Quote from Stanford R. Ovshinsky, inventor of the Ni-metal hydride battery

Recent Posts:

Energy return from switchgrass ethanol much better than corn ethanol (Posted Jan. 8, 2008)

How green are biofuels? (Posted Jan. 4, 2008)

The great debate on the costs of biofuels (Posted Jan. 2, 2008)

Water use in some ethanol plants is not sustainable (Posted May 5, 2007)

Workshop on bioenergy in the classroom (Posted May 1, 2007)

On the need to cover biofuels in science education (Posted Dec. 22, 2006)

Who Killed the Electric car? (Posted Dec. 2, 2006)

Switchgrass ethanol much better than corn ethanol

January 8, 2008

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy (PNAS) found that ethanol made from the cellulosic material in switchgrass can yield five-fold more energy than the inputs required to grow and produce it (see the news article here). Such studies are difficult and somewhat controversial as there are differing opinions as to how much of the production pipeline to include in the calculations of energy efficiency. For example, we should certainly include the energy costs of fertilizers and pesticides as well as costs associated with mechanical cultivation of the land. But do we include the energy required to brew the workers coffee in the morning as part of the energy input for growing switchgrass? This is something of an exaggeration, but some would go nearly this far.

The results of the study are somewhat surprising as switchgrass has been criticized for the fertilizer and pesticides it needs to be grown in monoculture. Without such inputs, it has been shown to be a rather poor-yielding crop (see results from the Tilman group). These new results offer hope that we can grow a significant amount of the fuels we use in this country.

How green are biofuels?

January 4, 2008

A recent perspective article in the journal, Science, summarizes a newly released report comparing the environmental impact of replacing fossil fuels with some 24 different biofuels. The report looks at only two factors: greenhouse gas emission and environmental impact. While other studies have looked at energy conservation in the production of the fuels, this one compares the aggregate environmental effects that production of a biofuel would have versus a fossil fuel. The idea is a good one: how else are we to compare biodiesel produced from rainforest-destroying oil palm versus biodiesel produced produced from recycled vegetable oil.

Their conclusion was that use of the currently available and much hyped biofuels such as corn and sugarcane-based ethanol has a greater environmental impact than simply sticking with petroleum. This is bad news for corn, but good news for biofuels that are in development such as cellulosic ethanol from grasses and wood that fared the best in the study. There is a real need to consider source of the product, something that we rarely do with our commodities in this country.

What are the true costs of biofuels?

January 2, 2008

Chemistry and Engineering News has just published a nice debate on the energetic costs of biofuels, with considerable focus on ethanol. The article can be found here. The article does a good job digesting a complex issue and presents the two sides in a way that would be good for teaching purposes.

While Pimentel makes good points about the need to look very broadly at all the "inputs" involved in making a fuel, he also lapses on his knowledge of cellulosic ethanol in writing that a given amount of ethanol will require twice the land required to produce the same amount using corn. In reality, mixed perennial native plant species have some of the highest biomass outputs (see this reference).

Unsustainable Water Use with Ethanol?

May 5, 2007

The production of ethanol from corn uses an incredible amount of water. A recent article points to a proposed plant in Boone Co., MO that will use 1.3 million gallons each day. The source of this water needs to be considered carefully in order for ethanol to truly become a renewable fuel. In the case of the proposed Boone Co. plant, which is to be built by Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, the water used in the plant will drawn from aquifers that do not regenerate very quickly. This raises the issue that the water used in the production of ethanol may not be a renewable resource and, therefore, neither is the ethanol.

Click here to view a recent article on water use by ethanol plants.

Biofuels High School Teacher Workshop

May 1, 2007

Global warming and alternative energy are perfect links to high school biology, chemistry, physics, environmental science, and ecology -- and they've never been more timely. Join researchers and educators from Washington University, John Burroughs, and University of Missouri-St. Louis to do these lab investigations and more:

* Simulate global warming in an aquarium
* Create personal carbon-emission footprints
* Identify unknown gases using hydrogen fuel cell cars
* Generate electricity from wastewater in microbial fuel cells
* Propel model boats using refined biodiesel

Biofuels: Hot Topics
July 18-19, 2007, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
151 Busch Lab, Danforth Campus, Washington University
Registration $25
http://www.so.wustl.edu/
(314) 935-6846
sponsored by Washington University Science Outreach

Registered participants will be able to borrow sets of materials to do the investigations with their classes.


Visit the instructors' websites to learn more about their research and teaching:

Philip Weyman, research associate in biology, University of Missouri-St. Louis
http://www.umsl.edu/~biofuels/

Miriam Rosenbaum, research associate in energy, environmental, and chemical engineering, Washington University
http://users.seas.wustl.edu/angenent/

Eric Knispel, chemistry teacher, John Burroughs School
http://www.jburroughs.org/science/eknispel/chemistry.html

On the need to cover biofuels in science education:

Faced with the need to focus on state and federal educational standards in public secondary education, can we really afford class time to study something that is perhaps only marginally related to a particular lesson plan? I would press for an emphatic "yes" to answer this question. Energy is becoming the most important issue our species has had to face. Key to finding a solution to our energy problems is bringing up these issues in as many ways and forms as possible for students in high school and college. This must become an issue that stays in their minds. We cannot afford to let this issue fade from public consciousness like so many other issues that seem to be pressing, but then fade away from public consideration.

How many students know where their energy comes from? How many students know the merits of one energy source over another? What is the best source of energy for our country? Energy is such a complex subject and the many forms of future energy sources may become something of a jumble to students and teachers alike. If we can help them understand the main biofuels and their potential applications, the subject may not be as daunting. In my opinion, it is this very complexity that should serve to focus our educational programs.

We'll focus on how to integrate biofuels in the curriculum later. For now, let us consider why we need to teach energy to high school students (or college students for that matter)? The following is a list of potential reasons and justifications:

1. To interject current events into science lessons to make them more relevant and approachable. Every week ushers in new reports about how climate change is affecting the world. If we are teaching acid-base chemistry, the acidification of the ocean due to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations could be an interesting tie-in.
2. To show students (especially those at higher levels) that their interests in biology can find an application in this arena of energy and environment. This point is often sorely neglected. Biology for undergraduates is so often geared to premeds or medical-oriented biology. They get the "moral high ground" for researching subjects that will benefit humanity. I was fortunate in college to attend a seminar on the questions about organic agriculture, and I got thinking about the intersection of biology and the "human-managed" environment. It opened my eyes to the worlds of plant biology and microbiology that is related to soil and the environment. Students need to have the mentors and guidance to help them figure out how their interests can be applied in non-traditional ways. Bioenergy can become the equivalent "moral high ground" as medicine-biology in terms of a higher cause to inspire students to dedicate their lives to solving our energy problems.
3. To educate students enough to make their own, responsible decisions about energy that are based on scientific facts. Students need to include these decisions in their voting priorities.
4. To stimulate students to think interdisciplenarily. Biofuels, from a scientific or R&D standpoint is not just about biology or chemistry or physics or engineering. It is a combination of all these disciplines. It is also not just about science! The economics and social considerations of a new energy technology are quite complex and interwoven with the science. The politics create an even more complicated landscape as tariffs and taxes for certain commodities and interest groups can make or break a technology, regardless of the science and economics. Combination of physical science, social science, politics and humanities is the very purpose of liberal arts education. We need problem solvers that can move between disciplines with ease to tackle these complex problems.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

This is an incredible movie about the politics and economics surrounding a technology with the potential to reduce oil consumption in the US. The crazy thing is that they had a product, high demand, and environmental good-will, and the auto companies chose not to capitalize on it. The issues are so complicated and much goes unsaid, as in this movie. There is much that is happening behind the scenes that we can only speculate about. But this movie does a good job bringing up the subject for a debate the automakers desperately don't want us to have.

My criticisms of the movie and of electric cars in general: How will the batteries be made in such as way that they could replace ALL of the gasoline vehicles in the US and abroad? Is there enough of the materials available in the earth to make the batteries? The same argument could be made for ethanol (which with current production technology would require more land than we have to replace all our liquid fuel) or for fuel cells with their need for expensive platinum catalysts. Either way, there is the need for environmentally degrading metal mining.

Although Evs reduce emissions of smog forming pollution and particulates, are they actually emitting more carbon dioxide due to the inefficiencies of the electricity delivery system? The oil delivery system is not great either, I'm sure. There is inefficiency in the extraction, transport, refining, and delivery of gasoline. There is also inefficiency in the coal mining, transport, burning for electricity and delivery of electricity. How do the numbers work out in terms of carbon emitted per mile driven?

However, electricity can be produced by solar, wind, hydro - there are options for green electricity. Not so with petroleum. Furthermore, electric vehicles are much more efficient as they have more efficient means of converting chemical energy into mechanical energy (moving forward). They can recoup much of the energy lost through breaking by using the momentum to recharge the battery.

One of the most intriguing aspects of this movie was how they made the EV1 cars into things that were almost animate. They were like "robots" in the Isaac Asmiov sense of the word - they were machines endowed with a certain intelligence that made them superior to other machines (other cars). They had souls in the sense that they had a purpose that was meant to be realized but that was cut short by corporate greed.