Believe it or not, one of the biggest naysayers is Toyota, the very company who revolutionized cars as we drive them today with the 46-mpg Prius. Unsure of how to make that shift by 2020 and terrified of losing its Toyota Tundra (14/18-mpg) market, Toyota lobbyists sit in opposition to the bill.
The truth is, cars with better fuel options are more readily available every day, but there are two important components to the reduction of our oil and gas consumption. While auto technology is the first, the second (and perhaps more important) is the fuel technology itself.
The energy bill responds to this as well, mandating the use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels annually by 2015 and 36 billion gallons by 2022 (up from 8.5 billion gallons in 2008). As arbitrary as 2020, 15 billion gallons of biofuel also seems randomly decried, but both are an indication of where we’re headed.
Biofuels, as we know them today, are often expensive and at times environmentally neutral. While biodiesel made from soy is great idea, it’s cumbersome to produce when one acre of soybeans generates only 60 gallons of fuel. Could corn ethanol be the Holy Grail, with 300 gallons of ethanol being produced from a single acre? It’s relatively easy to produce and convert and 23% of U.S. corn is already earmarked for fuel, partially powering many of cars on U.S. roads today.
Not long ago, the production of corn ethanol actually released more green house gases than it saved, but in recent years this tipping point has shifted by tweaking the crop that’s used and the technology in refining it. Unfortunately, the crop is still covered in all kinds of chemicals to help make it most productive, resulting in other environmental hazards like ground water contamination and soil erosion. Other opponents fear that having a corn-fueled economy will raise the cost of corn even higher than today, pushing beef and poultry farmers who use it as feed right out of the market. So, did I mention there were down sides?
What we know now, though, is that corn ethanol is a transitional fuel. It’s been a great start, but there are better, cheaper and cleaner options. Beginning in 2016, the bill mandates annual increases of three billion gallons in the use of advanced biofuels — such as “cellulosic” ethanol (essentially making the best use of all the cells available), which can be made from switch grass, wood chips or agricultural waste.
Sugar is easiest to convert into ethanol, which is why Brazil and Indonesia — places where sugarcane is produced in mass — are leading the ethanol fuel charge. If the U.S. wants to play in this fuel game of the future and eliminate the need for foreign dependence, we’ve got to figure out a way to move to a fuel we can successfully produce in house.
The answer, many believe, is switch grass, an eight- to nine-foot tall plant native to the U.S. It has a remarkable range of climatic tolerance, so different varieties can be grown from the Gulf coast up to Canada. The crop has low production costs and is efficiently rendered into ethanol at an astoundingly high yield of 1,000 gallons per acre because, not just the grain, but the whole plant is used. Best yet, is that the plant that could virtually absorb the carbon emissions any distillation releases, revealing a neutral environmental footprint overall.
So what’s the hold up, when the technology of the future seems to be reaching remarkable consensus? The bottom line is that converting our century-old gasoline standard, and the mindset that goes along with it, is much like moving mountains. I guess we’ve just got to hope that now there are more people behind it, like you and me, pushing.
Not sure whether technology is necessary, evil, both or neither, Christine Heinz perpetuates this love/hate relationship every day as a photographer, graphic designer and educator.