Clean Technology

The Seattle region has a rich history of entrepreneurship, is home to companies that create technologies that change the world, and has an unmatched culture of commitment to the environment. These are just some of the reasons the Seattle/King County area is an exceptional location for emerging Clean Technology companies involved in Clean Energy, Green Building, and Environmental Technologies.
 

Currently, there are more than 400 clean technology companies located in the region.

To take full advantage of all the opportunities presented by this emerging sector and to ensure Washington’s continued leadership, the Washington Clean Technology Alliance (WCTA) was established in 2007.  Evergreen: The Washington Clean Tech Story is an example of a WCTA project to raise the profile of the state’s clean tech industry. This documentary film and accompanying website, evergreen.org, premiered in late 2008.

Read More About Clean Technology »

Clean Technology News

Biofuels Backlash

With the recent jumps in food prices around the world and the shortages of feedstocks in the United States (not to mention the world-wide recession), the biofuels industry has experienced a bit of a public relations backlash lately. Is this warranted, and if so, what can be done about it? 

No one would argue with the propositions that our dependence on fossil fuels cannot be sustained, and that biofuels seem to offer at least a partial solution, in the short term. But biodiesel and ethanol have a down side, as the industry is currently organized. In the US, diversion of corn and soybean crops to biofuels has contributed to (but not caused) price increases and occasional shortages. While these have proved nothing more than a minor annoyance here at home, they have captured attention at the expense of more serious problems: water pollution and eutrophication caused by intensive use of fertilizers for corn crops, emissions of volatile hydrocarbons from ethanol, and water demands in production of biofuels. In addition, questions remain about the real energy benefits of ethanol and biodiesel, from a life cycle point of view. Internationally, the problem seems more serious, as the diversion of agricultural land to fuel crops has contributed to food shortages and price spikes. Some areas have seen the destruction of rain forests to increase acreage devoted to biofuel crops as well. Biofuels derived from waste products such as used cooking oils and grease are more benign, but the feedstock is limited and collection and transport become an issue. 

Predictably, these “unforeseen” problems are now being addressed with an overly simplistic “solution:” calls to cut back on production. But this will do little to solve the food crisis, and nothing to slake our seemingly insatiable thirst for oil. What should be done? Here are some suggestions. 

1. Phase out subsidies for food-based feedstocks. Food crops such as corn and soybeans were the basis for the biofuels industry, but there are others available, and it’s time to move on to more appropriate sources. Subsidies play a legitimate role in jump-starting a market, but that time has long passed.
2. Eliminate the “splash and dash” subsidy. Currently, biofuel companies get up to a dollar a gallon from the federal government for exporting blended fuels. In practice, this has led to imports of biofuels and re-export after blending – a dubious benefit at best and a practice leading to, some argue, significant increases in emissions due to all that shipping. (A bill limiting the subsidy to fuels produced and used in the US was introduced in the US House in 2008, but failed to pass.)
3. Insist on certified sustainable feedstock. Several countries have developed certification programs guaranteeing that feedstocks are produced on land that was not diverted from food production or rain forest. The US should join in this effort, agree on standard certification criteria, and participate in verification programs.
4. Increase funding for alternative feedstock research. Several non-food feedstocks are close to commercial viability, while others, such as algae, hold great promise but are only in the beginning stages. The federal “stimulus package” has provided a huge infusion of research funding for cellulosic biofuels, and some pilot projects will be on-line soon. 

It goes without saying that the problems we are now seeing go far beyond the biofuels industry. With oil at around $75 per barrel, food production costs are high even without diversions, and subsidies to the oil industry do nothing to reduce demand. In conclusion, we should consider all impacts before we act, remember that there is no one solution, and above all, drive less.