That’s a great question to begin the conversation! When we talk about traditional energy, we are often talking about fossil fuels- like coal, oil and natural gas. These traditional energy sources have several problems: they will eventually run out, and more importantly, they increase global warming (because they produce carbon dioxide from very old carbon). We need to develop new energy sources that will not run out and will not damage the environment. This is a difficult task- but we can do it. Wind and solar energy are good places to start. The wind is going to keep blowing and the sun is going to keep shining, we just need to capture the energy from these two sources in the best way. For example, the University of Minnesota, Morris, already gets a lot of energy from a really cool wind turbine that produces electricity for us.
Thanks for the question!

Good question. Any plant matter could be turned from a solid into a gas, but given all the nutrition in vegetables and broccoli, it would be a shame not to eat them. What we really want to do is find plant or other material that nobody really wants to use, or eat, and turn that into a gas. For example, at the university we want to use left over cornstalks to make energy. Or you could use old tree waste or sawdust, municipal sewer waste (yuck!), wheat straw, or other prairie grasses, like switchgrass. Also, it helps if the material we want to gasify is dry, because water lowers the energy content of the material. To get energy, we often need to burn something, and we produce two gases, carbon dioxide and water (this is also the product of your own personal combustion, since you exhale these gases, too). But, when we gasify a solid, we burn the solid in a different way, and we get carbon monoxide and hydrogen. These two gases are very reactive with oxygen- and they can be mixed with oxygen to produce a lot of energy. Have you ever seen a hydrogen balloon explode?
There are certain benefits of having a gas fuel instead of a solid fuel. For example, most people would rather heat their home with natural gas than coal because they don’t have to shovel the coal into their furnace. This is one reason why we want to turn a solid into a gas.
You can also turn solid vegetable material into a liquid fuel if you want, like converting corn into ethanol. There are a lot of interesting technologies to change biomass, like corn, or soybeans, into liquid fuel that could be used to run your car.
Thanks for the question.

Andy,

Thanks for the question. This is a really complicated question, but a really important one that needs to be asked. In general, a similar way to ask your question is: By the time you account for the energy used to grow the crops (corn, in this case), including the energy used to make the fertilizer, and other chemicals, and run the tractor, and then process the corn in an ethanol plant into ethanol- have you used more energy than making a gallon of gasoline from crude oil that had to be pulled out of the ground? Production of gasoline or ethanol uses a lot of energy, and normally, a lot of fossil fuel. This is where I think we need to talk about old versus new carbon. The gasoline comes from oil that was formed over millions of years ago from very old plant and animal matter containing carbon. The ethanol comes from corn that was the product of recent photosynthesis- pulling carbon dioxide out of the air to make new corn. This is a BIG difference. If we can achieve a balance, where we are growing plant matter, converting it to liquid fuel, and then regrowing it the next season, then we begin to have a sustainable cycle that is not putting more carbon dioxide (a main greenhouse gas) back into the atmosphere. And we know greenhouse gases (GHG) are a REALLY BIG problem causing GLOBAL WARMING! Scientists and scholars are still arguing about the question you asked, with some claiming more GHG are produced and some less. Right now, I think the scholarship suggests slightly lower GHG is produced from using ethanol. BUT, pursuing research in ethanol has the potential to actually achieve large future GHG reductions, using petroleum doesn’t. Some modern ethanol plants and farmers are making big changes to really reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to make ethanol. And, production of CELLULOSIC ethanol, something that is currently being worked on right now, has the potential to dramatically lower GHG emissions. We have a lot of good reasons to pursue ethanol that aren’t related to global warming, too.
Thanks again, for the question. I know this conversation will continue.

Thanks for the question. I think the first part of the answer is: the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMM) is in an area of Minnesota with a LOT of wind and a LOT of biomass (corn, soybeans and sugar beets, and others). Some of our community members asked a lot of good questions about how we could use our resources more wisely. Our success, so far, has been made possible by lot of great partnerships and conversations; with industry; the town of Morris; and our research partners. We also have really great students, who are concerned about the future and want UMM to keep taking steps to live more sustainably. There are some practical considerations, too. For example, there is an enormous amount of agricultural residue close to UMM- and not having to transport it long distances to use it is important. Not everybody lives close to a large amount of agricultural residue. Our average wind speed in Morris is about 16 mph, which is a good wind speed to erect a wind turbine, so that also made sense. UMM wants to be a good steward of the resources of the state of Minnesota and be as self-sufficient as possible.

It is important to know that the University of Minnesota is doing really great things, from Crookston, to Duluth, to Rochester to the Twin Cities. And Minnesota’s private colleges and universities are also taking sustainability seriously. You may want to check out the Sustainability and U website at the U of M, which has a lot of links and a lot of information.
I think it’s important to remember that we are doing this work for a reason- because by doing our best research, teaching and outreach, we really can help Minnesota and the world. We dream big about: new energy technologies; building and architectural technologies; plant and farming technologies; biological product and medical technologies, and the list goes on! This translates into more jobs and a better standard-of-living for the people of Minnesota.
Thanks again.

I think your question asks many important questions. One: Are we running out of fossil fuels? Two: Is global warming really happening? Three: Should we really be concerned about these things? I think the answer is yes, to all three. The amount of fossil fuel on the planet is finite; we are not making any appreciable amounts in our lifetime that would be useful to us. In many places, it is becoming more difficult to remove oil from the ground. Modern technology has allowed us to extract more difficult reserves of oil than was possible in the past. As oil extraction becomes more difficult, the price will rise. Then, even more sophisticated methods will be required to extract it from the ground. The US government, through the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts we will use up roughly half of the world’s oil by 2025. I think another question is: What do you think is a LONG time? I like to think about what the world will look like when my children have children- then 25, 50, or 100 years, doesn’t seem that long from now. I have grandparents that are closer to 100 than 50 years old, and I hope to see another 50 years myself.
Most scientists that have submitted their arguments about global warming to the peer-review process conclude the same thing. Global warming is happening. Globally, the mean surface temperature of the Earth is getting hotter; and carbon dioxide levels are increasing in a way that correlates with this temperature rise. Very few people in the scientific community dispute this fact. And many well-known politicians, from John McCain to Al Gore agree about this fact. What most people argue about is: How fast will the temperature continue to rise and what policies and actions should we be taking to minimize our risk?
A final question might be: Let’s say that a majority of scientists from around the world (from the USA, to the UK, to Germany, to India, to Russia, to China) agreed that something we were doing as a world, or nation, or state, had the potential to cause unbelievable harm and could potentially displace or kill millions of people. Would you take the chance that they were wrong and do nothing? Or, would you try to get more information and ACT as if the worst was possible?
We often act without perfect information, and this is a bummer part of the human condition. But, the point is we act. We act responsibly, with far less information, on many things in our life. When it comes to global warming, why would we behave any differently?
Thanks for the thoughtful question.

Thanks for the question. There are a number of people in the country that work for universities and colleges who direct sustainability efforts. Depending on the school, their needs, and their funding, they hire different skill sets and different people. My personal background is in chemical engineering and chemistry, both are B.S. degrees. Some institutions hire Ph.D. educated candidates and some require a bachelor’s degree. Having a science background helps me to understand more of what other scientists are saying about future problems and solutions. Plus, science is a lot of fun. A lot of the problems we face will require engineering and science solutions, so I feel that I can help be a part of the solution process.
You know the old chemist joke: If you aren’t a part of the solution…you are a part of the precipitate. Bad joke.
You will probably be the most prepared for a job in this field if you take classes in resource management, environmental studies and science, architecture, planning, economics, sociology, psychology, geography, project management and engineering- to name a few. Some schools even have classes in sustainability. In general, schools will ask people in this job to look at their “triple bottom line”, and help determine if they are meeting their economic, social, and environmental obligations.

Thanks for the question. It is possible to use many items around us to produce energy. We know fruit has energy in it, because when we eat it, the sugars in the fruit provide energy for us to grow, work and think. So, humans should eat the fruit. If we want to make energy for fueling our cars or heating our homes, we might want to look to other things in our home or backyard that are not edible. Sometimes, we might have leaves in our yard, or maybe a tree has fallen down. Or sometimes grass grows in our yard and we cut it and put the clippings in a pile. Leaves, wood, and grasses all have energy, too. If you could grow several tons of grass in your yard, wouldn’t that be cool? Maybe, you could even use some of it to heat your house in the winter. It’s fun to dream a bit.
You are right to be concerned about pollution, too. Our goal in developing sustainable energy is to develop technologies that do not impact the environment. Many times, however, it is hard to completely eliminate pollution. So, we need to keep working hard and keep making better choices, so that we keep pollution and our impact a small as possible- until it is zero.

John,

Your question is a good one, and covers a lot of important issues, like energy balance, soil quality and water usage. It sounds like you are doing some really good reading.
I will try to answer part of your question about energy balance by turning to some real experts. Recently, scholars at the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College had their study featured in the July 25, 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. This is an important PEER-REVIEWED journal. So, we know they had to subject their findings to the criticism of their peers. They found out several interesting things:

1. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than used to make it. And reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 12%. But, had some other problems with air pollution, nitrate, nitrite and pesticide release.

2. Biodiesel yields 93% more energy than used to make it. And it reduced GHG by 41% compared to diesel.

3. By devoting the entire 2005 corn and soybean harvest to making ethanol and gasoline, we could only produce about 2.4% of the energy of U.S. gasoline usage, and only about 2.9% of the energy of U.S. diesel usage.

4. However, if we could develop feedstocks with lower agricultural input, grown on marginal land, with low-input energy to convert the feedstock to fuel, we would be moving in the right direction.

5. They suggest growing non-food feedstocks (like switchgrass with other prairie grasses and forbs), converting it into cellulosic ethanol OR performing biomass gasification on it and converting it into a synfuel. This could yield: a much higher energy balance, and a much lower environmental impact, which would be great.

We need to keep checking in with the scientists and let the data drive our decision-making process. There is NO single silver bullet. We all know that the only thing constant is change. So, as we get new information, we need to keep challenging our assumptions and keep making the small (or large) course corrections that will keep us heading true north- Minnesota is the North Star State.

Good question. E85 is about 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum. In winter, they often have to add additional petroleum to have the right vapor pressure for your vehicle to start in cold weather. Most often, E85 is used in flexible fuel vehicles that can run on E85 or gasoline. Minnesota has more E85 gas stations than any other state.
Even regular gasoline in Minnesota requires a 10% blend of ethanol. So, when you fuel up in Minnesota, you’re almost always filling up with some ethanol. In fact, about 20% of Minnesota’s corn crop is converted to ethanol, livestock feed and other products.

Good question. You are right, you can use coal to produce energy using gasification. Gasification of coal can also be used to produce a wide variety of chemicals, too. Gasification is a word used to describe the conversion of a solid to a gas. So, coal is converted from a chunk of mostly carbon to a mixture of gases, mainly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). These gases are very useful. These gases release a lot of energy when burned with oxygen or they can be used to make other fuels, like methanol. When we gasify biomass, we also get this blend of CO and H2 - so we have similar options.
The efficiency question is complicated. If we are talking about efficiency in electricity generation, presently coal is burned with varying degrees of sophistication to produce steam that powers a steam turbine to make electricity. When we convert coal to a gas, we have the option of using more sophisticated technology to produce electricity. Instead, we can use a gas turbine to make electricity and then use the hot gases exhausted out of the gas turbine to make steam for a steam turbine, making even more electricity. This is often referred to as combined cycle technology.
As you might guess, using two cycles to make electricity instead of one, improves the efficiency a lot. One could argue this is better environmentally because we capture more of the energy of the fuel to electricity, our goal in this case. By making good use of the waste heat coming out of the steam turbine, the efficiency is even greater. These plants have demonstrated lower water usage and lower pollution (NOx, CO, etc.) compared to other coal-fueled plants.
Power plants using natural gas to make electricity use the combined cycle technology I’ve described above already.
I would recommend checking out the Department of Energy’s website, if you search on IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) you can learn more.

Thanks for the question and comment. I haven’t heard about this, so I appreciate the information. I will check it out.

What I really like about the story as a model for action is:

1. Conservation, reduction, and elimination are the MOST important actions we can practice in our lives. If we don’t use something, we don’t have to make it. We need to keep looking for ways to reduce our consumption, conserve our resources, and eliminate wasteful behaviors. We also can benefit by engaging with the hard-working people who produce our energy to find out ways we can conserve and reduce.

2. It is important to work with people with many different perspectives and try to find common ground. It is easy to say we should change the system; it is harder to say what we should change to. Working together means we have to choose among options and see the advantages and disadvantages of change, which creates accountability for all involved.

3. Wind power is awesome. If a community has wind as a resource, I think it would be a good idea to find out how to use it, if possible.

4. Many cities across the United States are leading the way in finding ways to reduce their impact on the environment. I hope we see this continue.

I believe we each have a responsibility to make “hidden” things in our community “visible” for all of us. Where does our garbage go? Where do we get our water from and where does it go once it goes down the drain? Where does my electricity come from and does it pollute? Where does my food come from and is it healthy? Our society has insulated us from these questions of sustenance and made them invisible. Electricity comes from the outlet, water comes from the tap, garbage leaves my curb and doesn’t come back, and food appears in my supermarket…these are questions I think we should ask. I think that living a more informed life is a better life, in part because we live knowing that our behaviors have consequence, which is powerful.

Thanks for the question. A natural gas burning electricity production plant has several advantages:

1. Natural gas plants use combined cycle technology (I wrote a little about this a couple of questions back). By using combined cycle technology, we get greater fuel-to-electricity efficiency. This technology is more efficient than most of the common coal-fired electricity producing plants. Because natural gas is already a gas, and doesn’t need to be turned into a gas, it can be more easily used as a feed to a gas turbine to make electricity. Very hot gas exits the gas turbine and is used to make steam, which is then put into a steam turbine to extract even more electricity.

2. Natural gas has less carbon in it than coal. Coal is mostly carbon. Natural gas is mostly methane gas, which is a gas with 1 carbon and 4 hydrogen atoms. When natural gas is combusted, we get less carbon dioxide produced than from coal combustion. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it can contribute to global warming.

3. Natural gas also burns very cleanly, which is one of the reasons why so many people like to cook and heat their homes with it.

What might be some disadvantages?

1. Natural gas price volatility. The price of natural gas fluctuates enough that it makes it more difficult for some people to use it. You can examine data from the Energy Information Agency and observe the price changes of common fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and petroleum.

2. Most natural gas formed many, many years ago, which means that when we burn it, we still contribute to greenhouse gas production. If we could find ways to offset or replace our fossil fuel consumption by using sustainably harvested biomass, for example, we may be able to produce a net reduction in greenhouse gas production. We can also produce combustible gas through anaerobic digestion of manure or by capping and tapping our landfills and collecting the gas produced. So, there are options available to substitute our natural gas usage with gas produced by more sustainable methods.

Again, there is no silver bullet. Each community may have different options available to them to meet their energy needs. Hopefully, we will continue to offset our conventional usage of fossil fuels with newer non-fossil fuel technologies as they develop so they can mature and replace older technologies.

Mary Jo,

Thanks for the question. I think there are a lot of things we can do. Let me suggest a few for your consideration.

We all need to acknowledge that many of us are a part of business, industry and other enterprises and institutions. So, we have a responsibility to go back to our own personal sphere of influence, and start asking questions. We might ask: Our computers are on 24/7, why? How much water is my business using, why? Could we offset some of our energy consumption with alternate technologies that have less impact on the environment? Where do we buy these components for our product from and are they made in a responsible way? Answering these questions could help us reduce our impact on the environment AND improve our bottom-line. Improving the way we do business doesn’t always mean it will cost more money, often times it is the exact opposite, especially when we think about more than the short term.

We can ask our businesses and industries what we can do to help. And if we see ways they could be more efficient, reduce costs and be more responsible, it would be hard to see why they would resist change.

Having said that- change is hard, but it can also be exhilarating. So, be a model of change. Then other people around may be encouraged to change their behavior. We all need role-models; I know that I do. Many companies, individuals and institutions demonstrate that the “old” way of doing business is not the “only” way. Adaptation is not only practical; I think it is also survival.