The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear wind solar nuclear.

That is all.

Please do not incite the wrath of justpbob!

Noted.

Jeffk: Those are options to generate electricty. Any suggestions on transportation fuels? That's what biofuels are used for, for the most part.

Meant to put that on the open thread

Or non-corn biofuel. Switchgrass, prairie grass.

Pretty graphs, wayne. You are the King of Graphics on MNspeak. Everyone look at #2, which lists sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Any questions why ALAMN got involed in biofuels (which emit much less than dino juice)?

Jeff: Where in Minnesota can I buy an electric car or truck? I'l need one that I can use on a highway, not just side streets, and has a range of more than 50 miles per charge.

Also, I want to buy some of that cellulosic ethanol I keep hearing about in the news. Can you point me toward any station in the state that sells it?

Where in Minnesota can I buy an electric car or truck?
Saying that it's not available isn't an excuse when you spend your time backing corn ethanol. Viable electric cars have been around for years, but automakers have embraced corn-fed SUVs instead because that's what we've pushed them to do. They saw an out - they could back "green" cars without hardly making any technological improvements, which of course they hate because doing that would hurt short-term profits. You can't go out today and buy an electric car, but with the right course of actions, you could go out in two years and do it. If we forced Detroit to stop dragging their feet, I think they'd thank us in twenty years when American cars are still available for purchase.

I want to buy some of that cellulosic ethanol I keep hearing about in the news.
Exact same thing. It's a straw man. I never said, "Bob, go out right now and buy cellulosic ethanol". My implication was "let's all agree that corn ethanol is not nearly as good as this other alternative and then bitch until we get what we want." For someone whose job it is to lobby for good future public policy, why only think about today?

I should add, no hard feelings - you and I have the same aims, and I'm really happy there are people like you out there whose job it is to make good shit happen. The disagreement is in the details of how to do it, and I'm arguing that corn ethanol has run its course. It hasn't been a failure - we've gotten people thinking about renewable energy, built an infrastructure - now let's move on to the good stuff before we waste all of our resources on the prototype.

Jeff: I would have to disagree with your statement that "viable electric cars have been around for years." If they are not available on the market, for whatever reason, you can hardly call them "viable."

I think the American Lung Association would have no problem backing public policies that would support domestic development and sales of electric cars. Just waiting for a lawmaker to step up to the plate.

Re: cellulosic ethanol, I just wanted to point out that this reportedly "superior" ethanol is not being sold anywhere in America. Because there really are no large-scale commercial cellulosic ethanol plants yet, there is much we don't know about this fuel.

Is it viable? How much feedstock, who will provide it, and at what cost? How do we harvest and transport all that bulky cellulosic material efficiently? How much water and energy will be needed to produce it? Finally, will cellulosic ethanol be cost competitive with corn ethanol. If not, who will make up the difference -- the taxpayer, the industry or the consumer?

I'll need more answers to the questions above before I am willing to "...agree that corn ethanol is not nearly as good as this other alternative." Since it may be years --maybe even a decade or more--before we know the answers about cellulosic ethanol, it may be premature to "pull the plug" on corn or soy-based fuels, even if they have faults.

Here's some info that should calm fears about the growing use of biofuels in the USA:

The recently passed federal Renewable Fuels Standads requires that any feedstock for biofuels come from land already cultivated before the bill was inacted, and that the fuel must meet a specified greenhouse gas lifecycle measurement standard.

You may also be interested to know that total US acres used to grow crops has not increased since 1959. The types of crops may change, but the acres under cultivation have not increased, or are expected to increase due to biofuel demand.

I end by pointing out that E85 and biodiesel are both proven to be better at reducing air pollution and greenhouse emissions than traditional petroleum fuels.

If they are not available on the market, for whatever reason, you can hardly call them "viable."

Maz, what have you done to Bob?!!!

Viable means that the technology exists and it's not grossly more expensive than existing technology - much like corn ethanol, for example. In both cases we all need to shoulder some burden of the more expensive but earth-friendly alternative. If we just keep doing things the cheapest way, obviously we'll never solve any environmental problems.

Most of the questions you've asked about cellulosic ethanol have been largely answered by research (much of it here at the U). The answer to every question is "much better than corn", or "probably better than corn but we need more research". In the cases where it's the latter, we should be busting our asses to figure it out.

In any case, I'm much more interested in solar, wind, nuclear than any biofuel. I was just trying to make it clear that I support a variety of solutions, bio included.

Corn ethanol sucks and it's a shame so much money and resources are being wasted on it.

And it's a shame that people who should be promoting other ideas and better solutions waste time on a non-solution.

But big agri-business and the automakers have just about everyone they need safely in their pockets.

And if we're all wanking to biofuels sourced from our food supply, why not wank to biodiesel instead? At least with biodiesel we get the protein AND the oil out of the crop. Yes kids, that means both food and fuel comes from the same soybean. We don't have to pick.

But Americans are far too stupid to buy anything with the word "diesel" even remotely associated with it.

Doesn't your car run on biodiesel too bob?

But Americans are far too stupid to buy anything with the word "diesel" even remotely associated with it.
Are you argueing I'm not stupid for buying these Diesel jeans?

Diesel is a great fuel for our logistical vehicles and biodiesel advancements used solely for that purpose could help uncouple our supply chain from foreign fuel markets.

All those shipping fuel surcharges have an inflationary effect.

When it comes to powering every car with biodiesel or even pushing that x percent of cars should run biodiesel I'm not sure it's a good idea.

There are so many cars and I haven't heard a single plan for how biodiesel growth would be managed and sustained.

It seems to me that's why we end up with these problems of land stripping etc.

But Americans are far too stupid to buy anything with the word "diesel" even remotely associated with it.

Au contraire, IMHO. Once upon a time there were many Americans who bought diesel-engined cars, in the '70s and '80s. Diesels got their first big play after the first oil shock in 1973. VW had a diesel version of the Rabbit; both Volvo and Mercedes offered diesel versions of their line-ups. (And used '60s-era Mercedes could still often be bought for a song and a dance by cost-conscious college students.)

It wasn't unusual to see diesel cars on the road as recently as the early '90s ... until the price of diesel fuel began to consistently be higher priced than gasoline.

No, I would say most Americans over the age of 35 know of at least two or three people who once owned diesel cars. But diesels tendency to gel in very cold weather was something that prevented the engine from being more popular in cold climates. Many more diesels were on the road in places like California and Florida, though.

"I thought I remembered seeing a decal on your car."

You did. I have that on my car just to get people thinking about biodiesel, not to trumpet my personal use of the fuel. I do use E85 exclusively when I drive one of ALAMN's leased flex-fuel vehicles.

"There are so many cars and I haven't heard a single plan for how biodiesel growth would be managed and sustained."

I have, at the Orlando meeting. It was huge -- about 4,000 participants. In spite of some recent problem with the cost of soybeans, the biodiesel industry has seen huge growth, especially in the South. While there is no "grand plan," it is clear that the industry is growing, getting smarter and leaner, and moving toward divesified raw materials (i.e., not just soy) to make biodiesel.

I expect that a proposal to increase our statewide biodiesel requirement from the current B2 (two percent blend) to B5 (five percent blend) this session. The quality issues with Minnesota biodiesel have been largely resolved (in fact, MN's efforts to solve its problems were hailed in Orlando as a national model for other states), we have more than enough beans and processing plants here to meet a 5% requirement.

Environmentally, we don't see big benefits until we move up to B20, which provides a 12% decrease in particulate pollution from the tailpipe. All metro transit buses are moving to B20 this year, BTW. We know from our ethanol experience that these statewide renewable fuel requirements builds an infrastructure and a demand for higher-blend biofuels that many Minnesotans want to use, but just can't find yet.

I didn't know until I read this that Joe had quit smoking. I once had to kick him out of Regions Hospital for smoking a cigar in our lobby.

Heh.