"Power Plays" Book Review

Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil by Robert Rapier (Paperback - March 28, 2012)

Robert Rapier's "Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil" is an important book to read for anyone who wants to engage in informed discussions on renewable energy and, more specifically, fuel alternatives to oil. It is an easy read, albeit focused on the facts without much embellishment.

The book provides an overview of the current energy paradigm and the salient factors for scientifically comparing various energy options. It doesn't trace the chronological history of oil the way Yergins' "The Prize" does but it gives a sober SWOT (strengths weaknesses opportunities threats) view of energy alternatives. The author uses this background to help explain his interpretation of energy policies that would enhance energy security.

Robert is best at explaining concepts that receive short shrift from journalists in the media. His explanation of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI), for instance, helps clarify what it is and why it is important.

He is one of my most reliable touchstones for determining what technologies are likely to provide sustainable alternatives to oil. There are many reasons for this. The first postings I read from his R-squared blogs (about six years ago) was a debate with Vinod Khosla challenging the state of the art of conversion technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol. Like many biofuels supporters I didn't want to read that they might not be ready for prime time. Robert was certainly right to suspect Khosla of overhype about the Range Fuels project. Regrettably, it didn't survive commissioning after hundreds of millions of dollars in private and public investment.

While I have been reluctant to cede Robert's point of view on occasions, I have to admit that he has the credentials to challenge some base assumptions about the sustainability and the energy efficiency of many biofuels projects. He is one of the most respected writers on The Oil Drum community blog and Consumer Energy Report. His bio reports "he has 20 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries, and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, natural gas production, synthetic fuels, ethanol production, butanol production, and various biomass to energy projects." He has a MS in Chemical Engineering and was a Process Engineering Team Leader for ConocoPhillips in Aberdeen, Scotland for six years.

He is occasionally accused of being stubborn and "brusque" but in the midst of overt hype about alternative fuel technologies, it is worthwhile submitting technologies to a skeptical eye - particularly if you are an investor. One of his favorite topics of discussion is promoting "due diligence" to reduce the risk of investment. It merits a full chapter in the current book and a summary list of ten indicators which should be on every analyst's "must consider" list.

His chapter on U.S. Energy Politics gives an interpretation of each of the last eight administrations' (starting with Nixon) declarations for energy independence. It is a subject about which much is promised but not much is achieved. The time is now and I hope this book get broad circulation among policymakers who might otherwise hew to the party line.

I think this book provides much needed information for planning ahead to meet an unpredictable energy future. As Robert affirms at the end, we must not take the availability of our energy resources or our energy future for granted. The longer range we plan now the better able we will be to meet the challenges ahead.

----------------

technorati BIOblog, BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, hydrolysis, syngas, cellulosic, legislation, gasification, security

"Freedom" Film promotes Choices at the Pump

It has been thirty months since Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell premiered their award-winning biofuels documentary "Fuel." That film tracked down alternative fuels that can help wean the U.S. from its "addiction" to oil (see my interview and reviews). After traveling the U.S. in his Veggie Van, Josh took a position that there were biofuels winners (biodiesel, algae, cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids) and losers (corn ethanol). Launching the film included tours at conferences, schools, and statehouses all over the country in an effort to stimulate discussion about what a sustainable transportation energy future might look like.

The best way to learn is through experience and re-evaluation. Now married some thirty months later, with considerable pro- and con- feedback from their tour and a trip to the oil spill ravaged Gulf, they realized that they had some "'splain'n to do." The feedback that stung most was from the farmers and promoters of corn ethanol. While the drivers for change had gotten more urgent - energy independence, community building, human health, economics, the environment, and sustainability - the practical truth about the best way to achieve the desired paradigm shift had to be re-evaluated before all the momentum was lost.

Most of the new film "Freedom" is a series of interviews with farmers and biofuels innovators, economic and energy security experts, engaged government policymakers, and the occasional false prophets of inertia (Searchinger and Pimental). It treats its audience to an unblemished look at where we are and why public support now is so important to the well-being of future generations.

It is very difficult for new markets to emerge in the midst of a entrenched, hundred year monopoly. The biodiesel industry was not stable enough to survive an interruption of government subsidies and it shrank from scores of domestic producers to just a handful. The rest of the biofuels industry RD&D also had to withstand the considerable blowback from entrenched fossil fuel interests, a devastating recession, and a steep drop in oil prices. Algae, hydrogen, and battery technology are certainly promising trends - but they face a gradual 25-years transition away from alternatives that feed into the current infrastructure and vehicles.

In spite of the challenges, corn ethanol has remained the U.S. cornerstone of a sustainable biofuels future. To their credit, Josh and Rebecca reexamined their stance on this first generation biofuel and admitted that (like many others in the sustainability culture) they had been hoodwinked by those who sought to protect the status quo. Upon further investigation controversial issues of energy balance, food vs. fuel, and indirect land use change had suspicious origins and backing - not to mention that they were based on highly speculative theories and a slanted interpretation of data. And why hasn't fossil fuels ever been evaluated and compared using the same metrics?

The Tickells realized that inertia is not an option and "perfection can't be allowed to be the enemy of the good." In a very real way, by attacking the only biofuels that worked at scale, well intentioned NGOs were further reinforcing the nation's oil addiction! To develop more commercial-scale alternatives, we should design policies that build and enable what works (good first generation solutions) rather than obstruct it in favor of unproven and unscaled solutions. Besides, any new technologies will require more flexible pumps at filling stations and vehicles that are able to run on alternatives. We don't have the thirty years it took Brazil to provide their population with a flexible fuel infrastructure based on gasoline and ethanol.

It gets down to the central theme that runs the length of the film. We can't be free if we don't have choices. We need to develop not only new technologies but new markets, vehicles, and infrastructure. Ending the addiction will take time, but during the Q&A session after the screening it was clear that a dread, helpless feeling was being lifted from the audience. There are alternatives and action we can take today to secure a sustainable future for our children. We shouldn't elect policymakers that limit our consumer votes at the pump.

----------------

Visit http://thefreedomfilm.com/ to view the movie trailer, buy the DVD, or maybe book a screening. The initial tour screening dates are available online so let your friends know what's coming. This screening sold out and is sure to generate great word-of-mouth.



----------------

technorati BIOblog, BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, decentralization, security

Social Media for biomass industries

Last week at the BBI International Biomass Conference and Expo Greg Veerman of Astronaut Studio, Matthew Spoor and John Nelson of BBI, and I held a two-hour conference panel titled "Social Media and PR Strategies to Grow Your Business and Win Over Industry Skeptics." I know panels on using social media are frequently held at conferences for business-to-consumer industries and I imagine that other business-to-business industries address them, too, but I hadn't seen one at any bioenergy conferences (and I've been to many) in spite of frequent calls for educating the public and informing their support.

It is well past time to recognize the double-edged sword potential of social media to either educate and galvanize public support of the industry or stop it dead in its tracks. So much of the success of emerging enterprises is dependent on the public perception of industry credibility and relevance - yet, we bury ourselves in technology issues and financing. If we are learning anything in marketing, it is that we must reach out and engage communities early in consensus-building on goals. We must engage with them on the development of solutions before we try to deploy ours in their midst. Social media can help us do that.

Biofuels Digest has started a three-part series this week titled "Brazilian renewable energy: Attitude before altitude" talking about the great environment of Brazil. Why - because of its vast resources? No - it's because of their positive attitude toward renewable energy. They are the flip-side of California - which has money, R&D, ample resources, but a terrible highly resistant attitude toward bioenergy. Brazil, in contrast, is happy to take the money, benefit from the R&D, allow access to the sustainable use of its resources - but most of all the Brazilian people are proud to grow as leaders in the development and deployment of bioenergy. They experience the benefits every time they compare prices at the pump. Choosing is empowering.

So many of California's bioenergy assets are moving to foreign markets like Brazil. No wonder the state's finances are in shambles! Frustrating development and deployment in other parts of the country hurt national finances as well. Iowa and the Midwest is the Brazilian experiment in the United States. They have emerged from being one of the most energy dependent states in the union thirty years ago to being one of the most independent now thanks to ethanol and wind power. Again the regional attitude is great and they have choices at the pump.

It is time to get to work providing links to postings about the progress, aspirations, and commitment of the bioenergy industry to sustainability. First we need more content. Greg Veerman made that point during his presentation last week. Working with Nathan Schock and Jeff Broin at the Broin Companies he was a major architect of the shift of corporate identity to POET, LLC.

Bioenergy companies need to realize (like POET did) that they have content that can help script the future for the growth of their industry. Ignoring the responsibility to communicate cedes too much of the idea battlefield to the interests of project obstruction. It is disheartening to see the NRDC as bedfellows to the fossil fuel industry. They may not agree on much but they are united in their stance to see a slow-down in bioenergy and biofuels development.

Part of my role in the conference panel was to talk about the accelerating rate of change of media and the explosion of personal channels that characterize the social media paradigm. Companies were empowered by the internet and business websites. Individuals have been greatly empowered by social media. Just look at Wael Ghonim's Facebook impact on Egypt's overthrow of Mubarek and the fear the Chinese authorities are exhibiting with the incarceration of artist Ai Wei-wei - a social media acolyte in that country. Discussions, links, and group networks are democratizing communications and developing consensus on key issues.

But, again, social media is a double-edged sword. Waiting for someone else to take the reins could slow the domestic rise of the industry, lose valuable ground to foreign competition, prevent the development of new resource management tools for environmental sustainability, and further erode our balance of trade. We need to convince emerging companies that it is time to get involved at the local, state, and national level to build consensus on the urgency of these issues. Joining associations and taking an active role online are ways to get involved.

We need to admit that many of the bioenergy technologies we have are at bench-level, pilot, or demo scale. They aren't perfect - and they won't get better until we deploy scale-ups so we can deal with technical issues. In the meantime, we all need to support technologies that are at scale so we can build the infrastructure of distribution and alternative fuel vehicles for the day that new, better technologies have been allowed to mature.

----------------

technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, legislation, decentralization, security

Who controls the Social Media conversation?

In a clarion call for more proactive thinking Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to predict your future is to create it." Something must have been lost in translation in the last 35 years because the U.S. energy policy has been anything but proactive.

In comparison, the digital media industry has been the beneficiary of the best and the brightest minds during this period. Its exponential expansion results from its remaining highly competitive and incredibly proactive. From 3 channels of TV in the 70's we now have hundreds of video channels to choose from, cell technology girds the earth in transmission connections, and the internet enables virtually unrestrained interactivity between users and content.

The accelerating shifts in communications has delivered the social media explosion. Now every user is their own channel opting-in and -out of connections on the fly. We don't need to go to the polling booth anymore - we vote and buy with each click to decide what's relevant and what isn't.

That begs the question "is bioenergy relevant?" Apparently this is a regional question. Dr. Bruce Dale reintroduced the term of "syllogism" to explain the following:

"House Speaker Tip O'Neill is famous for having asserted that all politics is local. Every farmer, rancher, and forester knows that all biomass is local. The syllogism is that all biomass is political!"

If you live in California you would be led to believe that bioenergy is not relevant. Greentech (photosynthesis) has been superceded with Cleantech (photovoltaics, geothermal, and wind). The Natural Resources Committees of the State Legislature votes down every regulatory change that would enable bioenergy projects to sprout. The California Air Resources Board seemed to go out of its way to de-certify corn ethanol as a low carbon fuel - affixing an unsubstantiated factor to indirect land use change that barely disqualified the fuel. Once challenged, they discounted the factor.

Why are they so obstinate? They'll insist that it is because of science but it is really the opposite of science. Science leads to more understanding and change. California, the most bio-diverse state in the union, could easily develop best practices to provide ag and forestry residues for biofuels while helping the proper funding of forest, farm, and ranch management. It's R&D centers can improve on developing conversion technologies.

It's all about local pressure engendered by social consensus building in the heart of California's liberal academia heartland. The inverted justice of guilty until proven innocent (of indirect land use change, toxic emissions, etc.) prevails. And you can't build anything until it is proven innocent. How else does one explain a regulatory standard that insists that a conversion technology cannot be permitted if it has ANY emissions?

Silicon Valley giants including Google, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn have built the swords of social media and they are available to all interest groups in this country. Unless bioenergy enterprises, associations, and leaders start employing these tools, the debate will be dictated by those resistant to change and those with deep pockets who favor the status quo.


One egregious example is the European "Stop Bad Biofuels" Facebook page which features a animated YouTube treatment to simplistically educate followers about indirect land use change. The info page asserts "For most current biofuels, the effect is to wipeout any benefits for climate change - making them worse even than fossil fuels."

The consequence of this video's "Joe Camel" treatment of speculative iLUC theory is more status quo monopolization of unsustainable fossil choices at the pump - harmful to future generations. Either we research, develop and deploy more biofuels technologies now or suffer more oil addiction later.

----------------

technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, gasification, security

Due diligence on content as well as technology

On March 29, 2007 the biofuels industry witnessed an audacious transformation - Broin Companies President Jeff Broin announced the name change of his company to "Poet, LLC." There must be an important reason why a company the size and scale of the world's largest producer of corn ethanol decides to recast their corporate identity.

Isn't "a rose by any other name still a rose"? Not at all. Corporate identities impact all stakeholders' perception of the enterprise. That includes management, investors, policymakers, community leaders, and company employees. As the Broin Companies, this Midwestern enterprise appeared to all to be a family dominated business of self-interest and bottomline conservatism. As POET, the enterprise becomes a creative entity that is “writing the next chapter in the story of bio-refining.”

“We wanted a name that would represent, rather than describe, who we are and what we do,” the 41-year-old Broin told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. “Just as a poet takes everyday words and turns them into something valuable and beautiful, our team takes information that comes from common sense to leave things better than before.”

A company that is more than the sum of its parts? A company that seeks lasting relevance rather than just bottomline results? Maybe this is just public relations manipulation masking viler interests. Or maybe this is a sophisticated, innovative company that pursues deeper truths and accepts its responsibility to communicate them to the people whose futures are impacted. Ultimately, they saw themselves as developers of content important to the biofuels industry - not just builders of biorefineries.

I use this example to suggest that companies in emerging technologies need to think beyond what they are capable of doing and more to what ends society seeks and the means to get there. Developers who attempt to convince stakeholders of the wisdom of their plans, without first reaching out to the communities and insuring buy-in to the perceived need, are finding harsh and dogged resistance. The justification for resistance takes various forms - social injustice, environmental harm, toxic emissions, etc. - but they mask the true objections:

• Many stakeholders don't trust corporations and their own community leaders to make decisions based on the good of the community.
• Change is messy and could result in a drop in property values. Why should this community be the fall guys?

I recently made a presentation titled "Building your business' C.R.E.D. using social media" at the BBI International Biomass Conference and Expo in St. Louis (5/5/11). Two of the points that I made were that the bioenergy industry needs to focus on building its credibility and relevance for efforts to increase sustainability. Stated another way - companies need to jealously guard against the twin accusations of misrepresentation (the opposite of credibility) and self-interest (the opposite of relevance).

It may seem obvious to us that we are working on the side of the angels but not all truths are self-evident - particularly in the tempestuous environment of politics and mass media (which have their own self-interests). Stakeholders need to be convinced and assured not only of our the due diligence of our technology but also our intentions. For this reason we need to forge with society a transparent compact, in word and deed, based on the aim of achieving clean, sustainable solutions for renewable energy.

----------------

BIOconversion, bioenergy, legislation, security

Will the GOP scuttle the second U.S. Manhattan Project?

Tex Carter, CEO of biofuels developer New Planet Energy, reports that he recently participated in a roundtable discussion with a Republican congressman about funding for biomass conversion technologies (CTs) for the creation of biofuels. He was told that these loan guarantee programs were on the list of top ten expenses that the GOP is seeking to cut from the national budget through the Continuing Resolution 2011.

This is penny wise and pound foolish in the extreme. If the GOP had decided to cut the Manhattan Project from U.S. Dept. of War funding during WWII, would they have been ready to accept responsibility for the consequences of being second in the development of atomic weapons?

Texas-oil President Bush used the platform of his 2006 State of the Union address to make the following assertion - "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." He could not have been more clear. Our energy dependence on oil is like an addiction that jeopardizes American national and economic security.

Oil is the life's blood and the Achilles heel of the U.S. economy. Curing addictions requires finding non-addictive substitutes. The only renewable substitutes for gasoline are biofuels.

In agreement with Bush's pronouncement, a bipartisan House and Senate voted in 2007 to pass the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that defined what quantities of alternative fuels would be mandated by the federal government to help wean America off foreign oil. Calling for development of new technologies to provide liquid alternatives to oil products, EISA is the modern equivalent to a Manhattan Project.

By seeking to cut conversion technologies from the budget, the GOP appears to be saying that Bush was wrong in calling the oil dependence "an addiction" and party members were wrong to give EISA their support.

Between 1942-1945, the Manhattan Project cost $2 BILLION dollars (roughly $60 BILLION equivalent in 2011 dollars). The government mandate in this case was totally government funded and managed throughout the RD&D of the project development. Many expensive failures were accepted as necessary to find the right process for building atomic weapons. Being the first "to market" with atomic weapons and their vast explosive potential would probably insure military victory. The consequence of not being first probably meant capitulation to foreign adversaries who won the race.

While we are not now on a wartime footing comparable to WWII we are witnessing the folly of a dependence on oil including armed conflict. Desert Storm was fought to stop Saddam Hussein's power grab for control of Middle East oil in Kuwait. Operation Iraqi Freedom was NOT about the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction. It was about something far more dangerous longterm - consolidation of the control of oil by rogue nations and terrorist groups who could destablize global access to oil.

This war has become the longest, sustained military operation in the history of the United States - at a significant cost. The cost is compounded by the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind - from countries that need oil including the United States to those that produce and export oil.

The imbalance of power between have and have-not nations is disrupting political and economic stability worldwide. A 2007 Rice University study of The Role of National Oil Companies in International Energy Markets underscores the risk - "The gap between the high ranking of national oil companies’ resource holdings and the ranking of the world’s largest oil and gas production operating companies highlights a potential source of supply instability in world energy markets. The fate of emerging national oil companies, their strategies and policies, will have a substantial, long term impact on the pace of resource development in the coming years... Many of these emerging national oil companies are bankrolled or have operations subsidized by their national governments, with geopolitical and strategic aims factored into investments rather than purely commercial considerations."

The recent unrest in Egypt and oil-producing Libya shows the direct relationship between political instability in these regions and the price of oil. The correlation between oil price control and tyrannies has been widely discussed - "Oil-exporting countries become less free and democratic as oil prices rise, and their leaders are enabled to enrich themselves without investing in their people."

Dr. Gal Luft is the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and author of several books about U.S. energy security. He and the equally eloquent Anna Korin co-wrote a book titled "Turning Oil Into Salt: Energy Independence Through Fuel Choice." As long as there are powerful "strategic commodities" in the world - like salt in the 19th century and oil in the last 100 years - there will be dangerous political imbalance between nations that have the commodity and those that need it. The cure is to reduce the strategic impact of the commodity - the way that salt as a preservative was rendered a mere condiment by the invention of electric refrigeration. We must similarly render oil "boring" by providing renewable, clean alternatives at the pump - namely, biofuels.

----------------

technorati BIOblog, BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, hydrolysis, syngas, cellulosic, legislation, gasification, decentralization, security

Cross-country EcoTREK runs on cellulosic ethanol

It is not only the first cross-country promotional tour headlining "Cellulosic Ethanol", but it is also a timely one. Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article claiming that in the second half of 2010 "not a drop of cellulosic ethanol was commercially blended with gasoline." Coincidentally, EcoTREK began its cross country journey using a blend of E85 comprised of 5% gasoline and 85% POET Inc.'s cellulosic ethanol made from corn cobs.

The driving force behind this trip is custom auto enthusiast and adventurer Tom Holm who is no stranger to mounting expeditions of this type. He is Executive Director of a non-profit called EcoTrek Foundation. He spent three years customizing GM sport utility vehicles for driving to exotic locations for adventure sport activities on a GM-sponsored TV series called "Adventure Highway." He next turned his attention to the research of renewable fuels for his vehicles.

He intends to criss-cross the U.S. driving approximately 10,000 miles and stopping off for interviews and speeches at educational venues along the way. He will also stop at distinctly American travel destinations like the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore. The developing calendar is available online. In so doing he would like to wake up America to the reality and potential benefits of cellulosic ethanol - an advanced biofuel made from grasses, crop residues, and waste material.

Should we be surprised that the fuel provider POET Inc., the world's leading "corn ethanol" biorefiner, is also pioneering the use of harvest residue to create more ethanol? Of course not. Once they perfect their system they will be able to leverage their existing base of biorefineries and progressively "bolt-on" a separate production line that takes lower-value biomass and converts it into the same fuel. It's a move that extends the three dimensions of sustainability for the ever-improving U.S. ethanol industry: environmental (use of low value waste), economic (new profit streams for existing biorefineries), and social (fortifying community businesses and cohesion).

Knowledgeable people recognize that if we want to make cellulosic biofuels available at the pump we need to first create the infrastructure that will enable it to be produced, marketed, distributed, and sold. The corn ethanol industry is building feedstock sources, developing experts, perfecting new technologies and best practices, and providing fuel blends and markets for the first edition flexible-fuel vehicles.

I will be providing periodic updates based on news and insights revealed as EcoTREK journeys across America. For further information visit http://www.ecotrek.com.

----------------

technorati BIOblog, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, security

David Glass EUEC Presentation 02 02 10

I recommend biomass conversion readers check out David Glass, Ph.D.'s excellent SlideShare Presentation overviewing technologies and companies involved in Genetic Engineering for 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels production.

David Glass EUEC Presentation 02 02 10

View more presentations from David Glass.

Dirty oil's direct land change impact

Photograph by Peter Essick for National Geographic magazine.

Once considered too expensive, as well as too damaging to the land, exploitation of Alberta's oil sands is now a gamble worth billions.

So intones an article in this month's issue of National Geographic magazine titled "The Canadian Oil Boom: Scraping Bottom." Its opening shot shows how arbitrary standards that attribute direct and indirect land use change factors can be when comparing fossil fuels vs. biofuels created from cultivated crops.

Corn and energy crops are being held to a high standard in new Low Carbon Fuel Standard legislation passing through California's legislature. This standard is reflected in U.S. EPA presentations which assign an arbitrarily high factor in assessing the indirect (aka "international") land change impact of producing the fuel (shown in bright green in the graph above). Without the assessment, even the worst case scenario for producing ethanol (dry mill using coal for heat) including the GHG tailpipe emissions passes the standard set by gasoline tailpipe emissions alone.

But there is no attribution for direct land use change from gasoline production even though this article provides clear evidence that there is for mining Canadian tar sands. This is the kind of arbitrary comparative accounting that has biofuel producers claiming that the standard that applies land use factors is, at best, artbitrary and, at worst, biased.

As a native Californian, I too think that CARB is being incredibly arbitrary on defining indirect effects. What if, in addition to indirect land use change (iLUC) CARB considered a new factor – “indirect cultural abuse change” (iCAC). If they did, the oil benchmark would be pushed up off the chart.

The argument would be that our addiction to oil wreaks cultural abuse worldwide – including military manufacturing and logistics expenditures, war damage to existing utility infrastructure, pollution from sabotaged wells during conflict, and the transfer of wealth from democracies to tyrannies – who exploit natural resources and have much less stringent environmental and workplace controls than most democraciees do. Surely these add carbon to the atmosphere (not to mention carnage, health, environmental, and human rights abuse).

Bottomline – until we deploy emerging technologies and a progressive infrastructure path to distribute alternative products we should build upon what already gives us options and makes us more self-reliant. Otherwise we have no choice at the pump and we remain pawns to those who profit from and control the status quo.

----------------
technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, decentralization, security

Bias in California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a good initiative but it is flawed in its current form. Consider:

Ethanol is an alcohol with a fairly simple, universal formula regardless of how it is made. The great thing about all ethanol is that it is miscible in gasoline, oxygenates gasoline so that it burns more cleanly, and it is a renewable fuel whose carbon comes from the atmosphere, not from subterranean fossil deposits - so it is at least carbon neutral or "low carbon" compared with "high carbon" petroleum products.

When people talk about advanced biofuels like "cellulosic ethanol" they are not talking about the alcohol product, they are talking about the feedstock used to produce the ethanol and, to some extent, the process of its cultivation, harvest, and manufacture. Cellulose is the raw material but the product is the same.

The public doesn't discriminate a difference because neither do most reporters and their editors (see "Everyone Hates Ethanol?"). When "Ethanol" is painted as a "racket" in the Wall Street Journal it impacts all ethanol - "advanced" or not. Whether policy-makers understand the difference is irrelevant if they are unduly influenced by negative public opinion spawned by a misled press.

The indirect land use change (iLUC) issue is an example of a unscientifically proven theory that can kill a nascent industry before it starts to grow. The press and public opinion can sway policy-makers without regard for the truth. Investors and politicians become unwilling to stick their necks out. And then only the government or established energy giants can control the outcome.

Even though most "advanced biofuels" process developers think they are immune to the iLUC issue - because 1) they may not use corn or other cultivated crops as feedstock or 2) they may not need tilled soil to get feedstock - they should think again. The brush being used to paint "ethanol" is very broad and, by the way, the most successful independent ethanol investors have come from the corn ethanol industry.

Exciting innovations for producing biofuels will come from the first generation ethanol producers to create "advanced biofuels" - increases in yield per acre, no-till and advanced agronomic practices, reduction of fossil energy inputs, and the expanded use of cellulose residuals (starting with cobs and corn stover, and moving on to other crops). Unless, of course, bad policy saps or limits investment resources.

Growth Energy sent out an email appeal for fairness that appears to be lacking in a process that rewards scientific speculation and is biased against first generation success. If we start handicapping success, who will assume the considerable risks that come with this very expensive paradigm shift? How does that make us more economically independent and globally secure? And how does that speed us toward alternatives to the status quo?

Here is the action that Growth Energy solicited on the same day that CARB passed the LCFS:

---------------------------
WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Below are some stories that have been published recently that we would like you to respond to. We need you to reinforce the message that ethanol is a clean, green renewable fuel that is available today to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Please refer to the talking points below for additional messaging on this issue.

Fuels must clean up act, The Sacramento Bee
Air Resources Board moves to cut carbon use, The San Francisco Chronicle
California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers, The New York Times
General Wesley Clark goes to battle for ethanol industry, Chicago Tribune
Editorial: California air board makes good decision to move away from corn-based ethanol, Contra Costa Times

Talking Points:

• Growth Energy supports efforts to move to a low carbon environment. Ethanol is a low carbon fuel and its inclusion in our nation's energy mix will help reduce green house gases. The latest research shows that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline.

• While Growth Energy supports the concept of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), it objects the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) staff report, which proposes unfair standards in calculating the carbon intensity of fuels. It would penalize ethanol by adding an "indirect land use change" penalty to biofuels.

• The theory of ILUC is built on the idea that American grain exports will plummet because of corn used for ethanol. One model estimates that corn exports will decrease by 62 percent and that soy exports will decline by 28 percent. Those assumptions have been proven to be false as you can read in our policy paper.

• The ARB only applies ILUC penalties to biofuels for land use, but doesn't take into account the indirect carbon effects of petroleum, including the protection our oil supply in the Middle East, or the increased carbon intensity from the characterization, storage, transport, and disposal of oil production waste products.

• The adoption of ILUC models in GHG measurements will slow advancements in second-generation biofuels and discourage corn-based ethanol producers from investing resources to reduce their carbon footprint.

• Not only will implementing ILUC theory not reduce carbon emissions, but it could lead to other calls for indirect market effects included in carbon calculations. For example, China has already called for the nations who buy its exports to pay for the carbon emissions related to the production of those exports. Such an arrangement would not be sustainable in any sort of cap and trade system.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation

Join ACORE's Biomass Coordinating Council

The Biomass Coordinating Council of the American Council of Renewable Energy is an ever-present resource and meeting place for biomass professionals - or anyone who wishes to be engaged in the issues at the heart of emerging biomass renewable energy industries. At the helm of the council is the renowned Bill Holmberg. Below is his recent appeal for members that explains the scope and objectives of this group for 2009. I highly recommend attendance at their events where you can meet many of the most respected movers and shakers of this industry.

The Biomass Coordinating Council (BCC) is formed under the auspices of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. BCC is working to accelerate the adoption of renewable biofuels, biopower, and biobased products into mainstream American society through work in policy initiatives, convening, networking, and communications. BCC's goals include reducing America's dependence on oil, creating a cleaner environment, and expanding markets for rural America.

Scope

BCC promotes all renewable and sustainable uses of biomass. BCC supports sustainability measures such as water conservation and soil enhancement, and the use of all biomass feedstocks including waste streams.

----------------
Biomass Coordinating Council (BCC)

In 2007 and 2008 biofuels and biopower represented about half of the renewable energy produced in the United States. It is certain biomass will play a fundamental role in “Renewing America” in 2009. However, we must unite biomass stakeholders to ensure biomass sustainability through optimized land use, vitalized soil and water management.

To do this we need to properly enhance and sustain the 6Fs of the Biomass Wheel, in addition to four major spokes; Project Development and Finance, Advanced Fuel Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids with multi-fuel engines and Land Use Management. To do this, the BCC intends to engage its members - working collaboratively in advancing all involved individuals, businesses and pertinent organizations in developing informational and political support systems.

The BCC understands the importance in integrating this effort to unify and organize members of the BCC and other biomass stakeholders.

To strengthen this integrated effort, the BCC has set the following goals for 2009:

• Establish co-chairs representing biomass stakeholders corresponding to the 6Fs of the Biomass Wheel; food, feed, fuel, fiber, fertilizer and feedstock for chemicals, Project Development and Finance, Advanced Fuel Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids with multi-fuel engines and Land Use Management
• Hold monthly webinars similar to the American Bar Association
• Submit foundation grants to expand the capacity of the BCC program
• Continue to support the formation of additional Councils throughout the world on Renewable Energy, with a focus in developing countries
• Continue to expand and enhance bioenergywiki.org
• Continue to support the Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Forum on Energy Security
• Advance the concept of uniting Veterans in support of the “Green Revolution” as articulated by Thomas Friedman
• Launch a Biomass Power and Thermal Energy Committee under the BCC
• Support the launch and development of an ACORE National/Energy Security Committee
• Fully support ALL of ACORE’s contingences
• Double the membership of the BCC
• Overall, enhance membership, functions and opportunities of the BCC

Accomplishments in 2008

The BCC met twice in 2008–both at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) in March 2008 and at the Phase II Policy Conference on Capitol Hill in December 2008. The topics of both meetings featured the development of the great need for more integrated biomass industries. It was also decided to proceed with a committee structure as outlined in the Goals for 2009.

Made extensive efforts to counter the GMA/ADI funded PR attacks on the ethanol industry. Today, the issue is less volatile due rising fuel costs and the hard work of a number of our members, but it is far from resolved.

On December 9th 2008, we helped host the Thomas H. Moorer Military Energy Security Forum at the National Defense University which determined the need for continued advancement of Renewable Energy and energy efficiency in the Department of Defense and the military services at home and abroad.

We continued our tradition of helping small non-profits get off the ground, contributing our support and time to the Latin American and Caribbean Council On Renewable Energy, Renew the Earth, Remineralize the Earth, International Biochar Institute, and others.

The BCC provided extensive support for ACORE’s Washington’s International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), Wall Street Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF-Wall Street), Renewable Finance Conference in Seattle (REFF-West) and Phase II on Capitol Hill.

We also continued the support of the bioenergywiki.org and a series of Biomass Committees under the BCC.

BCC Membership increased by 48% in 2008.

How to Join the Biomass Coordinating Council: To Join this committee contact Taylor Marshall at marshall@acore.org.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, decentralization, security

Economic Impacts of Biofuel Development

The impact of biofuel development should be significant to the economy of any nation that successfully deploys it. By becoming more energy self-sufficient, the balance of trade of otherwise energy-dependent nations should improve dramatically - as it has in Brazil.

However, the impact on the economy of the region producing the biofuels is even more impressive. Iowa was one of the most energy dependent states in the Union. Now, because of corn ethanol, it is one of the most energy independent. The state's economy has improved, schools are better, and land prices are higher - not because of ethanol subsidies, but because of the invigorating impact of the formation of new business ventures and the production of a valuable product to export.

Now a new report from researchers from North Dakota State University, published on the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center website, measures the statewide impact of the corn ethanol industry in North Dakota and projects the economic impact of cellulosic ethanol production on the Midwest and Great Plains states. Of course, the feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol are not only to be found in this region. It is not too much of a stretch to believe that these impacts could be duplicated, if not surpassed, in other regions of the country (and the world) where feedstocks are abundant and the need is greatest.

Summary findings from their report are excerpted below...

----------------------------
Economic Impacts of Biofuel Development

by Nancy M. Hodur, Research Scientist and Larry Leistritz, Professor of North Dakota State University

In recent years, the most prevalent type of new agricultural processing ventures in the Midwest and Great Plains states has been corn ethanol plants. Like other types of agricultural processing, these biofuel ventures have generally received widespread support, and numerous studies have addressed their contributions to local or regional economies. The rapid growth of the corn-based ethanol industry shows the potential for biofuels. However for biofuels to make a substantial contribution to the domestic liquid fuel supply, the industry must expand beyond corn-based ethanol. Accordingly, substantial resources have been devoted in both the public and private sector to the research and development of cellulosic biomass conversion. Much work has focused on technical issues, and several studies have examined potential biomass feedstock supplies. However, one aspect of biomass conversion to liquid fuels that has received very little attention is its potential as an economic development stimulus for rural areas with high biomass production potential and how that potential compares to the economic impact of corn based ethanol.

. . .

North Dakota and other “biomass belt” states are particularly well placed to capture the economic impact of an emerging biomass industry as plants will undoubtedly be located near the feedstock source. The potential economic development contributions of an emerging biofuels industry are particularly significant because many of the areas where such an industry could concentrate have in the not-distant-past faced adverse economic and demographic trends. The rural, agricultural counties of the western Corn Belt and northern Great Plains have experienced long term trends of farm consolidation, leading to fewer and larger farms. In the absence of major nonfarm employers, many counties have experienced substantial out-migration and population losses.

Farm households have also become more dependent on off-farm employment. In North Dakota, during the period 1993-2007, off-farm wages and salaries of farm households more than doubled, growing from $6,847 in 1993 to over $16,000 in 2007. An emerging biofuels industry could offer new jobs that would help to support rural communities and farm households and provide the kind of economic stimulus many agriculturally dependent areas have been seeking. Further, the sheer scope of the potential development, with capital cost of $34 billion and annual regional operational expenditures of over $10 billion, suggests that a biofuels industry could also substantively change the economic and demographic makeup of some Midwest and Great Plains counties.

Click here for the full story.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, decentralization

Everyone Hates Ethanol?

It is a sad day when even the Wall Street Journal takes a page from the petroleum industry playbook and chop blocks the only national defense that makes a dent in their monopoly on supplying fuel to Americans (accounting for less than 5% of transportation fuels sold here). Offensive foul - intentional roughing.

The cheapest shot is the indiscriminant use of the term "ethanol." Ethanol, while chemically varying very little from batch to batch, comes from many feedstocks using a variety of very distinguishable processes. Those knowledgeable in the field are careful to specify whether they are talking about 1st generation ethanol (sugar and starch fermentation) or 2nd generation (converting cellulose using enzymes or Fischer-Tropsch process); the sugar feedstock (corn vs. sugar) or the cellulosic feedstock (i.e., woodchips, cultivated energy crops, switchgrass, MSW, algae, etc.); the cultivation method (if any); and the process fuel input. Each combination can vary dramatically for energy return on investment, lifecycle impacts, process emissions, feedstock cultivation, land and water use, economic return, and other factors.

The tiresome target for the smear here is where it traditionally aimed - against the American corn ethanol industry that only uses corn kernels, fossil fuel for process heat, and petroleum-fertilized land that has been tilled. However, by being indiscriminant, this editorial (from one of America's few trusted journalistic brands remaining) paints the entire multi-faceted industry with the same "gotcha" brush. Not even biorefineries within a single company can be painted with the same brush, and there over 150 biorefineries in operation.

Shouldn't the WSJ use more judgment than Rolling Stone which did their own hatchet job titled "The Ethanol Scam." It is hard for this reader to see a difference.

Here is a suggested followup opinion piece for the editors to ponder - what alternative to fossil transportation fuels do you support? It should be remembered that even the former "oil" President of U.S. - leader of the "Drill Baby Drill" Republican Party - lamented that "America is addicted to oil." Is there some "methadone" that does warrant support? Or is it your opinion that the country remain hooked?

Below is a response to the article on a point by point basis.

--------------------
Everyone Hates Ethanol
March 16, 2009, Wall Street Journal opinion piece

These days, it's routine for businesses to fail, get rescued by the government, and then continue to fail. But ethanol, which survives only because of its iron lung of subsidies and mandates, is a special case. Naturally, the industry is demanding even more government life support.

Wrong. The industry expects a level playing field and the chance to provide a viable alternative product to those foisted on a disenfranchised consumer by a monopolistic industry that has been subsidized and protected for over 100 years. We need cleaner, more sustainable alternatives at the pump.

Corn ethanol producers -- led by Wesley Clark, the retired general turned chairman of a new biofuels lobbying outfit called Growth Energy -- want the Obama Administration to make their guaranteed market even larger. Recall that the 2007 energy bill requires refiners to mix 36 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2022. The quotas, which ratchet up each year, are arbitrary, but evidently no one in Congress wondered what might happen if the economy didn't cooperate.

What happened to the world economy is, in great measure, a result of the spike in the price of oil and the national security subsidies we pay to defend this country against predatory speculators, producers, and regimes. It is fitting that a distinguished General (joined by ex-CIA Director Jim Woolsey and others) would step into the breech to defend their country. It is a motivating conviction shared by most in the emerging industry.

Now the recession is hammering demand for gas. The Energy Information Administration notes that U.S. consumption fell nearly 7% in 2008 and expects another 2.2% drop this year. That comes as great news for President Obama, who is achieving his carbon-reduction goals even without a new carbon tax, but the irony is that the ethanol industry is part of the wider collateral damage.

Damage to the broader industry sure to be exacerbated by opinion pieces such as this one.

Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.

The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%.

To the contrary, many in the industry strongly believe that all cars should be flex-fuel compatible. This is the cheapest way to implement change to a multi-fuel distribution infrastructure. Even a third world power, Brazil, found it to be easily achievable.

It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.

Actually, it is the "10%" number that is arbitrary. New research is being conducted which supports contentions that much higher blends are viable in conventional internal combustion engines.

That possible policy train wreck is uniting almost every other Washington lobby -- and talk about strange bedfellows. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Motorcycle Industry Council and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, among others, are opposed, since raising the blend limit will ruin their products. The left-leaning American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists are opposed too, since it will increase auto emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club agree, on top of growing scientific evidence that corn ethanol provides little or no net reduction in CO2 over the gasoline it displaces.

Low level blends are always available to small engine machines - which, incidentally are very polluting no matter what they run on. The Sierra Club, in partnership with Worldwatch Institute, just published a report titled "Smart Choices for Biofuels" in strong support of development of 2nd generation ethanol... an important distinction.

The biggest losers in this scheme are U.S. oil refiners. Liability for any problems arising from ethanol blending rests with them, because Congress refused to grant legal immunity for selling a product that complies with the mandates that it ordered. The refiners are also set to pay stiff fines for not fulfilling Congress's mandates for second-generation cellulosic ethanol. But the cellulosic ethanol makers themselves already concede that they won't be able to churn out enough of the stuff -- 100 million gallons next year, 250 million gallons in 2011 -- to meet the targets that Congress wrote two years ago.

Cellulosic ethanol technology is being fast-tracked to satisfy a mandate that developers would be all too happy to satisfy. It takes time to launch new commercial-scale biorefineries. Meanwhile, the demand for ethanol needed to replace toxic MTBE oxygenates needs to be filled by existing production facilities. Unless you want to import it, that would be the corn ethanol industry.

So successful but politically unpopular businesses will be punished for not buying a product that does not exist -- from companies that haven't yet found a way to succeed despite generous political and taxpayer advantages. The next step is to use cap and trade to make green alternatives look artificially good by comparison. Even then they'll probably still be bottomless money pits.

Fossil industries are not guilty for selling fossil products - rather for engaging in fossil thinking. Who knows better than they that U.S. production of oil has been on the decline for thirty years. If they had admitted to themselves the longterm folly of only offering one source of fuel over which they have dwindling authority, they could have lead the development and commercialization of alternative fuels technology. Instead they have yet to build a new refinery of any kind in thirty years while the ethanol industry has built over a hundred.

To recap: Congress and the ethanol lobby argue that if some outcome would be politically nice, it should be mandated (details to follow). Then a new round of market interventions is necessary to fix the economic harm resulting from the previous requirements, while creating more damage in the process. Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors.

A final chop block. Let's cripple the only longterm alternatives to fossil fuels, be indiscriminate in the smear piece, and paint everyone even tangentially associated as a racketeer. Is there to be no alternative fuel available at the pump?

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, security

"FUEL" - an interview with Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell

In January 2008, Josh Tickell screened his new documentary “Fields of Fuel” at the Sundance Film Festival to rave reviews (see trailer here). It won the Audience Award for Best Documentary. After a full year of more development, it has recently been released to a few theaters in the L.A.

I was invited to attend a pre-premiere green carpet party at one of only two gas stations in Los Angeles that sell both E85 and biodiesel fuels. It was cold (for L.A. in the high 40’s) and threatened rain but it still drew a number of celebrities – Peter Fonda, James Cromwell, Mariel Hemmingway, Stephen Collins, and others – who wanted to support the movie’s successful release.

I caught up with Josh and his fiancée, Rebecca Harrell, on the green carpet and conducted this interview.

Scott: I know that leading up to this, you have had trailers at various conferences. Two years ago I saw it at a Farm to Fuels conference in St. Petersburg Florida. What’s happened since?

Josh: It was quite a journey from Sundance a year ago to here. We cut the movie and added a whole new section about sustainability and the solutions that people were asking for. So the movie grew up a little bit in the year – and we got it ready to come out to the movie theaters as well.

Hello Rebecca, what is your role?

Rebecca: I am Rebecca Harrell and I am a producer of the film as well as Josh’s fiancée… and the Marketing Director during this evolving process for this “labor of love.” We have had to address all the controversy that has been erupting around biofuels. So we couldn’t release the movie without proving that. I think watching the movie will spark your interest and make you more aware of how you can help move biofuels forward.

Why did you make the film?

Josh: We started shooting the film in 1997 when I started driving the “Veggie Van” around the country. We didn’t originally go out with the objective of making a movie so much as the objective to see if these solutions are viable. For two years we just drove it around, making my own fuel, looking for solutions.

What started out as a two month journey turned into an eleven year journey to not just find solutions but to bring them to the public in a way that is accessible so people can understand. What better way than in the form of a movie!

Can you give us some highlights of the film?

Josh: One of the best parts of the film is what we call “the sustainable barrel.” It’s an animated barrel of solutions that replace an oil barrel. People love that part and all the things that people can do themselves that are shown in the movie. It is not often that you can see a movie and then you can do the things in the movie as soon as you’re done.

Rebecca: It is certainly an environmental documentary but it doesn’t make you want to jump off a bridge at the end. It leaves you inspired and uplifted and full of things you can do right now and that’s not usually the way green activists look at this.

Josh: This isn’t a movie that your vegetarian girlfriend is going to drag you to and you end up feeling depressed. She might drag you to it but it’s actually fun.

I think you’d agree that stakeholder engagement is going to be key to the environmental community to accept the deployment of any new technologies. Sustainability being a huge issue, are you prepared to go and help educate America that there can be alternatives?

Josh: Absolutely, the film is about outreach, it is about communities, its about individuals banding together to understand the solutions and act on them. We’ve got a “Big Green Energy Bus”, we’ve got this big inflatable screen – this is really about a community coming together and getting out on the road and activating America. Not around problems but around solutions, especially those that can help us get out of this economic crisis. That’s what green energy and green collar jobs really is.

Do you see an advantage to decentralization of our energy paradigm that seems locked into going further and further to tap fewer and more remote reserves that are dirtier and dirtier to distill?

Josh: Yes, I think the core message of the sustainability movement is that it has got to be local, it’s got to be recyclable. The core of sustainability is non-centralized energy sources – energy you and I can help make – whether it is in my apartment, my house, or my ranch.

Rebecca: It’s also about using our waste streams as fuels.

You are to be congratulated on the work you have done so far. It will be interesting to see where you take it after the flurry of interest in the film itself.

Rebecca: It isn’t just a movie. We are going to take the educational portion of the film and turn it into a 45 minute entertaining, rock and roll, educational film that we distribute for free to every school in America. We will go along with our Big Green Energy Bus and educate people how to be green and sustainable.

You have a wonderful website at ( www.thefuelfilm.com > that’s beautiful, number one, but also very functional.

Josh: Yeah, that’s Rebecca’s creation.

Is that going to be a keystone as part of this movement?

Rebecca: What you see there is just the tip of the iceberg for our website. We are going to use it as a way for people to broadcast their own green message. We developed it so that people will be the eventual owners of that site and we will be facilitating it.

Josh: Everything – the movie, the bus, the website – is for the people and generated by the people as well. Every ticket that is sold for this movie is a vote for green energy, it’s a vote for change. People around the world see those ticket numbers. People ask, “What can we do?” – well right away people can get to the theater and get others to the theater. We will be building a whole network for people to act on as the movie rolls out across the country.

Well we vote with our dollars in this country. And the problem is that, at our gas stations, you can get whatever fuel you want - as long as its petroleum based. We are desperate for fuel alternatives. This fuel station, called Conserv Fuel, is one of the only one’s selling alternatives in all of Los Angeles.

Rebecca: You’re right and they almost stopped selling biodiesel a few weeks ago. When we got that email we were pretty shocked and depressed and then we realized it doesn’t have to be this way. So we started writing and we got others to write also. Within literally five days we got a notice from the gas station that they changed their minds and were going to sell biodiesel. We wanted to celebrate with them and that’s one of the reasons we are here today – I don’t think anyone has ever had a film opening at a gas station before.

Well I hope you can roll this out to other bloggers and the bioenergy conferences that are going on around the country on this very subject. There is a Waste to Fuels conference in San Diego in mid-May – maybe we can show your movie there as well, with your blessing.

Rebecca: Great! We’ll definitely be in contact to set that up.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel, decentralization

"Fuel" is a Galvanizing Vehicle

"Fuel" is a film for our time - and also winner of the 2008 Sundance Audience Award for Best Documentary (see trailer here). It may help America wake up to the inexorable consequences of its fossil fuel addiction the way that "An Inconvenient Truth" did to global warming.

"Fuel" is the end product of an eleven year odyssey by Director Josh Tickell in his sunflower festooned, diesel Winnebago called Veggie Van. The traveling show that accompanies the movie release promises to capture attention and stimulate grassroots demand to replace fossil thinking, process, and fuels with renewable energy. "Fuel" could become the communications vehicle that educates the public at large of the liabilities associated with fossil fuels and the benefits of home grown alternatives.

The current film is 111 minutes long and full of geology, biology, physics, politics, and history - most of it personal. It is first and foremost the perspective of a 34 year who grew up not knowing any better. He didn't know that he couldn't use the balance of his college student loans to buy a diesel vehicle. He didn't know whether there would be a low-budget, sustainable way to convert restaurant grease and vegetables into fuel to power his transport. He couldn't have imagined that he would spend the next eleven years RVing America. To what end? To what purpose? Quite frankly, when you're 22, who cares.

All he knew was that he wanted to find out if there was a clean alternative to the paradigm that has resulted in the environmental and health disaster of the bayous of his family's native Louisiana. This region, once home to Cajun culture and bayou ecology, is now dominated by the brown fields of the petro-industry with air, land, and water quality contamination that more than likely will never return to normal. In a stark section of the film about hurricane Katrina, Josh shows an on-land oil spill the size of the Exxon Valdez that was left in the hurricane's wake - yet never reported in the mainstream media. Why not? Clearly, the petro industry is a "sacred cow" in the state.

I doubt if Forest Gump traveled as far as Josh did crisscrossing America, but both engendered the same kind of popular fascination. It's a great story that captures the imagination of all generations. Talk about "the audacity of hope" - Josh's trek is it. A personal journey that is an affront to Luddite thinking and entrenched interests.

While the duplicity of the oil industry is on display, this isn't a rant against their lack of integrity and responsibility. It is a call to action for people to seek alternatives and support them with their purchases. To hold their leaders to a higher standard. To demand research, development, and deployment of an infrastructure that will support a paradigm shift to renewable fuels and power.

It is also a great example of the power of the individual to become a "one man army." By using event and modern media, the tools are at hand for creative, insightful individuals to leverage profound effect with relatively little means.

It is no surprise that such an individual collected such a following among celebrity activists who are recorded in the film - Woody Harrelson, Julia Roberts, Sheryl Crow, Larry "JR" Hagman, Vinod Khosla, Willie Nelson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Larry David, Sir Richard Branson, and others. Are they experts? Most aren't, but they want to use their celebrity to advance causes they believe receive too little attention. And our energy options are perhaps the most important discussion in the country.

In one of the more educational parts of the movie, an animated treatment spells out the many ways we can substitute sustainable fuel alternatives for oil. Josh is clearly a biodiesel advocate, but he doesn't stop there. An oil barrel is carved into sections that are replaced by other alternatives - biomass, solar, wind, tidal, energy efficiency, and others.

Speaking of education, the "Veggie Van" that educated America as it toured the highways and byways now has a big brother - the BIG GREEN ENERGY BUS. According the the www.thefuelfilm.com website:

The Big Green Energy Bus is a mobile education laboratory featuring the latest interactive technology in sustainable energy including solar, conservation, energy efficiency, water recycling, thermal heat and green appliances.

FUEL’s Big Green Bus Project gives students hands on experience with green energy - providing them with fundamental understanding of how they can use green energy in their homes, in schools and in vehicles.

Upon entering the bus, students are greeted with a member of our certified “Green Team.” The Green Team takes students through each “Learning Station” explaining the function of the systems in the bus. Students have the opportunity to switch on and off components of the solar display and see how much energy is saved by using energy efficient lightbulbs, how to turn sewage into fuel, how solar panels work, how to use the internet to access green energy information, how to make and use biodiesel, how to compost, how to build a simple grey water recycling system, and how to turn America’s unhealthy school buses into clean green buses like this one!

Plans are in the works to pare the original movie to 45 minutes and distribute it for free through schools whose students can view the shorter film during class time or assemblies.

I recommend that readers watch for this film as it is slowly introduced at theaters around the country. You will witness a consequential film with character, credibility, and relevance too rarely seen in American cinema.

----------------
technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, decentralization, security