March 14, 2005 — By Norman L. Dean, Friends of the Earth
Our country is addicted to oil, and we are paying a fearful price.
Our profligate use of petroleum contributes to air pollution, urban
smog and global warming. Our addiction leaves us dependant on relatively
unstable foreign sources of supply. And, it increases the pressure
for oil and gas exploration in sensitive areas like the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and the front range of the Rockies.
We must end this addiction. There are several possible substitutes
for oil as a transportation fuel, each of which has its advantages
and disadvantages. But for the last fifteen years, we have made
far too little effort to develop these less damaging alternatives.
Less than 2% of the fuels used in transportation come from non-petroleum
sources -- most of it from ethanol produced from corn.
By far the most attractive alternative is using hydrogen to power
vehicles because hydrogen is nonpolluting when burned. But implementing
a hydrogen based transportation system will take 25 to 50 years.
Several of the proposed technologies for mass production of hydrogen
involve environmentally risky use of nuclear power or coal -- so-called
"black hydrogen." The "greener" hydrogen technologies,
based on windpower, solar and other renewables, are not yet cost
effective. Moreover, it will take years and billions of dollars
to install hydrogen fueling stations across the country. In short,
we need to look elsewhere while further work is done on a possible
"green" hydrogen future.
We could power our cars with electricity using electric cars or
gas electric hybrids that plug into the electricity grid. But as
with hydrogen, running our cars on electricity only makes sense
if the electricity is produced from an alternative source such as
wind or solar power. Otherwise, we will simply be fueling our cars
on the fossil fuels being burned at power plants, losing as much
as two thirds of the energy during the production and transmission
of the electricity.
At the nation’s fuel pumps today, ethanol produced from corn is
the most widely used non-petroleum fuel. Corn based ethanol reduces
our dependence on foreign fuel sources but it requires significant
energy, fertilizer and water to produce and is only 20% better than
gasoline in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Producing large amounts
of ethanol from corn perpetuates the system of agricultural monoculture
that is polluting streams and rivers. And, according to recent estimates,
it also costs significantly more to produce than gasoline.
Corn-based ethanol is only one of several plant-based alternatives
to oil. Using agricultural waste and used cooking oil from restaurants,
we can generate biodiesel fuel. (People report that cars burning
biodiesel sometimes smell like French fries.) There is a growing
interest in biodiesel in the agricultural states. Minnesota recently
mandated that all diesel fuel sold in that state must contain at
least two percent biodiesel. According to a recent report from the
National Commission on Energy Policy, biodiesel will have a niche
in the non-petroleum future, but is unlikely to become economic
on a large scale.
Current research suggests that the best plant-based, short-term
alternative to oil is ethanol produced from cellulose. We can make
cellulosic ethanol from fast growing crops like switch grass or
willow trees, or from agricultural waste like rice hull. Ethanol
from cellulose has several advantages over the corn based fuel.
It can theoretically cut greenhouse gas pollution by almost 100%
and may be much cheaper to produce. Since there are more sources
of cellulose, this fuel is less likely to compete for cropland.
And it may be possible to produce cellulosic ethanol for less than
the cost of gasoline.
We can break our addiction to oil but it will take both significant
changes in policy and substantial investments.
We can start by using less fuel for transportation. At current
rates of petroleum consumption, it is difficult to imagine utilizing
enough cropland, or increasing the productivity of cellulosic sources
enough to end our addiction to oil. The nation needs to mandate
more efficient vehicles. Existing technology can easily double the
fuel efficiency of cars.
Second, we should establish a target of replacing half of all gasoline
and diesel with renewable, environmentally sound alternatives by
the year 2030.
Third, we should move agricultural subsidies from food crops to
biofuels. This shift would provide a powerful incentive for developing
alternative fuels, and would have the added advantage of reforming
the current agricultural subsidy system that encourages artificially
low food prices in the U.S. and undermines farmers in developing
countries.
Finally, we should be making major investments in alternative fuels.
It’s true that the most recent Bush budget projects huge increases
in the federal deficit, and would appear to preclude substantial
new investments in anything. But failing to develop alternative
fuels as quickly as possible will cost us far more in the long run.
A $5 billion, ten-year research and development effort could easily
be justified given the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
to preserve stability in the Middle East, the price of damage from
global warming, the ongoing healthcare costs from smog and other
air pollution, and all the other indirect costs of using oil. A
crash alternative fuels program is one of the most important investments
we could make to strengthen our country and improve our environment
in the 21st century.
|