Beyond Petroleum  

Tom Paine has a column up from Brian Siu of the Apollo Alliance on the need to develop alternatives to oil, which mostly focuses on ethanol from switchgrass and corn stover (which I'd consider just a part of the puzzle, but its a start).

While it is difficult to see beyond the incalculable suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina, the impact on U.S. fuel supply is undeniable. For days, we watched the storm move toward Louisiana’s oil and natural gas operations. As feared, the storm disrupted a tenth of U.S. refining capacity and 25 percent of oil production. Now, analysts expect gas prices to squeeze to $4 per gallon. At this time, it is difficult to assess the price spike’s duration because the extent of structural damage is unknown. What is absolutely clear, however, is that too much reliance on a single energy source is a dangerous thing. As Katrina illustrated, supply interruptions are beyond our control, and without alternative options, there is no safety net to suppress price movements. Instead, we’re given pronounced volatility and an economy that is vulnerable to natural or man-made disruptions.

Unfortunately, threats to America’s oil interests extend far beyond the Gulf of Mexico. As a nation that imports roughly 60 percent of its oil, we spend untold amounts each year securing our foothold in oil-producing regions. Even so, unfettered access to foreign reserves is doubtful given the emergence of competitive economies such as China, India and the European Union.

There is nothing new here. The United States has watched these events unfold in a state of political paralysis. In July’s 1,724 page energy bill, for instance, Congress had the opportunity to decisively address runaway oil consumption. Astonishingly, it did nothing. In fact, it systematically voted down measures that would have signaled a meaningful shift in U.S. energy policy.

Jim at the excellent Energy Blog has a couple of notes up about ethanol which are positive about cellulosic ethanol (not corn ethanol).

The major parties in the continuing debate as to whether ethanol's energy efficiency is better than that of other fuels has completed its most recent round of arguments with Michael Wang's presentation. He concludes that ethanol is better because it uses less fossil fuel in its production than gasoline does. My conclusions after this round of studies are no different than in my previous analysis. I agree with the Wang arguments.

Wang of Argonne National laboratories argues that what really matters is that ethanol compares favorably to gasoline, the fuel it replaces. His argument is that the fuel that uses the least fossil fuel in its production process, relative to its energy output, is the most desirable. He defines the Fuel Energy Ratio (FER) as ratio of the energy in the fuel being considered to the fossil fuel input to the fuel during its life-cycle of production. Ethanol comes out way ahead when compared to other fuels. Cellulosic ethanol has an FER of 10.31, corn ethanol: 1.88, coal: 0.98, gasoline: 0.81 and electricity: 0.46. He also finds that ethanol produced from corn achieves moderate reductions in greenhouse gases. Ethanol produced from grass and other "cellulosic" or woody biomass sources can achieve much greater energy and greenhouse gas benefits. He dismisses an ongoing academic argument about the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol.

And as a closing note on biofuels, Rob Elam from the Propel Project in Seattle (who was kind enough to correct some of my misconceptions about biodiesel earlier in the year) has a Q&A on Biodiesel in Grist.