Massachusetts could be Top on Biofuel Push
Not that I’m an advocate of getting all my news from one source, but one of the news sites that I make regular visits to is the Boston.com web site. Originally from a suburb of Boston, I try to keep up with what’s going on in Beantown, I follow local sports teams, and find the news coverage on the site is often complete and well-written, even if it does have a slight bias to all things Boston.
Naturally, when an article appears on the site that touts advances that Massachusetts is making in terms of the promotion of cleaner-burning fuel and more environmentally-friendly products, I pay particular attention to it. In fact, it happened to me a few days ago when the site reported that Massachusetts political leaders are proposing “first-in-the-nation mandates and incentives to promote the development and use of biofuels, with the hope of reducing the state’s carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.” (1)
The state’s plan will promote the use of biofuel in its economy in 2 ways. First, it would require that heating oil and diesel fuel to contain up to 5% of a biofuel derivative by 2013. Though current biofuel-based heating oil may cost the same or even slightly more than its petroleum-based counterparts, officials are hopeful that with prolific use the price advantage would eventually belong to the environmentally friendly fuel.
Some companies are already seeing success with blended heating fuels such as Mass Biofuel, a division of Fisher-Churchill Oil Company in Dedham. They indicate that 390 of their customers currently purchase either an 80-20 blend of regular heating oil mixed with biofuel or a 90-10 blend of low-sulfur heating oil mixed with biofuel. While the 90-10 mixture is slightly more expensive because of the low-sulfur content (about $0.10/gallon), the 80-20 blend is the same price as regular heating fuel, and each option is becoming increasingly popular with their customers. Ultimately, the price of blended biofuels is expected to reduce the cost of heating oil over time.
The second change in this plan would be an exemption of the state’s $0.23 gasoline tax from any ethanol gas produced from plant products other than corn. The intent is to provide incentive to gasoline dealers to carry the blended fuel and to Massachusetts-based manufacturers to produce it. Mascoma Corp., based in Cambridge, is already studying the viability of producing cellulosic ethanol, derived from vegetation such as wood chips, algae and grass, as a commercial product.
I am very excited by the prospect of these new fuels, and am particularly enthusiastic about the introduction of the cellulosic fuels in our gas pumps. With what seems to be an abundant supply of plant waste or easily renewable plant matter, we could not only potentially reduce our dependence on fossil-based fuels in the near future, but less harmful emissions would be produced in the environment as a result of the reduction in sulfur and other harmful chemicals burned in today’s conventional fuels. But in order for it to be effective, how fast would Massachusetts’ initiative have to be enacted? How quickly would it have to be adopted by other states in the union, or for that matter, other countries in the world? Granted, the U.S. is probably one of the biggest offenders now when it comes to pollution, but we’re not producing all of it.
In spite of the changes coming from Massachusetts, however, there are some drawbacks to be considered before we get too excited by this plan. I think this is a great first step, but there is still more work to be done. Heating and automobiles are only a small piece of the puzzle, we need to do more about energy production as well. As you may recall I had one person, Ginger, comment on my “Wonder Wheat” article, “Someday we’re just going to have to stop using so much of everything. Biofuels are, unfortunately, no solution. They just mask the problem for a little while.” Conservation will be every bit as important as we battle for the planet’s health. We need to become more cognizant of our wastefulness.
I’d be interested to hear about what you think of the article. Do you think these sorts of changes would be welcome in New Jersey, New York, Florida, or some other state? What about California, which has typically lead the nation with tough requirements for environmental friendliness, do you think they’ll be following shortly? What do you do currently to show your commitment to the environment? Share your thoughts, I’d love to hear them.
(1) See “New push for renewable energy,” Bruce Mohl, Boston.com, November 6th, 2007.
