Sure, you've heard of corn and switchgrass as potential sources of biofuel. But those are rendered totally boring in light of the potential of trash, dead cats, and human fat to meet our energy needs.
Make your engine purr.
Photo: iStockphoto
Surprising sources abound in the world of biofuels, with researchers probing the farthest reaches of their imagination in hopes of spinning gold from -- well, crap. Take a look.
Ass fat: We like big butts and we cannot lie -- especially when we use our own to power a speed boat. Or better yet, use other people's.
Bones: A Missouri plant is already turning turkey bones, beaks, feet, and feathers -- hell, probably even the gobble -- into oil. Townsfolk think the idea stinks, but are willing to take it in the name of a sustainable future.
Chicken chub: According to the Des Moines Register, beef- and chicken-processing giant Tyson Foods Inc. hopes to use animal fat from its many slaughterhouses to develop biofuel. On the other side of the world, a Vietnamese company plans to spin catfish fat into fuel.
Credit-card statements: Scientists in Germany want to use specially engineered bacteria to break down paper waste to develop biofuels.
Hemp: Oh, cannabis. What can't you do?
Flowers: Bouquet from your ex? Ugly hanging plant from your in-laws? Eco-fuel source!
Fluffy: Finally, a good use for cats. Goodbye, kitty.
Leftovers: Mmm, last week's tuna noodle casserole never smelled so sweet. U.K.-based Inetec is developing a system for on-site processing of everything from greasy pizza boxes to leftover chicken patties. But don't expect some sort of Mr. Fusion to hit the market anytime soon -- or trash-powered time travel either, for that matter.
Pond scum: Researchers at GreenFuel Technologies Corp. in Massachusetts turn algae into fuels like methane, biodiesel, and ethanol. Swamp Thing is petitioning for an add to the endangered species list.
Poop: Giving new meaning to the phrase "when pigs fly," Virginia-headquartered hog hocker Smithfield Foods Inc. has invested in technology to turn the waste from the 7.5 million pigs the company slaughters every year into transportation fuel.
Whey: Little Miss Muffet be damned. We're using your curds and the liquid surrounding them to power our car. No way? Yes, whey!
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Two new documentaries—‘Crude’ and ‘Fuel’—examine two sides of our petroleum problem
Comments
View as Threaded
paroneanu Posted 7:49 am
15 Dec 2006
Having spent the past 6 months reading all I could about biofuels and writing my senior thesis on biodiesel development in Senegal, I think that there's clearly been spin on both sides of the debate. What the Grist articles show is that there is absolutely no way that biofuels will solve the civilization-scale problem of climate change while having benign side-affects.
If we, as environmental activists, engineers, policymakers, academics and concerned citizens, don't keep a close watch, ADM, Cargill and others will outpace small producer co-operatives and more sustainable producers by continuing to treat environmental degradation as an "externality." To ensure that consumers understand the true costs and enjoy the benefits of biofuels, we need to look at the whole energy picture. In my thesis, I argue that only a small-scale, decentralized biofuel production system would help rural people gain income.
Where I live in Vermont, the Vermont Biofuels Association and ACORN, a community group focused on energy issues, are trying to take the same model and apply it to Addison County, where dairy farms take up much of the land. All around the world, small-scale producers and cooperatives are outpacing large corporations in innovation while keeping sustainability and democracy in view.
In Vermont, the Midwest, Brazil and even Senegal, we must push for a more democratic, decentralized and sustainable bioenergy market before the behemoth conglomerates take us too far down the wrong path.
Permalink
Werdna Posted 3:42 pm
04 Mar 2007
The land to grow sugar cane must come from somewhere. It's my understanding (and unfounded at that) that a significant portion of land used to grow sugar cane is coming from chopping down rain forests.
Can anyone shed some light on this? How much jungle has been lost to produce fuel? Is it worth it?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:00 am
10 Mar 2007
http://new.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/segments/upload/Br ...
_
Even if they tore down the whole Amazon rainforrest they wouldn't even make a dent in US gasoline demand.
Permalink
micodoc Posted 12:39 am
13 Mar 2007
Brazil's push for energy independence, while admirable, has had heavy environmental costs. The huge environmental impacts of sugarcane, for example, are not even mentioned in passing in the article - the clearing of endangered restinga and Atlantic coastal rainforests, heavy use of pesticides, water degradation, etc. Also, increased off-shore drilling (at least in the region where I lived - the state of Rio de Janeiro) has resulted in oil spills. Tourist and fishing industries have been negatively impacted in some some of the most beautiful coastal areas imaginable. In other instances, people have continued to unknowingly swim and fish in oil-industry contaminated waters.
Learn from Brazil? I hope so. But I hope we take the time to examine the whole lesson first before jumping in.
Permalink
kgpc Posted 1:57 am
20 May 2007
http://www.ethanol-news.de
Permalink