By Heather Darrow

Special Contributor

It was standing room only in the Preston Ridge Campus Event Center for the latest Knowledge is Power seminar addressing the politics and chemistry of biofuel.

Dr. Debra St. John, political science professor, and Dr. Jon Hardesty, chemistry professor, gave the audience a behind the scenes look at the politics and science behind the fuel issue. 

The politics of biofuels

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act dictates that by 2012 refiners must utilize 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels, and by 2022 36 billion gallons of biofuels are expected.

Is science or politics behind the development of ethanol?

If you chose science, you are wrong according to Dr. St. John because biofuels are USA grown and produced and because 42 senators hail from farm states. The ethanol on the market is really 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas. If you are worried about an increase in easy-access alcohol, fear not; ethanol at the pumps has an additive, so people do not imbibe it.

Currently, there is a 54 cent per gallon tax and a 2.5 percent duty on imported ethanol. On the other hand, since 1970 there has been a 51 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced in the U.S. In addition, the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive was mandated by the government in 1990. Currently, 21 states have ethanol plants. According to Dr. St. John, by 2010 ethanol production should increase to more than 10 billion gallons, double what is produced today.

Why biofuel may be a poor choice

If we use corn for gas, then what happens to the countries that are dependant on our food? Is it ethical to fuel cars instead of feeding people? You can fill your 25-gallon SUV with ethanol or you can feed a person for a year. It turns out that ethanol takes 29 percent more energy to create than it actually provides (2005 Cornell and Berkeley study). Surprisingly, according to Dr. St. John, most biofuels are energy negative.

“The policy makers support corn-based fuel, but they are looking for other fuels. Even Willie Nelson has a biodiesel fuel (Bio Willie) that is made from fat,” Dr. St. John said.

So, how can we become less dependent on foreign oil?

According to Dr. St. John, if our cars got 3.8 miles per gallon more than they do now, the average gas consumption would be reduced by 12 percent. We could all buy more gas efficient cars, but Dr. St. John points out that Texans like big cars and there is also the issue of politics between the car manufacturers and the government. On the other hand, GM is promoting flexfuel when ethanol is not available. She believes if we had more places to buy 85 percent ethanol, more people might buy it.

“A lot of people are driving gas guzzlers because we like our space. Car companies gave discounts or rebates as incentives to sell cars. There has also been a tax credit for buying large SUVs.  People say we need to develop our own sources and not use other countries’ fuel. We are going to have to do something, but we have a long way to go,” Dr. St. John said.

Are biofuels the solution from a scientific perspective?

According to Dr. Jon Hardesty, a fuel is a substance that can release energy; it provides a chemical reaction that transfers energy in a condensed form.

Where does fossil fuel come from and why are we addicted to it?

All fossil fuels are temporary storage of energy from the sun. It takes millions of years and heat and pressure to convert dead plants and animals into crude oil.

“Energy is the key to modern life. But why are fossil fuels so addictive? Why is it like crack? Fossil fuels are energy dense and readily accessible; we have160 years of infrastructure investment in fossil fuels. You may not believe it with current gas prices, but fundamentally they are cheap; that’s why they are so addictive. We have reached a point where we can use crude oil for many things including styrofoam cups, ink in pens and even the covering on the table tops in the conference room,” Dr. Hardesty said.

On the other hand, he pointed out that fossil fuels have drawbacks including the environmental concerns, national security concerns and economic concerns, such as the United States spending $650 million a day for imported oil in 2007.

What other energy options are out there?

Solar energy has panels that last 30-40 years, but solar energy cannot be called upon for electricity production at night, and so far we haven’t been able to build batteries to store large quantities of electricity for extended periods of time. Wind energy is not consistently reliable. Geothermal energy, a pipe in the ground that uses steam to turn a turbine, is only readily available in the west. Hydrogen is very difficult to store because it diffuses through containers, and you have to compress the hydrogen to get acceptable energy density. Fusion may be the best option, but it is not viable yet. According to Dr. Hardesty, we haven’t given up the search for the perfect energy source, and there are many innovative “Buck Rogers” technologies currently being researched including underwater turbines that use the tides and using algae as a fuel source.

Dr. Hardesty calls biodiesel and ethanol pre-crude oil solutions. The former is made with vegetable oils, while the latter is made from fermented glucose. Vegetable oil fuel is not a new idea. In fact, in 1912 Rudolf Diesel may have forecasted the future when he said, “The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today.  But such oils may become in the course of time as important as petroleum and coal tar products of the present time.”

To make biodiesel, you hydrolyze fats or oils in methanol to produce a mixture of fatty acid methyl esters that are sold as biodiesel.

Pros and Cons of Biodiesel

Environmentally, biofuels shorten the cycle from carbon dioxide to carbon dioxide. Economically, biofuels are homegrown and reduce the need for foreign oil.

Biodiesel posseses 91-92 percent of the stored energy in No. 2 diesel, and it is ready for the fuel tank. However, according to Dr. Hardesty the only reason biodiesel gives a positive return is the fact that the waste product from producing it is rich in protein and good for production of cattle feed. Still, 60 gallons of biodiesel could be made from one acre of soybeans. We could replace 2.6 percent of the yearly motor gas consumption with the 64.1 million acres of U.S. soybean crops. However, to replace 50 percent of the car fuel with biodiesel, we would need 1.2 billion acres of soybeans annually (about 400 percent of total U.S. croplands).

In addition, it takes 900 gallons of fresh water to make just one gallon of biodiesel. According to Dr. Hardesty, that means we would need to empty Lake Lewisville 70 times each year to support this level of biodiesel production.

Pros and Cons of Ethanol

To make ethanol, you can use glucose from Brazilian sugarcane, starch from US corn or cellulose from corn stover, switchgrass, trees or other plants. The process involves removing the glucose and fermenting it to make ethanol and carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, ethanol has a low energy density; ethanol has about one third less energy per gallon than gas or diesel fuel. It would take 337 million acres of corn annually (about 100 percent of total U.S. croplands) to replace 50 percent of our yearly motor fuel consumption. To make one gallon of ethanol, it requires 170-220 gallons of water. To replace 50 percent of our motor fuel, we would have to empty Lake Lewisville a whopping 110- 140 times annually.

On the other hand, at 2.65 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, the 2007 U.S. corn crop could replace 17.1 percent of the annual consumption of motor fuels (137.8 billion gallons) in the United States. In addition, it only costs $100-150 to convert a gas engine to E85 (85 percent ethanol to 15 percent gas).

Are biofuels good for the environment?

While biodiesel gives off about the same amount of carbon dioxide as gasoline, ethanol emits about 50 percent more. According to Dr. Hardesty, two recent articles in Science magazine state that biofuels are worse for the environment than gas or diesel fuel because the loss of our agricultural production would probably mean the loss of virgin rain forest in Indonesia and Brazil, resulting in the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

“If a country wants food, do we say we don’t have it because we are going to use it in our cars? Should we use water to make fuel when water is limited in the west and the midwest? Should we pay people not to cut down the rain forest? If they still do it, who will police that? The real answer will be in using a lot of these ideas simultaneously. The magnitude of this problem is extraordinary. The perfect solution could be fusion, the process that powers the sun. Fusion has been sustained in the laboratory only on a time scale of a fraction of a second, faster than an eye blinks. However, so far no controllable large-scale fusion reaction has been carried out,” Dr. Hardesty said.