Changing our fuel would be a great move.

A recommendation to watch this film.

I’m talking about the film Fuel which Jean and I watched on Monday night.

Here’s the trailer,

This movie trailer gives insight into the impeding oil dependency problem and hints at the biofuel solution. The Fuel Film raises awareness of 9/11, global warming, and moreover, how we can switch to an alternative fuel called biofuel. It is based on renewable sources such as algae or ethanol, costs less, and combats the impeding destruction of the environment.

But Top Documentary Films has the full film available, the link is here. (And see below)  TDF describe the film, thus,

Eleven years in the making, FUEL is the in-depth personal journey of filmmaker and eco-evangelist Josh Tickell, who takes us on a hip, fast-paced road trip into America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Combining a history lesson of the US auto and petroleum industries and interviews with a wide range of policy makers, educators, and activists such as Woody Harrelson, Sheryl Crow, Neil Young and Willie Nelson.

Animated by powerful graphics, FUEL looks into our future offering hope via a wide-range of renewable energy and bio-fuels. Winner of the Sundance Audience Award.

The events of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina factor in both visually and thematically, providing provocative anchors for the movie’s indictment of what Tickell believes is the Big Oil-cozy, ecologically indifferent Bush administration.

Johnny O’Hara’s WGA Award-nominated script doesn’t dwell on muckraking, however; it’s more focused on broadly inspiring viewers than preaching to the converted.

Interviews with a wide range of environmentalists, policy makers and educators, along with such “green” celebrities as Woody Harrelson, Sheryl Crow and Larry Hagman offer serious fuel for thought – as well as for action.
Smartly animated interstitials, memorable archival material and a lively soundtrack round out the fast-paced proceedings.

Have to say that the film was powerful and compelling and a great reminder that a sustainable way of life for all of us doesn’t mean the end of the world as we know it.  Far from it; the word ‘sustainable’ is the clue here!

Here’s the full film,

Director Josh Tickell takes us along for his 11 year journey around the world to find solutions to America’s addiction to oil. A shrinking economy, a failing auto industry, rampant unemployment, an out-of-control national debt, and an insatiable demand for energy weigh heavily on all of us. Fuel shows us the way out of the mess we’re in by explaining how to replace every drop of oil we now use, while creating green jobs and keeping our money here at home. The film never dwells on the negative, but instead shows us the easy solutions already within our reach.

Finally, a little footnote for all you Planet watchers out there.  Summer starts, as in the summer solstice, today (the 20th) in North America at 7:09 P.M. EDT (UTC -4 hours) or 4:09 P.M. MST (UTC -7 hours) and in the UK at 23:09 UTC.

24 thoughts on “Changing our fuel would be a great move.”

  1. Yes, our oil addiction is a problem in many ways. It will be interesting to see what happens to the economy when peak oil hits.

    I’m very skeptical about biofuels though. A rough calculation shows that, even if we convert all of our arable land to fuel crops, we would only be able to supply about 10% of the world’s oil demand. But the truth is that we simply don’t have any arable land left to spare.

    The only viable biofuel option I can see is that which is made from algae, but the shear scale on which this will have to be done as well as the very low EROEI (still below 1) threatens to make this impractical as well.

    I really think that our best route away from oil is to simply convert to EVs as soon as possible. A very interesting new blog I have been following has recently posted some very positive personal experiences in this regard (http://lowcarbonlivingblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/electric-cars-a-first-drive/). If you have solar panels on your roof and an EV that charges from those solar panels, you really have it all.

    I really think that everyone should do this; not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will protect people from the energy crisis which is sure to come in the next couple of years.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Dear Schalk, thanks for that feedback. What’s ‘EROEI’ by the way?

      Did you watch the film? The last 1/3rd is spent looking very closely at biodiesel made from algae. While electric vehicles make huge sense for domestic automobiles, if we wish to distribute food and goods by truck, ship and aircraft then electric power would seem irrelevant. Substituting biodiesel for aviation fuel and fuel for ships and trucks does seem to have merit.

      That link is interesting as well,

      Paul

      Like

      Reply

      1. I am unfortunately a bit pressed for time and only watched the trailer, but perhaps you could tell me if they talked about the issues of EROEI and economic feasibility? Often such documentaries only tout the positives and totally neglect reality. EROEI stands for “energy returned on energy invested”. It is a very important measure of how much energy you get out for each unit of energy you put in to produce the fuel.

        EROEI is one of the primary challenges facing biofuels with many types of biofuels having an EROEI ratio of just over 1:1, implying that they give just a litte bit more fuel energy than the energy needed to produce them. An oft quoted statistic for the EROEI of biofuels in general is 1.25:1. This implies that you get 1.25 kJ of energy out for every 1 kJ you to put in. Another way of looking at it is that the amount of free energy we get out (0.25 kJ) is four times smaller than the amount of energy we have to put in (1 kJ). This is an extremely energy inefficient process which will not be feasible in the energy scarce world that is coming.

        Now the problem with algae is that the only peer reviewed EROEI study has found an EROEI of about 0.3:1, implying that algae gives far less energy than is needed to produce it. There are some unreferenced values above 1 being thrown around on the internet, but no scientist would ever believe those numbers.

        An EROEI below 1:1 implies that biofuel production from algae would require lots of energy from some other source (such as possible cheap solar power in the future) to ever work. In the age of great energy scarcity, however, this is nothing but a pipe dream and will never be feasible. It is possible that improved algae growth and harvesting methods can push the EROEI closer to 1:1, but this is still decades away.

        Another factor is the cost. The only peer reviewed study on this topic puts biodiesel from algae at around $10/gallon which is about 3 times the price of today. Our economy certainly cannot sustainably survive on $10/gallon fuel (it cannot even seem to survive on $4/gallon fuel), implying that this is also a major limitation.

        In short, just like all other alternative energy sources, we are steadily running into more and more stark realities and just reaffirming how amazing fossil fuels really are. We have lived through the age of abundant fossil fuels and a limitless planet, but are now entering the age of very limited fossil fuels and a very limited planet. Yet, we are refusing to change our lifestyles accordingly.

        This is the entire reason why I am blogging. Technology is not going to save us (and I say this as an engineer working directly in the field). The only possible option we have is large-scale changes in our consumption patterns. Every Western citizen can easily cut his/her resource usage by a factor of five, instantly eliminating each and every one of our global problems, but still we look for ways in which we can sustain our incredibly wasteful lifestyles.

        This cannot end well…

        Like

      2. Well for someone pressed for time, your reply was very generous plus extremely informative. Indeed, I am at a meeting later this morning where there is someone who will be most interested in your analysis of the challenges facing bio-diesel.

        On a broader note, your own writings have some powerful messages and I will be republishing some of your material over the coming weeks.

        Many thanks, Paul

        Like

      3. Thanks Paul. It would also be interesting to hear what the people at the meeting thought about this. We need to be very realistic about how we will sustain our society now that the age of abundance is drawing to a close. And for that we need all the facts on the table. No sugar coating, no subjective bias, just objective facts.

        Like

      2. Nice video. I hope it attracts some support for this cause.

        Yes, the definition of “peak oil” is unfortunately open to many interpretations, but you are certainly right in that we have hit peak cheap conventional oil and that the permanent quadrupling in the oil price which resulted from that peak presents a major economic headwind and incentivizes the development of environmentally destructive unconventional resources.

        In my comment I was referring to the peaking of oil as a whole. This peak will be a major turning point since the world will then have to start using less oil every year in comparison to the previous year. The interaction between this dynamic and the addiction of our financial system to perpetual exponential economic growth will be (for lack of a better word) very interesting to observe.

        Like

      3. But as Mr. P. inferred, and as I’m sure I’ve seen reported, haven’t we already passed the point of peak oil in the broadest sense possible? In fact, I recall reading (but typically can’t quickly find the reference) that oil supplies are forecast to decline at 9% per annum.

        Like

      4. Extraction rates from existing fields are declining at something around the rate you refer to, but you should not underestimate the enormous financial incentive given by a quadrupling in the oil price. In the continued absence of a global carbon price, the global economy will exploit any resource which is economically attractive regardless of the environmental cost. In this environment, the high oil price simply opened up vast new oil supplies.

        The International Energy Agency gives the following breakdown for oil production over coming years: http://randompolicy.blogspot.no/2010/11/iea-2010-world-energy-outlook.html. You can see that existing crude oil fields decline, but this is compensated for by the development of new fields. If you then add unconventional oil on top of that, the rate of oil extraction continues to increase. Many other energy outlooks are in agreement (BP, Exxon Mobil, EIA, MIT).

        Like

      5. You’re not wrong! My point is that we’re already experiencing the clash of ideology with reality. Peak oil — 2006: ‘credit crunch’ (talk about a euphemism!) — 2008, Athabasca tar sands/ Arctic oil drilling/ other extraction of oil previously deemed ‘uneconomic’ (but strangely, no longer?) threatening to ruin all life on this planet — happening as we speak.

        Like

      6. Yep, humanity is caught in a pretty dangerous vicious cycle. Many years ago, resource constraints began forcing developed nations to export production to developing nations in a bid to continue increasing consumption rates. This globalization then caused developed nations to rack up tremendous debts and unfunded liabilities. Now developed nations are in such a deep economic mess that they need economic growth at any cost. The cheapest economic growth is fossil fueled increases in discretionary consumption (consumer spending) and the cheapest way to make this happen is through tight oil, shale gas, tar sands, Arctic drilling, mountaintop removal etc. (Just imagine where the US economy would be now if it was not for tight oil and shale gas). Unfortunately, this will only make the environmental limits stronger in the longer term, thereby strengthening the cycle.

        Before some of the fossil fuel externalities are internalized, the global economy will inherently follow this kamikaze route. Given the difficulties related to negotiating a global carbon price, I am very worried about this situation.

        Like

      7. Drilling in the Arctic is truly insane. The only reason oil companies are trying to do it is that the alternative is to accept that the carbon era needs a successor. Such a shame then that their decision to put off the inevitable probably means it will be game over for most life on Earth.

        Like

  2. In ancient times, the Celts had a much simpler calendar… summer started in June (the little sun), winter in December (big sun). Nowadays, I wonder they knew something we don’t about climate change, given wacky weather and disappearing spring and autumn. And our descendants? Perhaps they will think our marking the seasons quaint, since they most likely will not have seasons, just heat.

    I watched Fuel some time ago and recommend it to everyone. Thanks Paul, for the reminder — I’ll be watching it again.

    Like

    Reply

  3. This looks a very interesting Film Paul and saved to watch later..There are and have been alternatives around for some time… Its the BiG Boys that want all of that Black stuff.. in the form of Dollars all to themselves.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Sue, do watch it, the film is very interesting. Indeed, just a few days ago someone here in Payson feed us a lunch snack comprised almost entirely of foods from algae – they were delicious!

      Like

      Reply

  4. As you may have gathered from my “liking” this yesterday, I have finally got round to watching this film (only 6 months late)! There is much to comend it but. to me, the two most shocking revelations in it are that the fossil fule industry appears:
    — (1) to have misappropriated the inventon of the diesel engine and got rid of its inventor; and
    — (2) to have manufactured a controversy over biofuels and made them appear to be part of the problem not part of the solution. (Given what Schalk says above, I very much doubt he actually watched the film).
    Thanks for bringing this to my (albeit belated) attention.

    Like

    Reply

  5. This is a peculiar film.

    What I found strangest of all was the jarring lurch in the very middle. Things are going great for biofuel in the narrative: many corporations are buying into the idea, then — wham! — there’s a brief mention of some bad press and suddenly all the promising gains are lost. And then, instead of discussing what the media furore was about, whether it was right, wrong, misguided, whatever: the film moves on, to an entirely different thread that leads into a ‘feel-good’ ending about how it’s all down to us as individuals to change the world. Yeah, right, as if! The film itself reveals the immensely powerful, poisonous, corrupting, entrenched influence of fossoil corporations from their very inception; it even hints at implicating it in the death of the inventor of the Deisel engine: and then it switches track and suggests that we can turn this massive juggernaut around simply by… thinking of our children.

    WTF?

    It’s as though two entirely different films, written and directed by two entirely different people, were butted up together. And nobody bothered to look at the result.

    Most odd.

    Like

    Reply

      1. I’m looking at the film from about 1:06:00 on: “Biodeisel was finally catching on” … “and then overnight the whole thing changed” (why?)… and yet we still end up with a feel-good message (… how?)

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.