Comedian, satirist, and talk show host Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota on the DFL ticket (in MN, the Democratic Party is called the DFL).

Last month, Franken made an appearance at the Crow Wing County/Morrison County DFL summer picnic. I grew up in Morrison County, so I attended, and was impressed with the (relatively) huge turnout. I met Al, but more importantly he took the time to answer some questions I sent him via email about renewable energy and Minnesota’s place in the clean tech revolution.

Maria Surma Manka: What specific renewable energy legislation do you want to see implemented at the federal level?

Al Franken: On a macro level, I’d like to implement a national cap and trade for carbon dioxide. This would make the cleanest renewables cheaper than fossil fuels and reward sequestration of CO2 in the form of planting acreage.

I’d like to see more federal investment in pilot projects for renewables. Representative Collin Peterson has put in several pilot projects for cellulosic ethanol that would be conducted here in Minnesota.

When I have said I want an Apollo Program for renewable energy, I’m talking about making these kinds of investments in renewables, including things like tidal and wave power. The United States has to go back to investing in research and development. This means identifying promising technologies and investing in them.

Maria: How would you open up Minnesota’s markets for renewable energy investment?

Franken: I would refer you to my previous answer.

Maria: What is Minnesota’s biggest renewable energy advantage (i.e. what can we capitalize on in a clean energy revolution)?

Franken: First of all, we grow a lot of corn, the number one feedstock for ethanol. We also grow a lot of soy, which is the number one feedstock for biodiesel. So, obviously, we have had years of experience making both, and our state universities have been doing a lot of the research.

Wind is cleaner, and Minnesota is a very windy state. We’re ninth in the nation. We should really be exploiting that more. Also, I think we should reinvigorate our manufacturing base by building wind turbines in Minnesota. So many of the turbines - the mechanisms that turn the spinning blades into electricity - are made in Europe. Let’s make them here.

Cellulosic is only a few years away and we have prairie grasses, which are perennials and have very deep root systems, making them potentially a very sustainable feedstock.

Right now gasified biomass is being used as fuel in ethanol plants. We got a lot of biomass in many forms; for example, forests, especially in the northeastern part of the state, where we don’t have wind. As cellulosic technology develops, there is great potential in using our forests, managed in a sustainable way, to add to our arsenal of renewable energy sources.

Maria: What is the role of business, government, and consumers in a clean energy future?

Franken: The government has to find ways of encouraging businesses to make clean energy available and attractive to consumers. Government should take the lead in making green buildings, working in partnership with companies that develop green technologies, and by investing in energy-efficient transportation systems - light rail, commuter rail, etc.

Obviously, tax incentives should encourage businesses to develop technologies and consumers to buy energy-efficient products. This is one of those things where everybody has to work together because it’s in everybody’s interest.

Maria: What steps have you personally taken to fight global warming or make your life more energy efficient?

Franken: Right now I’m traveling from Duluth to Minneapolis in a hybrid vehicle - my family Ford Escape. I bike to work, when I can. Biking, as Jim Oberstar might say, converts a hydrocarbon economy into a carbohydrate economy. Of course, we recycle.

But the biggest thing I’m doing is running for the Senate, so that when I get to Washington, I can make sure that the things I wrote about in the first four answers can come to fruition.

Crossposted at Maria Energia.

Two proposed coal-fired power plants in Iowa could negate the state’s efforts to cut emissions with clean, renewable power.

LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.

Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”

The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.

While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.

Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council

Photo Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A thought-provoking new study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has found that locally-owned renewable energy projects generally hold more local economic benefits than large-scale ones.

The “Economies and Diseconomies of Scale” concludes that bigger is not always better. The Minneapolis-based ILSR analyzed the costs and return of wind power and ethanol, both major renewable energy sources in the Upper Midwest. While they are both less expensive to produce on a large scale, the costs of having to transmit the energy across long distances can negate those savings. That, coupled with the fact that large projects are generally owned by corporate or out-of-state interests, makes smaller, local projects more beneficial for the immediate community.

ILSR recommends that states follow Minnesota’s example, where law provides a favorable tariff for locally owned renewable energy projects, requires 51 percent ownership by Minnesota residents, and designates 51 percent of financial benefits to local owners. In addition, the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind should be changed to allow it to be taken against ordinary income rather than only applying to passive income (such as from rent). This would allow greater access to the tax credit and open it up to more individuals to be renewable energy investors.

A carbon-constrained world presents us with many options for change. Do we want to create – and is it realistic – a totally new energy system, one that is locally owned, producing energy for the local area, with the majority of economic benefits going to the local community? Or does the urgency of global warming demand as much renewable energy as possible, as fast as possible, owned by whomever possible?

Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Minneapolis Star Tribune

With all sorts of vehicles touting fuel efficiency, low emissions, and a dizzying array of alternative fuels, what's a person to do? If you need a vehicle, how do you find the best one that does what you need but doesn't do in the planet? The answers aren't so clear-cut (so to speak).

Want a hybrid car? There are full hybrids and mild hybrids. The Toyota Prius, a full hybrid, connects an electric motor and a battery to a standard combustion engine. A mild hybrid, like the Honda Insight, works the electric motor only when extra power is needed. This can make it slightly more efficient than a regular vehicle in stop-and-go traffic, but it can't run on battery power alone and doesn't offer the same fuel efficiency as a full hybrid.

Then there are plug-in hybrids, which are out on the roads but not yet mass produced. A plug-in hybrid has a battery pack that can power the vehicle for up to 60 miles - further than most people drive in a day. If you do have a longer trip, the engine kicks in automatically after the battery runs out of juice. You can recharge the battery using an ordinary 120-volt socket.

Let's not forget about the whole swath of alternative fuel vehicles, which can be a murkier area for a lot of people.

Efficient and cleaner diesel vehicles - which can compete with full hybrids in terms of fuel efficiency - have taken off in Europe. According to Business Week, 50 percent of all vehicles sold in Europe are diesel-powered, by only 1.5 percent of U.S. vehicles are diesel. However, a study done by JD Power & Associates predicts that number to double by 2012. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler all expect to sell diesel vehicles in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2008.

There are about 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road right now, all of which can run on a blend of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or E85. It's cleaner burning than straight gasoline, and helps strengthen rural economies. But many people don't even know whether their vehicles can handle E85, or don't have easy access to E85 pumps. Infrastructure continues to be an issue, and there's a lot of talk that we'll soon see ethanol made from a more efficient plant source than corn.

For better or for worse, there's no easy answer when it comes to "Which car is the greenest?" Whether it's hybrid, diesel, a plug-in, or ethanol, you'll want to do your homework when determining which shade of green is best for you. Click here for some of the latest models.

about.com
Business Week
Edmunds.com
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
Plug-In Partners

Under pressure to meet Kyoto Protocol targets and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, several ministries in the Japanese government have issued a report recommending increasing ethanol production from domestic biomass resources.

The report advises boosting ethanol made from wood waste and mass-produced grains to account for 38 million barrels, or about 6 percent of Japan’s annual gasoline consumption.

Currently Japan produces very little ethanol on its own and is heavily dependent on imported gasoline. Even so, the cost of ethanol continues to be an issue. In order to encourage use and development, the report proposes modifying the taxes on ethanol, which is mostly imported from Brazil. But even if Japan used the new super-harvest grains like rice and sorghum that can be planted in abandoned fiels, ethanol production costs may still be quite high.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has promised to increase the use of biomass in fuels as part of the island nation’s larger plan to shift away from fossil fuel use to slow global warming.

Japan needs to meet its Kyoto Protocol goal to cut its global warming emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period. The agreement excludes emissions from biofuels like ethanol.

Reuters, via Planet Ark

Despite the criticisms that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, overly subsidized, or unrealistic to serve enough of America’s energy needs, it continues to be wildly popular with the local farmer and the giant corporation.

Hereford, Texas - the “Beef Capital of the World” – is also getting into the ethanol business, albeit a bit differently and more efficiently. Rather than an ethanol plant powered by electricity from coal, the town will soon welcome a plant powered by an abundant, renewable resource – cow manure.

The manure from the 125,000 local cattle normally gets carted off for fertilizer, but Dallas-based Panda Ethanol (a name I find hilarious, since pandas don’t jump to mind when I think of ethanol) is building one of the nation’s largest ethanol plants, capable of making 100 million gallons per year. Panda will pay to have the manure trucked in from farms, which delights area farmers. President of the Bar G Feedyard, Johnny Trotter, told the Economist that he’ll save more than $350,000 a year from not having to haul away the manure himself.

Once the manure arrives at the plant, it will be gasified with the help of sand and heat. The synthetic natural gas will be burned, making steam that will heat up the corn and help turn it into ethanol. Railroad tracks leading to and from the plant will transport corn in and take ethanol out.

Texas currently has no ethanol plants, but in the next few years at least a half dozen are expected to be up and running. That increase is expected across the country: The Renewable Fuels Association reports that the US has 110 ethanol refineries, with 73 more under construction. Once those are finished, a total of about 11½ billion gallons of ethanol could be produced each year. That sounds like a lot, but it’s only a drop in the oil bucket – Americans use almost 400 million gallons of gasoline a day.

Farmers like Trotter are also looking forward to further technological breakthroughs like ethanol from grains and plants, called “cellulosic ethanol.” The demand for corn to make ethanol is driving up prices for livestock feed (made primarily from corn), hitting cattle, hog, and chicken farmers in the pocketbooks. By diversifying our sources of ethanol, the spike in corn prices should ease.

Panda Ethanol
Renewable Fuels Association
The Economist
Maria Energia