U.S biofuel Agenda

tas51

Rookie
Mar 2, 2010
1
1
1
Hi all,
I am conducting some research for a masters thesis regarding how the United States governmental biofuel agenda was set, and am inviting comment from forum members.

How the national agenda is set is often thought to be the most complex and least understood aspect of the policy-making process. Indeed, why biofuel has come to occupy such a prominent place on the U.S. governmental agenda is an interesting question not only for the inherent reasoning above, but also due to the high level of controversy and debate the issue has generated in recent times. To date however, much of the policy research carried-out on the biofuel topic has neglected to address how biofuel came to garner so much government attention in the first place. It is this neglected area of the biofuel topic that I seek to address through my research project.

Because the search for a policy’s genesis is futile, it has been suggested that “the best we can do is to identify critical moments in the history of policies that seem to have turned the tide in favour of new policies or ideas.” (Birkland, 1997, p.70) By carrying out this qualitative case study, I aim to identify the critical moments and people that have contributed to the ‘turning of the tide’ in favour of biofuel policy in the U.S. Using John Kingdon’s 1984 Multiple Streams agenda setting framework I aim to uncover the factors that contributed to the successful implementation of ‘biofuel-friendly’ policy in the U.S., exemplified by the enactment of Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct2005). Like Kingdon, I seek to understand how the issue was chosen for attention by government, why the issue came up when it did, why this issue was are acted upon while other were shunned, and who brought what problems up for government to resolve. (Kingdon, 1984)

To carry out this piece of research I have chosen to use EPAct 2005 (P.L. 109-190) as the focal point of the study. The legislation’s significance is based on the ten year gap between comprehensive national energy bills passed by Congress in the U.S., and the host of biofuel related provisions included in the Act. For these reasons, Epact 2005 is thought to be suitable choice in terms of a point in time that demonstrates a high level of interest from the U.S. policy community toward the biofuel issue. It is the years directly preceding the passage of EPAct 2005 that will be analysed to determine factors that culminated in the successful implementation of significant biofuel-friendly provisions within the 2005 Act.

Brief description of the Provisions within EPAct 2005 that directly deal with Biofuel:
Most notably the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which will more than double the current market for biofuels. The RFS requires that 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels (including ethanol and biodiesel) be utilized by 2012. Other significant provisions enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 include the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which was extended for another two years, and the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (for public power), which are vital to obtaining project financing for the renewable energy industry. Additionally, Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Harkin (D-IA), worked to include significant biofuels, bio-based products and biopower provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, thereby providing legislation for grant-and-loan and loan guarantee programs which will now give biomass renewable energy projects a step-up in the growing renewable energy market. There are specific provisions authorizing funding to spur development of cellulosic biofuels facilities and integrated biorefineries.

By carrying out this analysis, it is hoped that revelations regarding the conditions that were conducive to the adoption of strong biofuel-friendly policy in the US will be able to be identified. In addition, it is thought that the findings may aid in the understanding of the processes currently going on in the post-2005 biofuel ‘boom’ countries, as well as make contribution (however small) to the broader volume of available literature on agenda setting and policy development in the U.S.
As I mentioned above, I would be extremely grateful for any comments or insights forum members may have relating to my study.
 
You should check into how much oil must be consumed by the barrel to produce these fuels. There are numerous independent studies out there showing it takes 3-4 barrels of oil to produce one barrel of biofuel.
 
"revelations regarding the conditions that were conducive to the adoption of strong biofuel-friendly policy ..."

peak oil... period, end of story.

lots of (unviable) "alternatives" are getting the skids greased, in fact... shale and tar sands, too...

afterall, there's money to be made from the market panic that exists at the end of the age of cheap energy.
 
Biofuel from microbes & CO2...
:cool:
Scientists Coax Microbe to Produce Biofuel from CO2
March 28, 2013 - Pyrococcus furiosus thrives in super-heated, acidic ocean waters surrounding undersea volcanic vents
Scientists say they have found a way to convert carbon dioxide or CO2 - a greenhouse gas that’s a primary driver of global warming - directly into a biofuel that might someday provide an alternative to climate-changing fossil fuels. Researchers say the conversion relies on an unusual microbe. The microorganism - a bacterium named Pyrococcus furiosus or “rushing fireball” - was discovered in 1986 on the Mediterranean Sea floor off southern Italy, feeding on carbohydrates in the super-heated, acidic ocean waters surrounding undersea volcanic vents. The find surprised scientists because at the time, no one knew that living organisms could thrive in the dark,100-plus-degree Celsius waters.

Researcher Michael Adams and colleagues at the University of Georgia in Athens, along with scientists at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, were intrigued by the bacterium's chemical processing ability. They genetically modified it so the microbe could feed directly on carbon dioxide gas, and do so at much lower temperatures than its original sea-floor habitat. Next, researchers added hydrogen gas as an energy source and made further genetic modifications to the microbe that allowed it to generate butanol, a biofuel that burns much like a conventional fossil fuel.

Adams says biofuel production from the marine microbes eliminates the step of extracting such fuel from plants, such as corn and sugar cane. These plants use sunlight to produce sugars, which must then be fermented into ethanol. “When we say we’re sort of cutting out the middle man, here we’re converting CO2 or carbon dioxide directly into biofuel," said Adams. "But you still need a source of energy. As I said the plant uses light. Our source of energy is hydrogen gas.”

The main source of hydrogen is natural gas, another fossil fuel. But the technology, according to Adams, would be carbon neutral in terms of its environmental impact. “We would take CO2 from the atmosphere, make biofuel which would then be used and converted back to CO2," he said. "But again the caveat is that we are using hydrogen as an energy source and that energy source has to come from somewhere. And as I say at this point in time, the best source of hydrogen would be natural gas.”

Adams believes the microbe-generated butanol has the potential to replace carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels such as oil, gasoline and coal. He envisions harvesting vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and processing it along with hydrogen in large reactor systems to produce enough butanol for large-scale energy use. Funding for the research was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy. An article describing the microbial conversion of carbon dioxide into biofuel is published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source
 
Diesel biofuel from e.coli bacteria...
:cool:
E. coli bacteria 'can produce diesel biofuel'
22 April 2013 - A strain of bacteria has been created that can produce fuel, scientists say.
Researchers genetically modified E. coli bacteria to convert sugar into an oil that is almost identical to conventional diesel. If the process could be scaled up, this synthetic fuel could be a viable alternative to the fossil fuel, the team said. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Professor John Love, a synthetic biologist from the University of Exeter, said: "Rather than making a replacement fuel like some biofuels, we have made a substitute fossil fuel. "The idea is that car manufacturers, consumers and fuel retailers wouldn't even notice the difference - it would just become another part of the fuel production chain."

_67167665_syntheticalkanes2_small.jpg

The oil that the bacteria produced had a near-identical composition and chemical properties to conventional diesel

Fuel factories

There is a push to increase the use of biofuels around the world. In the European Union, a 10% target for the use of these crop-based fuels in the transport sector has been set for 2020. But most forms of biodiesel and bioethanol that are currently used are not fully compatible with modern engines. Fractions of the substances (between 5-10%) need to be blended with petroleum before they can be used in most engines. However, the fuel produced by the modified E. coli bacteria is different. Prof Love explained: "What we've done is produced fuels that are exactly the chain length required for the modern engine and exactly the composition that is required. "They are bio-fossil-fuels if you like." To create the fuel, the researchers, who were funded by the oil company Shell and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, used a strain of E. coli that usually takes in sugar and then turns it into fat.

Using synthetic biology, the team altered the bacteria's cell mechanisms so that the sugar was converted to synthetic fuel molecules instead. By altering the bacteria's genes, they were able to transform the bugs into fuel-producing factories. However, the E. coli did not make much of the alkane fuel. Professor Love said it would take about 100 litres of bacteria to produce a single teaspoon of the fuel. "Our challenge is to increase the yield before we can go into any form of industrial production," he said. "We've got a timeframe of about three to five years to do that and see if it is worth going ahead with it." The team is also looking to see if the bacteria can convert any other products into fuel, such as human or animal waste.

Magic bullet?
 
I have mixed feelings on the subject. It has driven corn prices up. But domestically I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Subsidies for corn growers go down as demand increases, or so the theory goes, so the net cost might be marginal.

But it's been rough on foreign countries who already were struggling to feed their people. Personally I think there is a future in bio fuels but not using food supplies. As others have posted, I've read about much higher yields from all kinds of alternative sources from bacteria to algae.
 
Military leans more toward biofuel than natural gas...
:eusa_eh:
Despite fracking boom, US military still looks to biofuel over natural gas
August 12, 2013 — The drilling boom created by hydraulic fracking has led to an explosion of natural gas vehicles on U.S. highways, but the U.S. military has been slow to jump on the bandwagon.
U.S. natural gas production has increased by more than 30 percent since 2005, and major U.S. firms are taking advantage. Shipping company UPS Inc. has begun to convert its transport fleet to run on natural gas, and Citigroup Inc. predicts that at least one-third of the U.S. commercial truck fleet could be running on the fuel by 2015. The reason? Natural gas currently costs up to $2 less per gasoline gallon equivalent, according to the Natural Gas Vehicles for America website. But the military doesn’t seem overly interested in catching the natural gas wave — at least when it comes to transport vehicles.

Although there are some 120,000 natural gas vehicles on American roads, the military has only a few hundred non-tactical military vehicles powered by either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), according to officials. Instead, the four armed services have taken a wait-and-see approach to natural gas while pouring much of their green energy efforts in seemingly less-promising energy sources, such as biofuels. “We are in the role of technology watcher as we follow (natural gas research) developments in the civilian world and look for ways to leverage those efforts for our needs,” according to Kevin Geiss, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy.

image.jpg

A sailor fills up a government vehicle with compressed natural gas in this 2005 file photo. Despite the boom in natural gas usage in the States, the military has only a few hundred vehicles that run on the fuel.

There are a multitude of reasons keeping the services from running to the showroom floors for new natural gas vehicles, including the lack of fill-up stations. Matthew Bourke, an Army public affairs officer, said while the Army has 65 non-tactical vehicles fueled by natural gas, there’s no current research aimed at using the technology in tactical vehicles, such as tanks. “There are no CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles available that are suitable for vehicle requirements in a deployed area and no distribution or CNG refueling infrastructure in an expeditionary environment,” Bourke said.

Tactical vehicles follow the single-battlefield-fuel principle whereas non-tactical vehicles and equipment use bulk petroleum products that are available and supported locally, he said. “Deployed CNG assets would require separate deployable CNG storage, refueling and manpower to maintain the infrastructure,” he said. The Air Force’s Geiss echoed those sentiments. When it comes to ground transport, the cheap cost of natural gas needs to be balanced against the fact that there are only a few natural-gas-powered vehicles for sale, he said, and most are medium- or heavy-duty trucks and buses that can be refueled at central or strategically placed stations.

MORE
 
Ethanol makes gas more costly and causes cars to get lower gas mileage. The cropland and fertilizer dedicated to ethanol could be better utilized in ways that would lower food prices and feed more starving people worldwide. Tell me again why they add the crap to gas?
 

Forum List

Back
Top