A good ride, eh?

If your daily commute starts with a double double, and if the only rims you’re worried about are the kind that roll up, then you’ll be happy to know that the a pair of microbiologists at the University of Manitoba have been trying to fuel your car with Tim Horton’s coffee cups.

Unfortunately, technology still hasn’t progressed to the point that your morning coffee can also be used to fuel your morning commute, but Tim’s disposal coffee cups themselves can be broken down into a shredded mass that resembles cotton candy. With the cups in a form that provides ample surface area for ethanol-producing bacteria to consume, the researchers were about to provides about 1.3 litres of ethanol from 100 Tim Hortons cups. (Assuming you’re just drinking regulars, at $1.39, you’d have to put up $139 for your 1.3 litres, leaving you with the non-too-appealing price of $106.92 per litre.)

Given the fact that edible crops have fallen out of favour as a source of biofuel because we’d rather fuel our stomachs than our cars, it makes sense to begin looking in our trash for alternative sources. Certainly, we’ve already looked to cellulosic materials and other kinds of (smellier) waste. More than proving that one of our national pastimes is also an energy source, these repurposed coffee cups show that there are innovative approaches to energy that are often sitting right under our noses.

But, hey, why not keep it Canadian while we’re at it, eh?

Via Tree Hugger

Keeping cellulosic crops green

Flow has long talked about the necessity of using cellulosic materials instead of food crops to produce our ethanol. Notwithstanding the potential impact of invasive species like switchgrass, it just makes sense to use fuel sources that aren’t going to raise food prices throughout the world and, in many cases, are more efficient sources of energy anyway. Moreover, there’s been evidence that secondary crops like switchgrass can actually improve soil quality, and there’s an understandable desire to make sure that we make the most out of the fuel sources we have.

But a recent study by the American Society of Agronomy found that one of the ways of maximizing a field’s energy output, crop residue removal, can actually have extremely negative effects on the soil itself. In fact, according to one of the study’s authors, if more than 50 per cent of crop residue is removed, the soil can actually become a carbon source, rather than a carbon sink.

On a very basic level, this adds another argument against attempting to use edible grains as fuel sources. It means that in addition to food crops needing to be preserved because of their use in human beings, rather than gas tanks, they also have the potential to increase our greenhouse gas emissions, rather than decrease them — counteracting one of the central purposes behind alternative fuel sources. Instead, the study suggests, would-be biofuel producers should concentrate on growing warm season grasses and short-rotation woody crops.

Just another reason to keep the food on our tables, separate from the fuel in our tanks.

Checkered flag going green

Are auto sports eco-friendly?

At first glance, you’d think auto racing wouldn’t qualify.  Consider: they burn a lot of fuel to zoom around and around in circles doing nothing but going fast and entertaining thousands of fans.  Whether you enjoy it or not, that’s hardly model environmentally-friendly entertainment.

Fair enough, but now consider this.  This year’s Honda Indy Toronto burned nary a liter of good old fashioned gasoline.  Each of the cars participating in the race ran on 100 per cent ethanol.

Much gasoline available today has small amounts of ethanol mixed in. Regular cars built in the past 30 years can all run on a blend with 10 per cent ethanol, and not too long ago, an Ottawa gas station made just such a concoction available to the public. It was considered a big deal.

So cars running on 100 per cent ethanol are a very big deal.  Especially racing cars, because going faster (and they go really fast) burns more fuel.  That’s complicated math, but it means the carbon emissions from these cars is nil. This race is pollutant-free.

The Indy Racing League (IRL) is certainly making an effort.  Since 2007, they have been racing with 100 per cent ethanol fuel and have replaced old lead wheel weights with ones made of a less corrosive, more environmentally-friendly material. They installed trackside recycling containers, and donate leftover food to local food banks.

The IRL has been doing its level best to have people equate “auto racing” with “eco-friendly.”  That, at least, deserves an honorary checker flag.

Pulp and Paper Biofuel

Lumber mills may soon be doing double duty.

It turns out wood chips and tree matter not useful for paper production might be useful in other ways. Specifically, they might be used in creating a biofuel – which could turn out to be an even better bet than corn-based ethanol.

Bio-butanol is a little harder to produce than ethanol. But it’s easier to transport, as it doesn’t corrode pipes. It can be used in an ordinary car engine, without the modifications required for ethanol. Its energy content is higher and is easier to combine with gasoline.

Perhaps best of all, it would not affect the food supply. It may, however, drive up the demand and cost for lumber and paper products, and therefore increase logging. Fine for loggers, bad for conservation.

The current model is to use existing paper mills to extract sugars from wood that otherwise goes to waste. These are then refined into biofuels. Mills in Sweden have been producing ethanol this way for a few years, but the Old Town Fuel & Fiber Mill in Maine believes bio-butanol is even better.

The government of Nova Scotia has allocated $20 million to the Minas Basin Pulp and Power Company Ltd. in Hantsport, to produce electricity from “forest byproducts,” and expand in order to produce biodiesel from plastics.

Even the federal government is offering a maximum of $1 billion to mills that use by-products to create energy, if they invest in improving their energy efficiency. Now that’s funding that does double duty.

Ethanol regulations

There are 12 ethanol producers in Canada spanning the country from the Prairie Provinces to Quebec. Doesn’t sound like very many, does it? Maybe not, but these companies are responsible for the production of 1390 million litres a year (MMly) of ethanol. 

From the corn-based ethanol plants in Ontario to the wheat and corn plants in the Prairies, the diversity of raw material reflects the availability of local materials. The smallest of the country’s producers, the Iogen Corporation located in Ottawa produces a mere 2 MMly. The country’s largest producer of ethanol is GreenField, whose four plants in Ontario and Quebec produce a total of 496 MMly. 

Why is this important? 

Recent government regulations are requiring refiners to include at least 5 per cent ethanol in their gasoline by September 2010. This 5-per-cent increase would create a market for approximately two billion litres of ethanol annually, a substantially higher volume than what Canada is currently churning out. 

Building new plants and creating jobs sounds great, but there’s a catch: ethanol can be as ‘dirty’ as gasoline. The biofuel industry has been highly controversial because deforestation and increased land cultivation are causing increased greenhouse gas emissions. 

All Canadian producers use natural gas in their production process, which cause fewer emissions than coal-fired ethanol, which actually creates 34 per cent more emissions per gallon of fuel than gasoline producers over a 30-year period. 

The Canadian government claims that grain-based biofuels can reduce emissions by 40 per cent compared to gasoline. But Natural Resources Canada’s calculations do not include indirect land use emissions. 

Over the longer term, as the one-time impacts of greater land cultivation fade, it is estimated that corn ethanol using natural gas will produce 16 per cent fewer emissions than gasoline. 

So is it worth it? Only time will tell.

Chocolate fuel…What a waste!

While it’s true that chocolate gives you energy, soon it could be giving your car energy as well. Yes, you read correctly: chocolate waste can be made into fuel. There are several ways in which this could be done. One way is to have bacteria convert the chocolate into burnable hydrogen gas; the other is to turn it into biodiesel.

Why would anyone want to do that, you ask? Well, because big chocolate companies like Cadburys throw out hundreds and thousands of deformed and expired chocolate every year.

In December 2007, Andy Pag and John Grimshaw journeyed 4500 miles in a chocolate-powered vehicle. Made from 8818 pounds of chocolate misshapes—the equivalent of 80,000 chocolate bars—the chocolate biodiesel powered them from England to Timbuktu.

The chocolate-derived ethanol was blended with vegetable oil, and the Britons used 396 gallons to complete their journey. Not only was the expedition carbon neutral, it was carbon negative. Ultimately, they used less carbon on their voyage than they would have if they’d stayed at home. The fuel is made from cocoa butter but sadly, does not look or smell like chocolate.

Other innovations racing onto the scene include a car with a steering wheel made out of carrots, wing mirrors constructed in potato starch core and brake pads utilizing cashew nut shells. Sound like something that would have been made on Gilligan’s Island? Well, it’s just the most recent Formula 3 race car screeching onto the racetrack.

The chocolate- and vegetable-fueled vehicle is on a speedy road to environmental sustainability.

Algae for biofuel

So what does the scummy stuff that grows on the sides of fish tanks have to do with energy production? A LOT.

The biofuel debate is a classic dilemma. On the plus side, biofuels offer a clean, renewable source of energy to replace fossil fuels. But the drawback can be summed up in one word: space. Growing more biofuel requires space and there’s only so much arable farmland to go around. With fears of rising prices and global food shortages, striking a balance is difficult.

One promising solution is algae.  Solix Biofuels is planning an algae farm capable of producing thousands of gallons of bio-gasoline and biodiesel using much less land than current biofuel projects. The algae are converted into “biocrude” which is the biofuel equivalent of crude oil.  

Compared with other biofuels, even second generation, high-concept ethanol, algae are incredibly efficient biofuel producers. Since the whole organism uses sunlight to produce oil, algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two-car garage than an entire football field of soybeans.

Algae is amazingly prodigious stuff. That translates to 30 times more energy per acre than “traditional” biofuel crops such as corn.  What’s more, researchers are still working on improving algae cultivation techniques. 

And with at least 15 start-up companies in the US working on turning algae into fuel, it seems algae biofuel is catching on. At least in theory.

Biofuels’ financial catalyst

Vicky Sharpe, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, laments the fallout from “absolutely appalling” news media coverage of first-generation agricultural biofuels which suggested that any gains were at the expense of food production.

Acknowledging a backlash that undermined government and public support, she nevertheless is adamant that public funding equal to or in excess of private investment is crucial to research, development and exploitation of biofuels’ huge potential.

“It does require public money,” Sharpe told the 5th annual Canadian Renewable Fuels Association summit. “It is not a commercially viable opportunity just yet.”

Founded in 2001, her organization is a government-led not-for-profit foundation which supports development and demonstration of clean technologies. It operates a $550 million SD Tech Fund in support of projects that address climate change, air quality, clean water and clean soil. More important to the renewable fuels sector, its $500 million NextGen Biofuels Fund, announced in the 2007 federal budget, supports the establishment of “first-of-kind large demonstration-scale facilities” for second-generation production from non-edible sources.

Sharpe, who has a doctorate in microbiology and chemistry, told summit delegates that the U.S. has the strongest commitment to biofuels and is the only country which distinguishes between first- and second-generation fuels. That said, she expects the U.S. to achieve little more than half of its “really high” production goals. President George W. Bush has called for the use of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels, including biofuels, by 2017.

In contrast, Canada’s legislated goals – mandated by amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which were passed by Parliament last summer – begin with a requirement of 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010 and then 2% in diesel and heating oil by 2012, subject to a successful demonstration. Gasoline-powered vehicles have been able to burn up to 10% ethanol in gasoline since the 1980s and many diesel-engine manufacturers warrant the use of 5% or higher biodiesel blends. One of the main attractions of biodiesel is that it generates 93% more energy than is required to make it, according to the American National Standards Institute.

When in introduced the draft legislation as bill C-33, the government said its proposals would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about four megatonnes. That’s equal to taking nearly a million vehicles off the road.

Sharpe expects most of the earlier biofuels targets to be met from first-generation sources and that capital investment in the $8-13.5 billion range is “roughly what we’re looking at.” The scale of the investment was such that governments, oil companies, other industries and the capital markets “obviously need to play an important role” and that international capital was “absolutely” necessary “to get the job done.”

Price could be a hurdle for second-generation biofuels, which Sharpe said are coming in at about $1.60-$1.80 per litre. They needed to be closer to $0.50-$1.20/l to be practicable. “We have momentum (and) we have to build on it, but let’s not over-promote.” Doing so, she said, generates cynicism.

Since its inception, SDTC has become a “very positive story” in that some $200 million has been invested in 16 companies with a “very good range of capability.” STDC mitigates its exposure by committing up to 40% of a project’s costs to a cap of $200 million, the investment being repayable from cash flow once a project is viable.

The foundation currently is reviewing the latest applications for NextGen funding. “The future of biofuels lies in cellulosic ethanol and next-generation biodiesel, produced from non-food feedstocks that do not encourage land-use changes,” Sharpe said in announcing the call for applications. “The projects that SDTC wants to support . . . will bring cellulosic ethanol and next-generation biodiesel one step closer to market and help secure Canada’s position as a world leader in the renewable fuels industry.”

Ethanol production weeds out herbicides

Ethanol is a contentious issue precisely because it takes something we use for one purpose (food) and converts it into something entirely different (fuel), albeit also useful. The billion dollar question is whether the whole process is worth it, or whether we’re wasting a perfectly good product on something it isn’t as well suited to.

But as ethanol production continues, some producers are finding ways to convert even more of the biomass going into the process into usable materials. For some, that begins in your potting soil.

According to the American Society for Horticultural Science (AHAS), “dried distillers grains with solubles” (DDGS), a byproduct of ethanol production, may be useful for controlling weeds. The report cited by the AHAS, found that DDGS applied to the surface of the soil was able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate the growth of weeds. Importantly, they also found that mixing the grains directly into the soil was toxic to some species of plants.

(It’s always about killing the right kind of plant.)

The report is a timely revelation, given that herbicide bans are being implemented or at least considered across the country. And DDGS can also be used in animal feeds, ensuring that the process of turning food into fuel doesn’t entirely ignore the food-for-fuel debacle. Add to that the Canadian government’s recent commitment to producing more fuel from alternate sources, and there’s a strong incentive for finding as many uses as possible for food supplies being turned into fuel supplies.

Of course, the irony of discovering that DDGS can be converted into a herbicide is that, with many grain-based fuels falling out of favour, ethanol producers are increasingly looking to so-called cellulosic materials—materials that are capable of spreading like, well, weeds.

A win-win situation (until someone loses)

If the current concern over biofuels like ethanol can be boiled down to one essential point, it’s this: food should go in stomachs, not gas tanks.

Even those who defend ethanol tend to concede that corn might not be the best choice as a biomass, which is exactly why so-called “next generation” biofuels made from cellulosic materials seem like the perfect solution. Including tough, fibrous materials like trees, grasses and agricultural wastes, cellulosic ethanol doesn’t use the kinds of edible crops that raise food prices. What’s more, crops like switchgrass tend to use less water than their agricultural counterparts, making them natural conservationists.

It’s a win-win situation, until someone loses.

In this case, that loser might be the very same farmland we’re trying to preserve. According to a paper (100 KB PDF) by the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP), “a number of the most commonly recommended species for biofuel production are also major invasive species in many parts of the world.” (Fittingly, one particularly infamous example of invasive alien species, the cane toad, is so named because of its use as a natural pesticide in sugar cane crops—another crop commonly used in biofuel).

The report calls for a level of caution that isn’t often associated with booming multibillion dollar industries fuelled by aggressive government subsidies, but with often-quoted crop substitutions like switchgrass on the list, and global panic rising in direct proportion to food prices, it’s worth wondering out loud whether caution will win the day. While many European governments have already rolled back their ethanol subsidies, for example, both the United States and Canada remain committed to some of the only concrete action either has taken on climate change.

If neither edible nor inedible plants belong in our cars’ gas tanks, what’s left to burn?