Why Will Oil Remain Important?

Oil. Everybody's talking about it. "Let's reduce energy dependence by drilling for more oil." "Let's get rid of oil and go renewable all the way. And while you're at it stop looking for more." Am I exaggerating? Only a little. You get my meaning. Two sides, two very different views. Here are the best reasons I know that insure oil will be important for a long time:

Do you like your car? Do you think I'm talking about fuel here? I'm not. Your tires contain something called carbon black. It's a relatively inexpensive thing made basically by burning crude oil, and it helps to give your tire many of the properties that you count on. It's also a component in almost every product you own that's black. All those black picture frames, yeah it's in there. You could burn trees to get the same colorant, but black's a fashionable color for many products, and I'd rather keep the trees. Are there any plastic parts in your vehicle? Plastics of all kinds are made up of polymers (that's chains made from a lot of the same molecule) derived from hydrocarbons, which come mainly from oil and gas production. You can bet your vehicle is full of these. Your dashboard, the armrests on your doors, the light casings, even the rubber hoses and belts. These won't be easily replaced by sugarcane bagasse. I haven't even heard of anyone considering how to replace this technology.

While you're at it, think of your world without plastic. It is in everything, including, but not limited to, your hospital equipment (think dialysis tubing and iv bags), shower curtains, food containers, dishes?, toys, appliances, carpets, clothes. You don't have to like the idea of plastic everywhere (I don't), but you can't deny it's value for so many important applications. Polyethylene (a plastic) is essentially a string of ethylene molecules. Ethylene is produced mainly from petrochemicals. That's oil. Are there alternatives? Probably. I'd like to hear about them. Vegetable oil comes to mind, but then you run into the same problems as with corn based ethanol.

Non-fuel usage of oil and gas derivatives is reason number one why drilling will remain important for a long, long time.

Reason number two: with all the environmental policies suggested by candidates, and now Presidents, and EU agreements for climate change abatement, none have yet suggested a way to do away completely with hydrocarbons as fuel anytime in the near future. President Obama's plan calls for only 25% of energy to come from renewable resources by the year 2025. Many ethanol burning vehicles are still using a fuel with ~85% ethanol. Biodiesel is produced from crops, but according to "What is biodiesel," "Biodiesel costs two to three times as much to make as it costs to produce fossil diesel."

Does this mean we won't ever be fossil fuel free? No, but technology limits and costs mean that it will take a long time to do it.

In the meantime, consider that the best path is still to use every means we currently have to reduce our dependence on drilling for fuel. It's good for reducing greenhouse gases and it's good for national security. Besides, we need to save what oil we have for all the other stuff.

Here's a Neat Interactive Map You Bought

I didn't intend on posting today, but I was poking around online and came across this neat interactive map put together by the National Renewable Energy Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy. I think that means we all paid for it, so we might as well take a look at it, eh? It's called the United States Atlas of Renewable Resources. Here is a screenshot:


I found it a bit slow at the startup, but after a bit the response time sped up. It's an interesting compilation of some of our country's natural resources. I wonder if the DOE will actually do anything with it.

Let's Start with Ethanol, or Not

Let's start the environmental discussion with ethanol. Ethanol has been in the news for some time now. Since the 70's, it's been toyed around with as an alternative to gasoline. In recent years it has been the pet project of well-meaning environmentalists, and it was pushed along as viable by the corn growers and auto manufacturers and the government officials they lobbied.

Why? Number one, ethanol is an efficient, clean burner. Good for everyone. Number two, it can go right into existing vehicles with very little modification. Good for everyone; very good for car manufacturers, who would be able to move away from petrochemicals with very little effort or expense. Number three, if you were a struggling farmer, wouldn't you love to have your product used by every automobile owner in America? So here we are with ethanol ready vehicles (notice E85 on the back of all those cars).

But lately you may have heard or read a little back-pedalling on the wisdom of corn based fuel. Have you noticed how much corn on the cob costs now? The pocketbook is probably what will keep corn-based ethanol from becoming the latest and greatest thing, but it's not the best reason to dump it. How do you think all that corn gets harvested? Have you heard of ethanol ready farm equipment? Me either. Did you know that every time the soil gets tilled and worked tons of carbon dioxide gets released into the atmosphere? It's worse when woodlands are cut down to make way for farm land.

The corn we eat right now generally comes from land that has been cultivated for decades. If we use corn for fuel, more land needs to be allocated to compensate for the increased demand for corn, and more gas needs to be produced to make all of this happen. According to that Frontline episode I mentioned last post, it is generous to say corn based fuel gives a 15% improvement in the "carbon footprint."

The newest buzzword is "switchgrass." You may have heard it in connection with a term "cellulosic ethanol" or ceetol; which is ethanol that comes from cellulose like wood chips, grass, or waste products of corn or sugarcane. The idea is that it grows without all of the equipment or fertilizer. Unfortunately, this is still not the way to go. There's a brief commentary on that in the episode too (watch it). Here's a technical overview of cellulosic ethanol considerations (really technical).

Let's get back to our "reduce, reuse, recycle" philosophy, which, as I said before, is "right on." Brazil has led the way on this. You heard me, Brazil. The tech isn't mainstream yet, but it's coming. Basically, they treat the slop left over from sugarcane production with enzymes and make ethanol from that. If only we had industries here that had waste products. If only we used sugar in the United States. Oh wait, we do. Basically this is recycling at it's finest. It requires a huge front end investment, but should pay off quickly in the end. Imagine putting a little fancy stuff in your trash, then being able to sell almost all of it. The best part is that we already have those E85 vehicle waiting to use it.

What we don't have are the enzymes needed to make that happen. Different kinds of plant's cellulose need different enzymes to help change them to ethanol. It is my contention that this is where the industrial muscle and government subsidies need to go. There are some upstarts in the states. Interestingly, I've heard mainly of it being done with corn by-products (close a window, open a door). Sugar cane does seem like the most obvious choice here in Louisiana, though. There is really no good reason why a state that thrives on chemical plants and purports to be a biomedical mecca can't come up with an appropriate enzyme to work with it's biggest cash crop.

The truth is, we don't know what drawbacks will show up with this technology in the future. At this time however, it is our best auto fuel alternative. It is not the solution to all of our energy needs. The bulk of that must go to "clean" energy sources, which I will talk about in a later post.

In the meantime, get wise about your fuel consumption. Oil will always be important (I'll remind you about that later too) so we shouldn't waste it just because fuel alternatives are on the horizon. Don't buy cars and trucks that only have a 26 miles to the gallon rating, no matter what kind of technology they boast. 26 mpg for a standard vehicle is using the exact same amount of gasoline as a 26 mpg hybrid. Right now buying a hybrid because you wanted a fuel efficient car is like buying a rooster instead of a chicken to lay eggs. It's close, but it doesn't get the job done. You should be able to get hybrid vehicles with much better ratings. You can get regular vehicles with much better ratings. They just probably won't be as big.

Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity?

I caught parts of Frontline: Heat night before last. It reminded me of how unsettled I am about how much is not publicized in this country with regards to the whole environment situation. Green is a big buzzword, but the parties' decisions with regards to the environment often leave many of us scratching our heads. As a general rule, our society's best efforts at educating the populace consist of public service announcements for reduce, reuse, recycle campaigns; and celebrities, claiming to be so savvy, trying to set the example for social responsibility as they ride around in hybrid cars and tout handbags that should have fed a small country. We see advertisements on TV that talk about "24 miles to the gallon" like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's ridiculous! My minivan said 29 mpg on the tag, and it's not a hybrid.

Don't get me wrong, "reduce, reuse, recycle" is right on. But if our government (that's us BTW, the people) is so all for it, why is curbside recycling so woefully unavailable in so many parts of the country? If everyone stopped to think about where they would want to put their parish or county's next landfill when the current one is overflowing, maybe local governments might be more proactive in making recycling convenient.

Because these things distress me so, and because I tend to be vocal about things that most people just don't feel compelled to bring up (it's an annoying habit of mine, ask my husband); I'll be filling you in on what I've learned so far about environmental issues. Look for it from time to time. I'll probably top it off with what I think needs to happen (you are absolutely welcome to disagree), and what I expect will happen in the near future (which is usually different from the former).

I'll start today by telling you that the entire Frontline episode is available at this link. It was remarkably succinct in its discussion of alternative fuels, where we stand with respect to other nation's policies, and what's around the bend. Refreshingly, it was not a guilt fest. I thought it was fairly balanced: as it discussed other nation's advances, it also reported the factors that led them there. Let's lump them all under enlightened economical self-interest.

Mostly, I'd remind all you lovely homeschooling families to include environmental issues and the accompanying technologies with your other studies (or discussions at least). What you teach your child today will be the background for everything he or she does as a scientist, teacher, engineer, lawyer, plumber (Hi Joe!), architect, doctor, policy maker: as a citizen. It's not about global warming or "going green." It's about being good stewards of the gifts that we have, and it's about doing what's best for the people of the world. The planet will not care if it's oceans are dirty or it's temperature goes up or if fossil fuels are exhausted. We might though.

What exactly is that? Environmental Science Terms

It's funny how sometimes you think you know something, until you try to explain it to a child. Here's a great place to bone up on some of those "Earth Friendly" terms you hear about on the news all the time: The BBC Guide to Climate Change. The site includes an animated guide to the greenhouse effect, and illustrations showing carbon cycle and ice albedo effects. You and your kids can learn about how The Carbon Cycle has changed at the cite. This is a French science site, but it's translated for you and it has plenty of good stuff. If you happen across a click that says "en savoir plus," go ahead and click it. It means "to know more." If you want a little more info on ice albedo effects,Scientific American Frontiers has a little more info for you.

Green on the Roof, Green left in your Pocket

Just a little something about my background, for the purposes of full disclosure. I'm a homeschooling mom with a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering. I'm a pro-life republican nature-lover who is concerned about the environment. I am pro-industry, pragmatic, and I still think we should all do what we can to be wise stewards of our natural world. That being said, I'm always excited about opportunities to conserve resources without blowing our most practical one, the bucks in our bank accounts. Here's a video on a company called Nanosolar and it's product:

I don't have stock in the company, but maybe I should. I've had my eye on it since a 2006/2007? issue of National Geographic mentioned them in a photo caption (I do notice the weirdest things). If it piques your interest, check them out at Nanosolar.com. They were also cited as Innovation of the Year in Popular Science's Best of What's New 2007.

To summarize, they are producing solar panels on a system something like a printing press. It's a lot faster and less expensive to make since there's no silicon in it. It's also on a film, so it is not brittle like traditional solar panels. For now they are releasing their product to energy companies overseas, but look for this product and stuff like it in the near future for your home. It's an opportunity to drastically (green, like the environment) reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons, it's just about the cleanest fuel alternative we have (BTW the whole corn thing stinks, byproduct processing a la South America is a much more efficient alternative), and this product is made to be affordable (green, like cash).

Need a good reason to be thinking about alternative resources? Check out this report on ocean acidification:

.

Thinking about the repercussions is not for the feint of heart.

Just in case you need a little good news after thinking about that, if you like science, bookmark KQED Quest and browse a bit. It's loaded with wondrous stuff, nice footage and more in-depth reporting than we're used to seeing on the regular big name news spots.

Grocery Bags

Hi everyone! We're back from vacation at the lovely SeaWorld. We had a wonderful time and on the way I got to enjoy the latest issue of Discover. There were several terrifying articles on the North Pacific Gyre or the "Trash Vortex" and Ocean acidification. This link tells how trash accumulates in the middle of the oceans, and this one tells why it's so bad: Plastic Waste Threatens Oceans from BBC Sci/Tech. Have you heard of these things? I had not until I read the magazine. There is however a dirth of images from this trash pile. I even found a few sites that expressed a bit of scepticism as to the urgency of the problem. The only question I have about it is this -->How much trash should be in the ocean before it's a problem? If you're not worried about it, maybe you need to take a trip to SeaWorld.

That being said, let me remind everyone to use non-disposable, non-plastic shopping bags. Yeah, yeah, I know they used to be expensive. Now you can get them for a dollar at Wal-mart. They've been in vogue some places for a while now. I need to tell you that is not the case where I live. Where I live, I had only ever seen one other person with a "green" shopping bag before the big "buck a bag" display went up at our local Wal-mart. I am using them at my even more local (that means small) grocery store now. I still don't see other people using them there yet, but I remember that one other person I once saw using her own bag. I hope somebody else sees us and decides to try it out. I hated those plastic bags before I read that article anyway.