Comments on: Bio Energy in the Lowcountry

By: Erika

Erika — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:04:26 +0000

All of the school buses in the state are moving towards B20. Additionally, a bill passed this year that will require all state-owned diesel pumps to contain at least 5% biodiesel by January 1, 2008. These two measures alone will increase biodiesel consumption by 3 million gallons in South Carolina - nearly double what was sold in the state in 2006. Biodiesel has an excellent energy balance of 3.2 units of energy for every 1 unit put in. Additionally, biodiesel production facilites are capable of creating zero-waste because there are techniques to capture and use every by-product such as glycerin (soap), water, and methanol.

Ethanol has its merits as well. Everyone is down on corn ethanol and obviously it has its downsides, but the fact of the matter is that corn farmers in the United States have not had such a good price on their product for a long time! Also, by creating demand now for corn ethanol we are creating markets for more risky ventures such as cellulosic ethanol facilities. In fact, there is a company who wants to make ethanol from wood chips that is interested in locating in South Carolina! Cellulosic ethanol is far more attractive and has much more potential. We haven’t even begun to discuss the merits of renewable fuel for the environment and for energy security. Lets not judge too quickly…

By: Chad Norman

Chad Norman — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:36:58 +0000

Great stuff Kristen. I like your idea about getting CARTA and the school buses using biodiesel. I wonder if the increase in cost could be covered by donations or grants…which is exactly why we need to turn Go Green Charleston into a 501(c)3.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:02:17 +0000

I agree that ethanol seems like a disaster. I think that biodiesel actually has a lot to offer as we transition to driving less. Keep in mind that biodiesel replaces petrodiesel fuel, which is used mostly by 18 wheelers, public transportation buses, school buses, railroad engines, and cargo ships. Shifting to biodiesel, particularly if we go to B50 or B100, will dramatically reduce air pollution, and it also easily biodegrades in the water, so it is much less harmful for marine uses. I haven’t done all the numbers, but I think that it is worth pushing for changes to require use of at least B20 (20% biodiesel/80% petrodiesel). It will immediately reduce our use of petrodiesel, make modest improvements in air quality, and start biodiesel on the road to becoming a competitive product so that switching to B100 on a massive scale would be more feasible and economical.

For instance, why shouldn’t CARTA and our school buses convert right away to B20 with a plan to convert to B100 within a year? This would reduce the exposure of our children and many other folks to the pollutants from petrodiesel. While biodiesel is slightly more expensive now (and I know that budgets are very tight), gradually increasing the demand for it will help encourage the supply end as well, and hopefully bring down prices in the long run.

By: GHeath

GHeath — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:04:27 +0000

I’ve read that sugar cane is a better alternative to corn, and I wonder if SC’s climate could sustain those crops.

By: Local Green

Local Green — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:02:52 +0000

Two comments:
On your figure that corn uses more fertilizer, insectides and herbicides than any other crop. I have heard the same said of cotton.

Ethanol is also unsustainable because we the taxpayer are paying a subsidy to produce ethanol of .51 cents a gallon. Just today Congress voted not to eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol which serves as a further subsidy to the ethanol industry.