There are several avenues that could relieve the situation in the long
term, but few that we can deploy now to meet our immediate needs. For
example, when we talk about a "hydrogen" solution, we are really talking
about a revolutionary technology whose practical application is likely a
decade or more away. When we talk "electric vehicles" (EVs) we are
assuming that battery and/or super capacitor technology will advance
dramatically in the next few years so that auto batteries can be recharged
quickly and the driving range between recharges can be extended
appreciably.
Then there is the hope that liquid petroleum can be domestically produced
from coal or oil shale. Producing oil economically from this country's
enormous coal supply is seriously being explored by several private
companies with some support of the federal government, but it is still a
long way from grand scale commercialization. Oil production from shale, on
the other hand, is still in its early development stage and few
breakthroughs are foreseen in the near future. Both of these technologies
have problems associated with land use, water use, and ecosystem
destruction that have yet to be solved. For these reasons none of these
technologies appear to be realistic solutions in the near term.
This leaves mainly biofuels, i.e., ethanol and biodiesel. While wide
attention is now being given to these fuels as petroleum substitutes,
strong reservations have been expressed by some. One of the leading
ethanol critics is Prof. David Pimental of Cornell University. He
calculates that more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy
achieved. Many have challenged Pimental's conclusions on the basis that
his data is badly outdated and that he includes too many irrelevant energy
inputs in his calculations. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimental paper, that U.S.
farming and ethanol manufacturing practices are energy efficient and are
becoming more so each year. It asserts that the energy content of ethanol
delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil
energy inputs required to produce it. As early as 2002 USDA estimated that
ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 BTUs of energy as ethanol for
every fossil BTU expended considering all energy inputs including corn
transport, ethanol production, and the distribution and transport of the
finished ethanol. This is key since the real goal is to measure how much
petroleum is used in the process versus how much petroleum is displaced,
not how much total energy is expended.
Still many professionals do believe that a major shortcoming of ethanol is
its poor EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). The ratio today using
corn as a feedstock for ethanol is only 1(in):1.5(out) at best. Although
this is positive, Prof. Charles Hall (State University of New York) points
out that, "expecting to run a country totally on liquid fuels of this low
EROEI is almost laughable." Another danger, as warned in Jared Diamond's
book, "Collapse," is the possible land degradation that would occur if the
enormous acreage needed to produce enough substitute fuel to meet our
nation's oil demands is devoted to energy crops. Thus we have a dilemma.
The only immediate substitute for oil seems to be ethanol and biodiesel.
Ethanol has it limitations as stated previously.
Biodiesel, which is a biofuel made primarily from waste fats or soybeans,
can directly replace diesel oil but it too has EROEI weaknesses similar to
ethanol. On the other hand, while not the total answer, biofuels can be a
substantial contributor (possibly as much as 20%) to our liquid fuel needs
and should not be discounted. To really make ethanol a major contributor,
however, we need to quickly change our feedstock component from corn to
cellulosic matter; i.e., farm waste and especially grown energy crops such
as specialty grasses and short rotation woody biomass. The benefit of this
is that we would achieve a much higher EROEI than from corn alone and we
could grow many of the energy crops on land that is fallow, underused or
unsuitable for food crops. It is worth noting that the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, has long been engaged in a research
program aimed at developing a practical means of converting cellulosic
feedstock into ethanol. In fact, a new ethanol plant in Canada that uses
only cellulosic waste as its feedstock has now come on line. It was built
by the Royal Dutch Shell company in partnership with Iogen of Canada. More
such plants are in the planning stage.
But even at best biofuels alone are not the answer. This country consumes
about 21 million barrels of petroleum per day, 14 of which are used for
transportation. Currently a NET average of about 150,000 barrels/day
(54.75 million barrels/year) is being supplied by biofuels (assuming that
only 1 gallon of liquid fuel is required to produce 2 gallons of ethanol
-- an optimistic assumption at this time). Even if we increased biofuels
production thirty-fold, this would supplant little more than 20% of our
petroleum needs (less than one-third of our oil imports today). This in
itself is a most ambitious goal, to say the least. It would be
unreasonable to expect that we could ever produce enough ethanol to match
all or even 60% (amount imported) of our liquid fuel consumption. And even
if we could, it is questionable whether this would be desirable
considering the enormous amount of land area that would be necessary to
produce the ethanol feedstock. Therefore, if we are to solve the total
problem we must augment an expanded biofuels production initiative with a
dramatic reduction in oil consumption, as much as 7 million barrels per
day.
In 2005, the 235+ million on-road U.S. car/light truck fleet averaged 20.3
miles per gallon (mpg); down from 22.5 mpg in 1985. Our commercial
airlines, trains, freight trucks, and farm machinery consume gasoline and
diesel fuel at an enormous rate. And the amount of oil necessary to
produce petroleum based products such as plastics and chemicals is
increasing each year. To reduce costs, many airlines are already replacing
their old stock with more fuel efficient planes. Many truckers are
actively seeking ways to reduce travel miles for deliveries and increasing
the fuel efficiency of their trucks.
But the lion's share of the burden must fall upon the private owners of
cars and light trucks (which include SUVs and minivans). Some inroads have
already been made by the introduction of hybrid gasoline-electric autos
which boast mpg ratings of more than twice the average mpg rating of all
other cars. And it is further encouraging that many hybrid autos are now
being modified so that they can be plugged into any electric power source
when the vehicle is idle thereby recharging the batteries without using
the vehicle's gasoline engine or regenerative braking system. This
increases the mpg tremendously and some hybrid auto manufacturers are
seriously considering making this feature an option on future models.
Bottom line -- to make a serious reduction in U.S. oil consumption over
the next fifteen years we need to increase the average mpg of our
car/light truck fleet from 20.3 mpg to 35 mpg (fifteen years is the
average time it takes to turn over our entire light-car fleet today).
Therefore, the ideal goal would be to phase in new high-efficiency
vehicles to replace all low-efficiency vehicles as they are removed from
service over the period. To accomplish this, our federal government would
have to carry out a massive public relations campaign, along with an
innovative financial incentive program, to convince car owners that it is
not only in their own best interest, but in the national interest as well,
to change their automobile preferences from SUVs, minivans, and light
trucks to smaller, more efficient vehicles. Special rebates should be
given to car buyers to purchase hybrid cars and, better yet, plug-in
hybrid cars once they become commercially available. In addition, the
government will have to gradually impose higher and higher fuel efficiency
(CAFE) standards for cars, as well as light trucks, on car manufacturers
for implementation over the next decade.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the action we must take NOW to relieve our dependence on
foreign oil over the next two decades is threefold: First, we need to
increase our domestic oil production from the current level of 7.5 million
barrels/day to about 10 million barrels/day. This may mean more offshore
drilling, possibly some discrete drilling on public lands, and, if it can
become economical and environmentally acceptable, production of oil via
coal liquefaction and/or extraction from oil shale.
Secondly, we need to produce more and more biofuels, hopefully as much as
a NET 4 million barrels/day. This assumes that a practical method of
producing ethanol from cellulosic feedstock will be developed within the
next five years and that it will be the predominant method of producing
ethanol over the following ten years. It also assumes that there will be a
major increase in biodiesel production. These measures will not only
provide alternative fuels to relieve much of our gasoline and diesel fuel
needs but it also will create thousands of new domestic jobs and greatly
improve our balance of trade.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we need to drastically reduce our oil
consumption by some 7 million barrels/day. This means an upping of CAFE
standards by government edict, a mass manufacture and sale of highly
fuel-efficient vehicles, and the subsequent changing some of our life
style habits. We can no longer lavish ourselves with large gas guzzling
vehicles. We need to replace them with fuel efficient cars and trucks such
as hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and we must learn to economize on
our travel in every way we can (car pools, fewer road trips, shorter
commutes, greater use of public transportation). In fact, there is a
movement afoot encouraging local governments to pass new zoning laws and
create incentives for better urban planning of all new real estate
developments to ensure less travel between home, stores and places of
employment.
These may appear to be near impossible goals, and maybe they are. But we
must strive to achieve them as best we can. If we fall short we will still
be far ahead of our current business as usual scenario and will reduce our
oil imports appreciably. If we delude ourselves that there is no crisis
and do nothing, we will be doomed.
About the author...
Paul Notari is currently the Renewable Fuels and Transportation Division
representative on the American Solar Energy Society Board of Directors. In
1980, as head of the Technical Information Branch at the Solar Energy
Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), he was
the originator and publisher of Fuel From Farms, one of the first
textbooks on ethanol production technology. The publication was widely
distributed throughout the nation and is recognized as one of the primary
movers in the launching of today's ethanol industry.
