GoodFuels

Forbes: chemistry vs biology

Forbes has an interesting opinion article up today on their website.

The author talks about corn-based ethanol vs second generation cellulosic ethanol, and how best to produce both.

The race is starting to shape up.

The contest: Take some type of agricultural waste, easy-to-grow non-food crop or just sunshine; add water and carbon dioxide and turn it into some type of fuel, like ethanol, butanol, gasoline, diesel or jet fuel.

The entrants: enzymes, algae, yeast, bacteria and plain old chemistry.

The winners will be the methods that use the least amount of energy to produce a fuel that stores the most amount of energy, at the best cost. Since the beginning of 2007, $1.8 billion has been invested worldwide in the race to these so-called next generation biofuels, according to Ethan Zindler, an analyst at New Energy Finance.

He goes on to discuss how each method goes about actually making the fuel, and includes a pretty in-depth discussion of algae-based biofuels as well as fuel made from cellulosic feedstocks.

Current generation biofuels work because yeast likes the same food we do. Yeast thrives on the loads of sugar found in corn kernels and sugar cane, and they happily turn out lots of ethanol as a waste product.

But the hope is that the parts of plants that aren’t so easy to digest can be turned into fuel. Cellulose, which comprises cell walls; hemicellulose, polymers found in plant walls; and lignin, the stiff stuff in cell walls that gives plants, such as trees, their support.

All in all, a very concise article. Check it out here.

Stop Them Before They Kill Again

Great commentary in the Detroit News this week reminds us that the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, was implicated in the murder of the electric car a few years ago.

“CARB — the same agency that only five years ago gained notoriety for its role in “killing” the electric car — could be in a position to deliver another crippling blow to the United States’ effort to achieve energy independence,” writes Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and co-founder of the Set America Free Coalition, referring to CARB’s proposed low-carbon fuel standard, or LCFS.

At a time when the U.S. is charting its way out of its debilitating — and growing — oil dependence, CARB’s plan puts biofuels at a comparative disadvantage against petroleum. It does so by requiring that indirect greenhouse gas-emitting activities, such as deforestation and plowing up grasslands — which are often associated with increased use of biofuels — be considered, while failing to account for indirect carbon-emitting activities related to petroleum production.

Luft notes that “implementing the fuel standard as proposed would only cement oil’s virtual monopoly in the transportation sector.” CARB’s accomplices in killing the electric car, according to the 2006 documentary film, included the auto and oil industries. Some questions have been raised about conflicts of interest on the part of board members, and even CARB’s director Mary Nichols, who reportedly owns significant stock in oil companies through a blind trust that was created after she was appointed to the board - and is married to an attorney that represents oil companies. No doubt that oil will be a big winner if the LCFS is passed by the board.

Since many other states will follow California’s lead, the final outcome could be life threatening to biofuels. The verdict will be handed down on Thursday but there is still time to file comments with CARB. The deadline is noon Pacific time on Earth Day.