce more power.  At the same time, electric cars need to be mass produced to make a difference, so the materials must be accessible, abundant, and ideally, renewable. Sulfur, magnesium, oxygen, or sodium could make up the next generation of electric car batteries.  

But what's all this research worth if electric cars aren't actually that green?  At first glance, sure, it's great that  an electric car produces absolutely no emissions itself.  The problem is that you have to plug it in, and if your grid energy comes from coal, than the electric car you thought was eco-conscious really just runs on coal.  If that's the case, shouldn't you just go for a hybrid?  At least you'd be burning gasoline instead of lignite, the extremely dirty-burning variety of coal we're resorting to as our stock runs out.

I'm going to vote no.  Go electric!

Here's why:  Yes, your brand new environmentally friendly car could pollute just as much as a gas-powered car.  But only at first. As power companies transition to renewable sources of energy, your coal-powered car can become a solar or wind car.  This makes an electric car a better investment than a hybrid because it can become completely carbon neutral itself.  You won't have to buy a new one when technology catches up; you just have to wait for your energy provider to get off fossil fuels.  We also have to keep telling automakers we like electric cars and the loudest way to do that is with our wallets.  When companies create products we like, we reward them by giving them our business.  Capitalism--the system works!

My final assessment?  The issues with electric cars won't last long.  Electric cars are relatively popular even now, so it's no surprise to discover that this is a great option for the car of the future.

The Car Question

When we talk about energy, we are often debating what the best form of energy is.  That question is often incomplete, however.  In most areas of life, we can't respond to every situation in exactly the same way. There is no best form of energy, period.  What we have to ask is, what is the best form of energy for this application?

One of the best examples of this is the heating and cooling of buildings.  Many modern buildings and residences use energy from the grid--often generated by the burning of coal--for heating and air conditioning. But this needlessly wastes our finite supply of coal and adds to the excess of carbon dioxide emissions. Why? Because geothermal energy works just as well in this case.  To access geothermal energy, pipes are sent underground to draw up air that, depending on the season, is warmer or cooler than the air on the surface.

Geothermal energy can both heat and cool homes.  Photo credit to 22degres.ca

Obviously, geothermal energy is impractical for transportation and needs to be extremely hot to produce electricity, so that is out in most places.  But it works quite well for heating and cooling, so retrofitting homes with geothermal heat pumps could decrease carbon emissions.  It also reduces costs for the consumer. Fossil fuel prices will go up as the supply decreases, but geothermal energy is reliable and does not have to be mined, transported, or refined.

Let's take a trip back to sixth grade science and remember what energy is:  it is simply defined as the ability to do work.  In terms of transportation, we want energy that can get us from point A to point B.  This could come in the form of our moving legs or in wind currents propelling a boat.  When it comes to cars, we want a type of energy that can be used to power an engine.

Cars are the backbone of the transportation system in the developed world; all other options--walking, biking, subways, buses--are considered "alternative" methods of transportation.  While environmentalists (including me) advocate choosing these alternatives as often as possible, I think it has to be accepted that when it comes to cars, we are in too deep.  Our infrastructure is built around them.  They give us freedom from long distances and public transportation schedules (so long as one can afford to have a car, of course). And we can't forget that for many people--probably for you reading this now--cars are much more than just a tool.  I'm not going to debate whether cars would exist in a perfect world because I don't think they're going anywhere either way.

The United States' national highway system is extremely large and complex; we can't just drop it and start over.  Photo credit to fhwa.dot.gov

I think it's safe to say that there are going to be cars for the foreseeable future.  But if that's going to be true, we'll have to find a different way to power them.  We may like fossil fuels now because we're comfortable with them.  They're familiar. We understand them. The bad news is that we don't have much left.  But there's good news, too--more good than bad, I daresay.  Firstly, there are all kinds of other energy sources up for grabs. Second, many of these sources aren't rudimentary theories that could potentially be possible--they're actual, reliable technology ready to be put to use.  And the best part, at least to me, is that these sources are cleaner and renewable, so they won't run out and leave future generations scrambling for new ideas.

Some options are cleaner than others.  Some are more reliable, some are more cost-effective, and some are more realistic than the rest.  In the coming weeks, I'll look at different energy sources for personal vehicles and weigh their benefits and impacts. Now, we won't find a source that can be consumed at our current rate; the energy solution is half the source and half the way we use it.  But it should be reassuring that technology isn't what's standing in our way.  We are standing in our own way, and more people are realizing that every day. The car question is answerable.  The options are there.  Now it all comes down to determining the right one.