The injection of wastewater from oil and gas production deep into the ground has been known to cause quakes within months, but the 2011 temblor in Oklahoma occurred after nearly two decades.
The injection of wastewater from oil and gas production deep into the ground has been known to cause quakes within months, but the 2011 temblor in Oklahoma occurred after nearly two decades.
Wolf River Conservancy works to protect natural resources in the Mid-South
The Wolf River runs through a large section of west Tennessee and northern Mississippi including a large portion of the Memphis area. Since 1985, the non-profit Wolf River Conservancy has worked tirelessly to beautify and protect the river and the land surrounding it through cleanup projects, education, activities, and more.
“The Wolf River Conservancy is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the Wolf River corridor and watershed as a sustainable natural resource.”
The Wolf River Conservancy provides education and assistance to landowners seeking to protect their property in the Wolf River watershed. It has helped create the Wolf River Greenway, a 10-foot wide, 30-mile, non-motorized pathway that will connect neighborhoods from downtown Memphis through Collierville, Tenn., once complete.
Wolf River Conservancy volunteers regularly give lectures and conduct nature walks to educate students, church groups, civic groups, and other community members about the important role the Wolf River plays in their environment. Volunteers also work to educate government officials about how their actions affect this important natural resource and area residents. And then there’s all the fun the Wolf River provides. The Wolf River Conservancy plans a variety of activities including nature hikes and canoe trips that allow residents to experience the beauty and the fun of the area.
Much more information is available through their very informative website at wolfriver.org.
Hmmm… Aren’t we on Spring Break?
It is 6:00am Saturday, the first day of Spring Break for the Saint Thomas Academy Experimental Vehicle Team. As I walk out the door a blast of 10°F (-12°C) air strikes me in the face. This won’t be a good day to test the vehicles! Ah, Spring in Minnesota.
After a quick stop for donuts (students need energy to be creative!) I arrive at school. Big surprise, I’m the only person there! The first couple of hours are spent answering emails, ordering last minute supplies, and going through the “to do” list for the day. One of the things I have learned over time is that much more gets done if a “plan o’ the day” is in place. After I’ve already consumed three cups of coffee, the first students stumble into my room with hairstyles that could only be done by Mr. Pillow. It was time to get to work!
When we last left our story, we were convinced that the prototype car would go smoothly and the urban concept car would be fraught with peril. How wrong we were! As the team was going through the rules, double-checking we comply, the 6-meter turning radius reared its ugly head. “No problem,” one student says. Famous last words….
A quick circle is set up in the cafeteria (the maintenance crew at our school has always been very supportive!) and the small, carbon prototype sets off. After a few modifications the car made the circle. “We should check it with the body on,” our student director suggests. Failure! The car isn’t even close to making the 12-meter circle. This is a huge problem that will ultimately lead to some drastic measures.
While our prototype car is sitting in “time-out,” our urban concept vehicle is slowly getting finished. Lights and turn signals are in, suitcase door is cut and installed, and the frame is back up on wheels. While all of the mechanical systems of the car are installed for the final time our electric team is hustling to finish a very complicated monitor/management system. With Pandaboards (on-board computers) and touch screens in each car, the driver and pit crew will (or hopes to!) have up-to-the second data during each efficiency attempt. It looks very complicated, but they assure me that it will work. To say I’m a little skeptical is an understatement! Let’s hope it isn’t our Achilles Heel on our “Road to Houston.”
Shell* Eco-marathon Americas, a fuel-efficiency race where students design and build futuristic vehicles that are then driven on the streets of downtown Houston, Texas, kicks off on April 4. Shell followed three student teams across the Americas, capturing their trials and tribulations as they prepared for the race. In the first episode, Canada’s Alérion Supermileage team is struggling in their determination to regain victory; the US team Let’s Do It Again must step up the pace; and tensions simmer within the e³- USFC team in Brazil. Watch below:
* Shell is sponsor of National Geographic’s Great Energy Challenge initiative. National Geographic maintains autonomy over content.
The ethanol mandate in gasoline is starting to sting.
In a news article published in Science magazine last week, journalist Robert Service writes: “This year is shaping up to be decisive for ‘cellulosic’ ethanol made from corn stalks and other agricultural waste, as oil companies and the ethanol industry clash over government mandates for the automotive fuel.”
What’s going on? Let’s start with a brief primer on the use of ethanol in America’s automobile.
As a libation, ethanol’s been around for a long, long time. As a fuel, it dates back to 1826 when it was first used in an internal combustion engine. Ethanol was also the fuel that ran the 1908 version of the Ford Model T. But “the decreasing cost of oil (and US prohibition)” among other factors turned Ford’s “fuel of the future” into a fuel of the past and, with the exception of World War II [pdf], there it remained for much of the mid-20th century where the fuel of choice on America’s roadways was ethanol-free gasoline.
Congress’s Love Affair With Ethanol
Starting in the late 1970s, however, ethanol began to creep its way back into our fuel tanks, at first in response to oil shortages [pdf] and the Clean Air Act’s mandated phase-out of leaded gasoline (ethanol supplanted lead as an additive to enhance octane). Demand for ethanol increased as Congress began actively encouraging and then mandating its use in cars. For example, a 1978 tax break for ethanol-blended gasoline was followed by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, whose requirements included the presence of an oxygenated compound such as ethanol in gasoline to produce cleaner automobile emissions and thus cleaner air.
More recently, Congress upped the ethanol ante with two renewable fuel standards: the 2005 Energy Policy Act “required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012” and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 greatly expanded the program by:
Why the Love?
Knowing what’s behind Congress’s passion for ethanol as a fuel is not quite as inscrutable as knowing what sparks romantic love, so let’s look at some possibilities. First and perhaps foremost, ethanol is a homegrown energy source and one that was aided by a healthy tariff on imported ethanol that excluded Brazilian ethanol from competing in the U.S. market. It’s reasonable to assume Congress was considering national security. But that’s not all.
The desired air-quality improvements from the 1990 CAA were to be achieved, in part, by adding ethanol or a similarly oxygenated compound to the hydrocarbon chains of fossil fuels thus adding oxygen and encouraging a more complete and cleaner burn. But I’d take that with a bit salt. The evidence (see here and here) that that ethanol mandate actually led to significantly improved air quality is pretty thin.
That brings us to the renewable fuel standards. As summarized in a report [pdf] by the Congressional Research Service, the 2005 and 2007 mandates were aimed at alleviating our “increasing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil, concerns over global climate change, and the desire to promote domestic rural economies.” But like the air-quality mandate, there’s room for some skepticism here. For example, the climate benefits of ethanol have been challenged by a number of investigators (see here, here and here).
Which brings us to the other reason listed above: desire to promote domestic rural economies. Here I think we’ve found pay dirt — but not for any old rural economy, just the ones that grow corn.
Virtually all of today’s U.S.-produced ethanol comes from corn. So ethanol mandates raise the demand for corn — making it a commodity wanted not only for food but also for fuel. And so the result? Corn prices rise, and American corn growers benefit. Voting for the mandate means making the very powerful National Corn Growers Association happy. Voting against it, let alone trying to remove it, means risking the wrath of the lobby.
And then there’s Iowa. Ever wonder why in recent memory there’s near-unanimous support for ethanol mandates among presidential candidates? Could it have anything to do with the all-important caucuses in Iowa, a state also known as the Corn State where 90 percent of its land is agricultural?
With all those reasons going for it, you’d think the 2007 ethanol mandate would be sitting pretty. In fact, as noted by Service in that Science article, the mandate is in serious trouble.
Problem #1: Plenty of Ethanol, Not Enough Gasoline
Times change. In 2007 a trend was clear — gasoline consumption was on the rise. For an ethanol mandate to have teeth over time, the amount of ethanol produced, Congress reasoned, would also need to increase over time. And so federal mandates [pdf] required that the total volume of renewable fuel would increase (from 9 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons) with corn ethanol maxing out at 15 billion gallons per year.
The problem is that gasoline consumption did not increase as anticipated (see graphic below). First came the economic downturn of 2008 and then a hankering for more fuel-efficient cars. As a result, since peaking in late 2007, U.S. gasoline consumption has slowly declined (see graphic).
That’s generally good news. But for the ethanol mandate … not so much. The vast majority of U.S. cars are designed to use a fuel mix that contains no more than 10 percent ethanol, and most gas stations are set up for gasoline with a maximum ethanol content of 10 percent. So consider what happens if total gasoline consumption goes down while the total amount of ethanol required to be mixed with the gasoline increases? Eventually you hit what is known as the “ethanol blend wall” where any addition of ethanol to the mix will result in a fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol. (See here and here [pdf].)
So how close is that ethanol blend wall? For all intents and purposes we’ve hit it. In 2012, the Energy Information Administration reports [pdf], the average ethanol content in U.S. gasoline was 9.7 percent. (See graphic).
Suffice it to say, something’s gotta give. Either American cars need a mandated retrofit that would allow for a higher percentage of ethanol (just how expensive such a retrofit would be is up for debate — see here and here) or the 2007 mandate needs to be relaxed.
Problem #2: Not Enough of the Good Stuff (Cellulosic Ethanol)
Corn ethanol, like most alcoholic beverages, is produced from a plant’s starches and sugars. (Ethanol is “denatured “ to make it undrinkable.) But it’s corn ethanol’s cousin cellulosic ethanol – which is derived from a plant’s inedible cellulose (a major rigid component of plants) — that’s generally viewed as the ethanol of the future. Why? Plants have far more cellulose than starches and sugars. And so there’s much more stuff available to produce cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol. At least in theory we can produce a lot more cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol.
That’s in theory. In practice it hasn’t yet worked out that way. Turning cellulose into ethanol is a difficult task, made even more difficult with commercial viability as a goal. Giving a legislative leg-up is one way to overcome the hurdles of developing a commercial enterprise — and that’s essentially what the federally mandated increases in cellulosic ethanol in gasoline blends were intended in part to do but they have not worked.
The industry has simply not been able to make enough cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates. In 2012, for example, instead of the 8.65 million gallons required by the Environmental Protection Agency, just 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol were produced. Normally refiners would be required to purchase credits to make up the difference, but the American Petroleum Industry took EPA to court — and won (see decision [pdf]). EPA later eliminated the 2012 requirements ($ub req’ed). Meanwhile, the mandated totals for 2013 are expected to be challenged in court, even though 2013 is the year cellulosic fuel is expected by the biofuel industry to make good.
The Ethanol Mandate on the Ropes
So what’s in store? In his article in Science Service predicts a knock-down, drag-out fight “pitting the world’s largest oil and car companies against giant agricultural firms and Midwest farmers.” And the oil industry is primed for the kill with Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, now calling for the repeal of the renewable fuel standards. Meanwhile several bills floating through Congress aim to slash the cellulosic ethanol mandate.
We’ll have to wait to see, but it could be that the Congressional romance with ethanol will turn out to be a perfect love gone wrong.
With less than two weeks left until the competition, the Illini EcoConcept team is busy finishing the vehicle over spring break. This is only the second year for the team. In our first year we brought a hydrogen fuel cell powered “urban concept” vehicle and took first place. This year we would like to improve our efficiency further and defend our title. At the same time, we’re taking our vehicle to the next level. While the 2013 car has been designed to be exceedingly efficient, it has also been designed to seat two people and reach at least 30 mph.
Purdue Solar Racing (PSR) has shown tremendous strides over our 22-year history. With a car that failed to qualify at Sunrayce as our starting point, we could only go up. PSR was founded on the principle of building and racing solar cars as well as educating the public on alternative forms of energy. Through improvements and learning, our team eventually produced Pulsar for the 2010 Shell Eco-marathon.
Pulsar drove away with first place in the solar division, the Technical Innovation Award for patent-pending carbon fiber layup process and telemetry systems, and the Communication Award for reaching out to the community through events and teaching about solar racing as well as renewable energy.
Purdue Solar Racing’s continued growth and learning was evident with our eighth car, Celeritas. PSR focused on an Urban Concept Vehicle, a valuable and forward-thinking perspective in our current environment, winning the concept category with 2,175 miles per gallon. In 2012, PSR again won the Urban Concept Vehicle category at the Shell Eco-Marathon with an improved mpg of 2,250.
Over the years, PSR has consistently won awards for teamwork and communication, as with the Sportsmanship Award in 1999 (for helping out Ohio State with technical problems) and the ‘0-66’ Award in 2003 (for showing the most improvement during a race). PSR is entering our ninth car, Navitas, in this year’s Eco-marathon. With a sleeker design, Navitas is designed to travel more efficiently with an increased mpg and a decrease in weight, while maintaining the eligibility to be scientifically street legalized. (See related post: “Purdue: Nearly Street Legal, Powered by Sun“)
Navitas provided us with design challenges that tested the strength of our team. Due in part to the limitation of solar cells set by Eco-marathon rules, PSR has worked hard to overcome the challenges and provide technical solutions that ensure positive power is obtained. Navitas is expected to weigh more than 50 percent less than Celeritas, as well as using four and a half times fewer solar cells. PSR put in the dedicated hours we are known for and look forward to completing the finishing touches before Navitas is ready for the streets and unveiling on March 22.
The City of Greeley, Colorado recently completed the installation of a 500 kilowatt (kW) solar array at its wastewater treatment facility. The array is expected to produce about 723,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, which is approximately 15% of the electricity needed at the facility. The $1.5 million plan is owned by Oak Leaf Energy Partner, Enfinity America Corporati…
Will spilled resin wash out of my uniform pants?
Oh no! Not that question again! I warn students that they should bring a change of clothes to the shop, and it should be something they will never wear in public again. How many times will youthful enthusiasm override common sense? Someone’s mom is not going to be happy when her son gets home from school! Welcome to a typical day at EVT.
The Saint Thomas Academy Experimental Vehicle Team has been building one-person alternative energy vehicles for 15 years. Each project has been as unique as the contest they were designed for, ranging from cross-country solar cars to enclosed electric motorcycles. Even though each project is very different, the group of budding engineers that build them have two common themes: a new vehicle will be tested in the school parking lot and someone will need new uniform pants.
This year our team of young Thomas Edisons are working feverishly to finish two new vehicles for Shell Eco-marathon. Choosing to build vehicles for both the urban concept AND prototype categories seemed like a good idea seven months ago! Now the growing list of details that need finishing makes me wonder what we where thinking. The tick…tick….tick of the clock in my physics room serves as a cruel mistress, always reminding the team that the cars leave for Houston in less than two weeks!
Choosing a favorite vehicle is like trying to choose a favorite student. They all make you smile, but some give you less trouble than others. Our prototype electric is composed of a carbon fiber body and a CNC cut carbon frame. The frame was designed to fit together like a three dimension jigsaw puzzle with tabs and slots. A high strength epoxy was used to bond things together. The three-wheeled prototype is fully suspended and is powered by a 1000-watt Heinzmann electric hub motor. The prototype has been the easy child of the family, while his brother, the urban concept vehicle, has proved to be a little bit more mischievous.
The urban concept vehicle is electric like its little brother, the prototype, and while they share a carbon fiber heritage, the application of the magic black cloth has been very different. The straight cuts on the prototype car’s frame look sterile when sitting next to the organic looking seat/frame of the urban concept car. Using the seat as a structural part of the frame was a stretch for us, but has proved to be a lightweight solution to a troublesome problem.
As our project moves forward into a well-timed Spring Break, we will keep you informed and provide a little more insight into what works (and perhaps more importantly what doesn’t!) as we rush to complete our vehicles and get them “On the Road to Houston.”
WASHINGTON — The E.P.A.’s (EPA’s) independent Science Advisory Board (SAB) today announced the formation of its Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory panel. This panel of independent experts will peer review EPA’s 2014 outline report of results for its national study on any potential health and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Leading up to the peer review, the SAB panel will provide scientific feedback on EPA’s research in an open and tran…