"There’s no free lunch" is an old axiom that surfaces everytime I think something for nothing is coming my way. This time it’s ethanol, and you’re probably already aware that less corn is going to your table because more of it is going to fuel. So we’re paying for cleaner air everytime we buy products made from corn.

Articles are showing up more and more by writers complaining about rising food costs not only in the US, but in other areas of the world. So here’s an old dude’s perspective.

Education: A Zillion Uses for Corn

Also on GO:

The Green Life Guide: Ethanol

Red, Green and Blue: A Case for Ethanol Skepticism

Red, Green and Blue: Ethanol: Fuel of the Future, or Ponzi Scheme?

4 Ways to "Cash In" on Ethanol

Climate Change, Energy Security and CAFE: With E85, the Country has a Better Mousetrap

US Drunk on Ethanol Hysteria

When I was a kid on the farm, tiptoeing through a barnyard was a way of life. It was something like playing hopscotch with cow pies. When spring came, it was time to clean out the barn, transfer the winter’s supply of manure, one pitchfork at a time, into a “honey wagon” and take it to the fields to be used as fertilizer. It amazed me how much there was, and until I researched this project, I had no idea how much manure and gasses cattle produce each day, or the effect they have on the environment. No, this isn’t fart science.

Cow manure has been discovered as an energy source: it has power and it’s being used to make electricity and ethanol. Take for example the E3 BioFuels Genesis plant in Mead, Nebraska. The $80 million facility began operation this summer, turning out some 25 million gallons of ethanol a year (a rather small amount, compared to other ethanol plants around the country). What makes this facility unique is it’s patented closed-loop system, the first of its kind in America, and quite possibly in the world.

The plant is old news, really, but here’s how it works. A nearby beef cattle feedlot provides 150,000 pounds of manure every day, which is processed through an anaerobic digester, and that produces methane. The methane is used to fire the plant’s boilers, replacing expensive natural gas, resulting in a large reduction in operating expenses. Company officials say the Genesis plant produces 46 units of energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy required, a 46:1 efficiency ratio. Conventional ethanol plants are rated at a ratio of 3:1.

A byproduct of ethanol production, wet distiller’s grain, is fed to the cattle in the feedlot and the process begins all over again. Now this is a very brief explanation of what’s happening at the Genesis plant. Their website explains it very well..

So why am I writing about this? Well, there’s more to cow manure, as you probably know. Millions of tons are produced every day by the estimated 1.5 billion cattle populating our planet. Let’s put this into some sort of perspective. The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay estimates the average dairy cow drops 148 pounds of manure each day. Do the math: that’s a lot of BS! And you thought it was all in Washington!

Dairy Farms

Haubenschild FarmSeveral dairy farms in America use the output of their cattle in much the same way as the Nebraska plant, with one exception. The Haubenschild Dairy Farm in Princeton, Minnesota, is a shining example. Instead of using the methane to create heat for boilers, it’s used to run generators that provide electric power for the operation, and supply electricity to surrounding homes as well. Anaerobic digester systems are expensive though, ranging from $200,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the size of the herd, so farmers with smaller herds have been reluctant to make that kind of investment. The USDA has free software for download that will determine digester size and cost based on the size of a farm’s herd. I found it fun, and very informative.

Hopefully, as the science of digesters improves, the process will become less costly, and more farmers and commercial operations will be able to take advantage of poop power. I was surprised to learn from The AgSTAR Program website that several pig farms are using digesters, and there’s even a duck farm in Wisconsin using a digester.

Belching

Here’s the capper: while manure provides greenhouse gasses, a cow’s breath introduces far more methane and other gasses into the air. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the six million tons of methane burped by cattle in the US each year is equivalent to 36 million tons of carbon dioxide. If you add the output of sheep, goats and other ruminants, they all account for more than 18% of the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming, and that, according to the IPCC, is more than cars, planes and all other forms of transportation.

So, is the world’s cattle population contributing to global warming? It would seem so with all the belching and pooping, and the IPCC makes a strong case.

While we’re beginning to discover applications for animal manure, what about the burping? I doubt gas masks would work well on cows, and there’s no way we’ll be decreasing herd sizes anytime soon. Diet seems the best way to reduce production of greenhouse gasses produced by livestock, along with more efficient and productive methods of dealing with manure.

I’m so proud of myself; I didn’t once say “shit."

The Ford Model T and the Chevy Volt: Image Sources: University of Houston, Edmonds.com

I was reflecting over the weekend on just how far we’ve come in the past 100 years or so, and I’d like to do some reminiscing. Old folks are prone to do that since we have so many “miles” stacked up. So humor me.

This was a little before my time, but back in the early 1900’s, Henry Ford began production of his Model T, the Volkswagen of its time. The really interesting thing about his new car was that it ran on ethanol, or gasoline, or a combination of the two. As a matter of fact, Ford was quoted as predicting ethanol was the fuel of the future. His vision was to “build a vehicle affordable to the working family and powered by a fuel (ethanol) that would boost the rural farm community.” He also became fascinated with soybean-based plastics through his relationship with George Washington Carver.

In 1942, Ford patented an automobile using a tubular welded frame and a body made almost entirely of plastic derived from soybeans. According to Wikipedia, the vehicle weighed 30% less than a steel car, ran on ethanol instead of gasoline, and could withstand impacts ten times greater than could steel. WWII was underway, and the concept was lost in the demand for war materials.

So what happened to that prediction? Ethanol was used as a fuel by itself and as a blend with gasoline until prohibition hit in 1919, when anything alcoholic was illegal, except for ethanol’s use as an additive to gasoline. After prohibition, ethanol as a fuel by itself never regained popularity, and it was used in gasoline for a very short time to help boost octane and reduce the annoying engine knock that haunted higher compression engines. After World War II, the price of fossil fuels edged ethanol out of the fuels market, and by the late 1940’s, virtually no commercial fuel ethanol was available in the US.

The use of ethanol as an octane booster, or anti-knock additive, gave way in the early 1920’s to a substance known as tetraethyl lead, a cheap, explosive and very poisonous solution developed by General Motors. It was marketed as “leaded gasoline”, and remained a staple of the oil industry until the mid-1970’s when it was outlawed for what it was: a dangerous health threat. That’s why when you pull up to the pump, you see that you are using “unleaded” gasoline. It’s interesting to note that the developers of leaded gasoline were strong advocates of ethanol for boosting octane, but GM reportedly caved in to oil company interests looking for a cheaper method of preventing the pre-ignition of fuels in the cylinder.

So today, the love affair with fossil fuels is waning for a number of reasons, probably more because of the cost than the pollution they cause. Ok, it’s an old man’s cynicism that simply says “money talks”, or to quote Billy Holiday’s lyrics in “God Bless the Child,” “Them that’s got shall get, Them that’s not shall lose.” I really suspect that if the price of gas goes back to $1 a gallon, the push for alternatives like ethanol would fade big time.

Diesel fuel

Let’s move along to another fossil fuel, diesel. When Rudolph Diesel first conceived the engine that bears his name, his primary focus was to provide a simpler and more efficient power plant that would run on petroleum-based fuel or one made from natural plant oils.

The idea caught on in Europe, and Diesel became a millionaire. He came to the US on a couple of occasions to enlist the help of a super salesman he’d heard about, August Busch. Yeah, the Anheuser Busch guy. Busch gave it his best but the concept didn’t catch on in the states, so Rudolph went back to Europe to perfect his invention, and August sold beer. The first diesel engine put into use in the United States was at the Busch brewery in St. Louis. Diesel’s trip wasn’t in vain after all: he sold one. In 1913, as World War I was looming, Diesel boarded a ship to cross the English Channel in an effort to sell his concept to the British. Diesel didn’t make it to the isles: his body was found floating in the water after he didn’t show up for breakfast one morning. It is believed Mr. Diesel was very despondent after losing a patent battle and his fortune, and chose to end his life in that manner. Some conspiracy buffs think the German army, in an effort to keep the British from powering their submarine fleets with his engine, murdered him.

The diesel engine finally caught on after WWI, and became a workhorse during and after WWII. Today, it’s a major contributor to our society, yet most of those engines still run on fossil fuels. Again, I ask the question: if the price of diesel fuel drops to $1 a gallon, would money talk?

The Electric Car

Now, let’s consider the electric car. At one time, many years ago, there were more electric cars on the road than those fueled with gasoline. However, battery technology wasn’t as sophisticated as it is today, and the idea died rather quickly. But let’s fast-forward about 90 years and ponder for a moment GM’s electric car of the mid 1990’s, the EV1. It was a sensation in California, and more than 1000 were leased to eager customers with orders piling up. Then, one day, GM pulled the plug on their new concept, saying they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the car. As leases expired the cars went to the shredders, and all but a very few that were purchased, as I understand, are still traveling the roads of California.

Once again it’s alleged the oil companies, auto manufacturers and even our federal government weighed in on the undesirability of GM’s EV1 and the concept died a mangled death. The documentary film, Who Killed the Electric Car? tells an interesting story; it’s worth a look.

So, here we are, everything that’s old is new again! We’re spending billions of dollars today, researching and producing alternative energy sources to replace high priced and dirty fossil fuels, when the answers were there a century ago. But at that time, fossil fuels were cheap, and money appears to have talked louder than concerns for our health and environment. That’s progress, I guess. What fuels will prevail? With all the research going on we’ll just have to invoke the old saying, “let’s throw it against the wall and see what sticks.”

Sally and I are doing our part, by the way. We drive a ’96 Ford Contour, a nice little car and it serves our needs. However, since my lungs are giving out due to the coal smoke I inhaled as a kid, in addition to emissions from other fossil fuel sources, and of course, cigarettes, walking any distance just doesn’t happen anymore. So, the Veterans Administration was nice enough to give me a four-wheel Rascal scooter to get around. Sally’s knees work on a flat level only, so she now has a Jazzy power chair. We drive the car very little. She shops at the nearby farmers market for most things, and since we live downtown, the public library is close by, and city and county buildings, restaurants and movie theatres are but a few minutes away on our electric vehicles. And yes, it was forced upon us, and yes, there is still a carbon footprint because of the utility company’s use of fossil fuels, but we’re grateful to have these options and know we are contributing our small bit to cleaning up the air and still lead normal lives.

James Hunt: Register-Mail PhotoYou pull into the driveway, tired after more than 3000 miles on the road, but what a vacation! You loaded mom and the kids into the SUV, and set off for the ultimate family trip: a tour of America.

First stop, the nation's capital, then to Disney World, Gettysburg, the Black Hills, Yellowstone National Park, and while you’re in the vicinity, a side trip to the Grand Canyon. You visited a few relatives along the way. You’ve stayed in hotels and motels, camped out a couple of times, and eaten at both fast food restaurants and a couple of four star eateries.

The only thing you didn't buy was gasoline. You took the SUV, the gas hog, but you didn’t put one drop of gas in the tank. Let’s see, the price of gasoline is $3 a gallon, plus or minus, and you drove at least 3000 miles in a vehicle that averages 15 mgp. Wow, that’s a savings of at least $600, not bad in this day and age.

And, as you sit at the kitchen table adding up the cost of your odyssey, you offer up a silent "thank you" to a young, disabled Navy vet, 36 year old James Hunt who lives in Galesburg, IL, and attends Carl Sandburg College.

Hunt spent a year and a half working in his garage before taking his new fuel concept project to college officials who liked what they saw, and funded a lab with all the materials needed to continue the work. Hunt formed the CSC Inventors Club, and was joined by several like-minded students who developed working bench models of his system.

What’s the secret? It's hydrogen gas, extracted from those six gallons of water by plasmatic induction, and fed to the motor as a gas to power the engine. When hydrogen burns, it gives off water, which is fed back to that six gallons; the only thing coming out the tailpipe is hot air. It's all perfectly safe: you'll never re-create the Hindenburg disaster in the car. I know, water in the gas tank, it's been done before but stay with me here…

Can this work? Yes. Jim says they have internal combustion engines running on hydrogen gas produced by the energy conversion system in the lab. In June, the students will retrofit a 1991 Chevy Cheyenne 4×4 pickup to begin road testing the system. First they'll tour the Carl Sandburg campus until they receive permission to operate a non-conventional fuel-powered vehicle on city and state thoroughfares.

Is anyone really interested? Hunt says the program manager of GM’s (that’s General Motors) Fuel Cell Technology Development Division contacted him, requesting more information. In a story from Galesburg’s Register-Mail newspaper, Hunt told reporter John R. Pullium that three Fortune 500 companies have contacted him, along with several investors and possible sponsors. In his latest communication to me, Jim said he’s received inquiries from individuals concerning expanded uses for the system, such as fuel to generate electric power for small communities. "We have started to take on private investors" he said "to help raise money for research and development of our final prototype".

How much would it cost to retrofit your vehicle? Hunt figures about $2000. Will it fit in your car? Sure, he says: just replace your fuel tank with his recovery system, add water and drive away. The only thing you’ll change are some non-lethal carbon rods, about once a year. They’ll cost somewhere in the range of what you’d pay for gasoline in one month of driving.

Will it work? Will he get his patent, and will his dream survive the anticipated onslaught from big oil corporations and other interests who’d rather not see this type of energy generation system take hold? In another Register-Mail article, Hunt is quoted as saying, “I’d like to see the world benefit” and added, “I am fearful of the bad guys in the background.” Today, he feels his future is looking up, happy that he’s apparently managed to break the hydrogen safety barrier.

Jim has promised to keep me updated on their progress, and we’ll be watching this story very closely, posting updates as they become available, regardless of the outcome.

SOURCES:

CSC Investors Club BlogSpot: Newspaper Articles

Dr. Andrew Weil

Dr. Andrew Weil, who has spent a lifetime instructing people on how to heal our bodies as naturally as possible, has taken on a new project. He's making his own biodiesel fuel in his Vail, AZ back yard.

In an Arizona Daily Star interview, written by staff reporter Carla Mc Clain, Dr. Weil has turned his garage into what he calls his "Bio-Depot", turning out 75-cent per gallon diesel fuel which runs several of his ranch vehicles. The feed stock is nothing more than vegetable oil collected from various Tucson eateries.

According to Weil, "I've always written and taught that it's very difficult to be healthy in an unhealthy world. … We have to be very immediately concerned about finding solutions for the toxic effects the combustion engine has on human health." He said what we all know, that biodiesel fuel burns cleaner, emits far fewer toxic compounds into the air, and decreases ozone and smog.

At first, Dr. Weil scoffed at the idea of using vegetable oil to run his vehicles, but after the 9/11 attack and the Middle East oil crisis worsened, he realized it was time to do something to ease our dependence on foreign oil. Weil, with his X-9 Ranch neighbor, Andre' Fasciola purchased some diesel operated vechiles, then installed a small scale bio-processor called the Bio-Pro and began making their own fuel.

Fasciola, according to the article, plans to expand the operation and set up a cooperative. Members would pay an annual fee and volunteer to pick up the used oil and pump the diesel when necessary. There are, according to the article, several bio-diesel co-ops operating in the Tucson area.

Arizona Daily Star

Editor's note: We're very pleased to welcome Max Lindberg to our writing team. The publisher of the Lindberg Report podcast, now a part of The Fuels Report, Max is a retired broadcast journalist. We're very happy to have his wealth of experience on the team! Stay tuned — once we get the technical kinks worked out, Max will be producing the first GO podcast series, "Greening the Golden Years."

So you're going to join the May 15th MySpace members Gas Out. Good for you! We need to show those greedy, and not necessarily nice, oil-rich countries in the Mideast that we don't like their attitudes and hit 'em where in counts: in the pocketbook.

What a great idea: 72-million MySpace members avoiding gas stations for one day. I didn't do the math ( too complicated for me!), but based on a fill-up costing between $20 and $30, the boycott would cost the Middle Eastern oil companies more than $2,000,000.000 in revenue. That's $2 Billion. Wow!

But, wait a minute. There's only one hitch to this great idea. To pull it off, all 72 million who drive a gasoline-fueled vehicle would have to leave their cars, trucks or whatever, home for 24 hours and take a bus, ride a bike, walk or hitch a ride with someone who doesn't care. You can bet your baby-blue-booties it ain't gonna work.

And what about those who do avoid filling stations for 24-hours and still drive? Well, bunky, think about this. On May 14, the price of gas will be, let's say for the sake of argument, $2.85 a gallon. So you drive on the 15th, and you burn several gallons of gas, which eventually has to be replaced. On the 16th, the price of petrol jumps to $2.95 a gallon. So on your next fill-up, you'll pay $.10 more for a gallon of gas, and the oil companies would have made a modest profit anyway.

But, if you must, join the "gas out", I'm sure they'll notice your absence at the pump.

Why not take a more pro-active approach? Drive a little less than usual, join a car pool, support the use of alternative fuels and use them if appropriate for your vehicle. Use less energy any way you can. The emphasis here is not to "punish" the oil companies, but to save our environment. It's the least we can do."

Oh, and if all this sounds very familiar, you're right. According to Snopes, the Urban Legends people, this particular message, or a variance, has been around since 1999. Read the above paragraph.