|
|---|
By Chris Ingraham
In 1934, Alcatraz first became a federal prison. Hitler became Führer of Germany; the San Francisco Seals sold Joe DiMaggio to the New York Yankees; Donald Duck first appeared on the big screen. And in Alameda County, the East Bay Regional Park District came into being.
This year the Park District celebrates its 75th anniversary with a series of events designed to create awareness of both its impressive heritage and its ambitious outlook for the future.
From concerts to parades to movie nights and trail challenges, the celebrations will last all summer and into the fall. In addition to the fanfare, to begin its fourth quarter of a century with some enterprises that indicate its future direction, the Park District will undertake more than its usual array of projects designed both to preserve and improve the park system’s already expansive resources.
At Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline Park — the 741-acre protected area along San Leandro Bay, near Oakland International Airport — the Park District is rebuilding a state-of-the-art aquatic center. The new center will service the pier and nearby buildings, and provide training facilities and storage to help rowing crews take advantage of the Bay. The Park District especially looks forward to the opportunities the aquatic center will provide for local organization Oakland Strokes, which tries to teach and involve youth in rowing as a healthy way to take advantage of the region’s natural bounty.
Big Break Regional Shoreline will also see some major changes this year. The Park District is building a Delta Science Center where volunteers and staff can teach the public about the Delta region’s entire ecology. The only educational program of its kind, the Delta Science Center will include the in-ground installation of a large, three-dimensional model representing the whole Delta, from Oakley to Oakland. Visitors will be able to run water through the model’s tributaries to see how the Delta works.
It’s projects like this that excite the Park District’s general manager, Pat O’Brien. But he also believes, looking toward the future, that the important battle right now should be fought in preservation of new land from otherwise inevitable development. The East Bay is only so big, and the time is now. “Probably in the next 30 years or so,” O’Brien estimated, “the whole issue of, ‘Is it developed or is it preserved?’ is going to be over. The boundaries are already set.”
From its beginning, the East Bay Regional Park District has prioritized a legacy of preserved land and recreational space. Indeed, the Park District’s history tells a story of American foresight, conservation, and initiative. What started in 1934 as a small, local park district with an annual budget of $194,000, serving only seven Alameda County communities (and no parks), grew enough by 1936 to purchase the lands now known as Tilden Park, Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve, and Lake Temescal. With these as its centerpieces, the Park District has grown, 75 years later, to include today some 65 parks covering almost 96,000 acres, over 1,100 miles of trails, and an inspiring abundance of campgrounds, historic sites, shorelines, and recreational and educational facilities across two counties.
O’Brien and others on staff are quick to mention the Park District’s auspicious beginning — or rather, the precarious circumstances that quite conceivably could have stopped it from beginning at all.
In 1934, America was at the height of the Great Depression: droughts, hobos, unemployment lines. In 1933, Governor James Rolph had signed a bill authorizing the formation of the Park District, but the bill would first need to pass through a 1934 public ballot, which would require supporting a hefty raise of taxes. Considering the economic hardship of the Depression, it’s easy to imagine voters refusing an initiative that would increase taxes merely for something so luxurious as the formation of a Park District. Yet the measure passed — convincingly — with a 71 percent margin.
Since that time, similar such public support has kept the Park District growing and improving. In 1988, Bond Measure AA passed with over a two-thirds majority of the public vote, giving the Park District $225 million, plus millions more in matched funds, making possible the acquisition of over 34,000 acres that will now be protected indefinitely. Twenty years later, last November, the public renewed Measure AA by passing Bond Measure WW, giving the Park District $500 million to carry its tradition of stewardship onward. Most encouragingly, Measure WW passed amidst the cusp of the new financial crunch we’re in today, with almost exactly the same undeniable support that ushered the Park District into being under similar circumstances 75 years ago.
This bodes well for the battle between preservation and development. As O’Brien pointed out, “The theme is there from our past, but it’s also the theme for the future.” Measure WW is the largest local park bond in the United States; what better way to fête a 75th anniversary? When it’s not busy celebrating its special year, the Park District will be using its resources to continue the extensive planning and coordinating involved in carrying out the projects that Measure WW will make possible. On slate for 2009 is also the finalization of repairs on sites damaged by winter storms three years ago, along with the continuation of several park access projects, designed to remove barriers to accessibility in a variety of regional park sites. If its past is any indication, these and other undertakings will keep the Park District thriving as it approaches its next big anniversary: the centennial.
For more information, including a schedule of commemorative events, visit www.ebparks.org/75.
By Chris Ingraham
Golden Gate Bridge. Tiburon. Candlestick Point. The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. These spots and hundreds of others comprising the hallmarks of Bay Area recreation are available to the public today because of the planned recreational corridor known as the Bay Trail. This year the region celebrates the Bay Trail’s 20th anniversary.
The Bay Trail Plan, adopted in 1989, was made possible by 1987’s Senate Bill 100 (Lockyer), which called for the Association of Bay Area Governments to develop a plan for a “ring around the Bay.” The plan set forth the policies and guidelines for the eventual design, implementation, and financing of the Bay Trail. Since that time, almost all areas along the proposed Bay Trail have passed local resolutions in support of the trail and its upkeep.
Currently, there are 290 completed miles of trails that make it possible for outdoor enthusiasts — cyclists, skaters, hikers, joggers — to appreciate the region’s scenery and wildlife. The Bay Trail also makes travel easier for everyday commuters by connecting with the region’s public transportation hubs — ferries, BART trains, bus stations, and so forth. With over 130 parks along the trail, and passing through some 57,000 acres of open space preserves, the Bay Trail offers unprecedented access to a variety of points of interest, be they cultural, historical, commercial, or residential. In addition to beaches, marinas, parks, fishing piers, and wildlife refuges, the Bay Trail passes through the urban center of San Francisco, and seeks in all places to preserve delicate natural habitats. Improvements are still to come.
When complete, the Bay Trail will offer 500 continuous miles of trails, connecting the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties throughout San Francisco and San Pablo bays. It will link 47 cities and cross all the area’s major toll bridges.
A nonprofit organization called the San Francisco Bay Trail Project advocates for the Bay Trail’s planning, promoting, and implementation. Funds from grants made available by the Bay Trail Project make possible the maintenance and improvement of existing trails, from bike lanes on city streets to dirt trails in open space. The Bay Trail Project, however, which has a staff of only four full-time employees and a 28-person volunteer board of directors, does not own land or construct any sections of the trail. Rather, the Bay Trail Project publicizes the Bay Trail’s existence and development through the distribution of maps and educational literature about the trail’s progress. Individual segments of the Bay Trail are built, owned, managed, and maintained by local park districts, cities, and counties in their given region.
By Chris Ingraham
Anyone who appreciates the outdoors can recognize the value of preserved open space: those precious areas in our ecosystem designated to be kept free from development. Nevertheless, decision makers in the Bay Area don’t often understand in sufficient detail what exactly needs to be done to maintain and improve this facet of the region. Now they have a resource to assist them, as the Bay Area Open Space Council, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Association of Bay Area Governments, with the support of land managers, county officials, and scientists, have recently produced a report that highlights the importance of the region’s open space.
The report, called Golden Lands, Golden Opportunity, is the first of its kind to collaboratively cross official jurisdictions and geographical boundaries. In a 24-page document, the report offers a statement of principles and a corresponding argument for the importance of Bay Area lands, along with key actions needed to take advantage of our “golden opportunity” to protect them. The report’s stated principles represent progressive, 21st century ideas: “Every resident should have access to fresh, affordable food from local farms and ranches,” for instance. These and other ecologically mindful principles are at the heart of this report, which was three years in the making.
Golden Lands, Golden Opportunities emphasizes five critical areas where policy makers should focus their attention: 1) Watersheds: Clean Water for People and Wildlife; 2) Working Farms and Ranches: Healthy Local Food; 3) Community Greenbelts: The Secret to Vibrant Cities and Towns; 4) Wildlife Habitat: Unique Ecosystems to Save; and 5) Parks and Trails: Healthy People and Economy. Together, these areas of emphasis constitute an ideal “green infrastructure” for the Bay Area.
Citing regional statistics, demographic data, and economic figures, the report lays out the numbers to suggest that the region will radically benefit in dynamic ways if Bay Area decision makers prioritize the report’s five pillars of green infrastructure. But the report offers still more specific recommendations in its second half, when it examines “snapshots” of all nine Bay Area counties, and suggests particular needs unique to each area, toward which each county could most beneficially direct its resources. In San Mateo County, for instance, the report calls to “prevent subdivision and large-lot residential development to help protect up to 40,000 acres of farmland and natural areas.” In Solano County, the report calls for the creation of an open space district, because Solano County is the only county out of nine in the Bay Area without one.
Ultimately, though, the report is perhaps most significant for its collaborative nature, and its clear message that action is needed now. With strategic emphasis on strong policies, aggressive land acquisition and conservation, and choices that benefit all residents equally, the report is both judicious and ambitious.
Visit www.golden-lands.org to download the report.
By Alec MacDonald
At any given moment in the Bay Area, millions of people are on the go — hopping a bus to work, riding the rails to a weekend getaway, braving traffic to pursue an errand, traversing the waterways by ferry, pumping pedals for fun and fitness, or just enjoying a leisurely stroll to nowhere in particular. When they take advantage of the region’s vast transportation network, however, these travelers probably don’t consider all that goes into managing this massive and complex system. That’s a little too heavy on the brain; getting there might be half the fun, but not if you have to think about it too hard.
Yet someone has to put their mind to these issues if the system is to continue ably serving the countless users who depend on it every day. Fortunately, a dedicated set of advocates in this region and across the state have been leveraging their powers — cognitive and otherwise — to help keep the Bay Area’s mobility options varied and attractive.
This has been especially evident over the past two-plus years during the development of the latest Regional Transportation Plan (or RTP, this year dubbed Transportation 2035: Change in Motion). The plan lays out how an anticipated $218 billion from federal, state, and local sources will be spent on transportation throughout the nine Bay Area counties over the next 25 years, and while the responsibility for drawing up this blueprint lies with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), a large and diverse group of stakeholders participated in the process as well.
Residents, business owners, community representatives, and a host of different nonprofits interfaced with MTC and its partners — Caltrans, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, county congestion management agencies — to cultivate ideas and construct solutions for the region’s transportation needs. Hundreds of people turned out to give comment at an extended series of RTP meetings, workshops, and focus groups, and thousands more weighed in remotely through telephone and Internet surveys.
No one who joined in this protracted conversation would claim it went smoothly the whole way, and most would not likely avow 100 percent satisfaction with the results, either; to expect otherwise on both fronts seems less than realistic for a project of this scope. Nonetheless, the formal adoption of the new RTP at MTC’s April 22 convening appeared to be a solid endorsement for the notion that government and activists can collaborate productively.
As Carli Paine of TransForm told the commissioners that day, “I’m here today to thank you for conducting the Regional Transportation Plan in a way that many advocates had been asking this agency to do for many years. We want to acknowledge that you broke with past tradition by setting out goals and establishing a vision and establishing targets for the plan at the initial steps.”
The transportation program director for the Oakland-based organization was referring to the fact that MTC did not approach this RTP with the conventional first step of focusing on budget figures, but instead started from a big picture conception for what the Bay Area’s transportation network should look like in the year 2035. Through the lens of economy, environment, and equity, the agency offered up an image of a future in which access, safety, connectivity, and choice would characterize a system buttressed with technological innovations and ecological protections, ultimately leading to a higher quality of life across the region. Adding quantifiable specificity to this image, MTC set benchmarks for reducing vehicle miles traveled, roadway congestion, harmful emissions, collisions and their accompanying fatalities, and transportation and housing costs for low-income families.
“It’s been extremely rewarding to watch the Commission set goals and targets for what we want to achieve as a region, and start measuring the projects and programs that we’re funding based on those goals and targets,” testified Stephanie Reyes, policy director for the open space conservation group Greenbelt Alliance, adding that “we’re really blazing a new trail here.”
Not everyone in the room shared the same optimism, however, as demonstrated in Bob Allen’s comments to the Commission on behalf of environmental justice proponent Urban Habitat, where he serves as director for transportation and housing. “Beginning with a vision is a really important step,” he acknowledged, but went on to declare that “moving closer to what we need as a region is simply not enough… in terms of dealing with climate change and the challenges we’re facing.”
In making this point, Allen referred to the demands of the California legislature’s recently passed Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg) and the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, both of which seek to curb greenhouse gases. Achieving these reductions looks to be a tall order — no one is disagreeing on that front. Language in the RTP draft concedes that more work will be necessary, admitting the plan “comes up short of the mark” and represents “but a beginning. Further actions — involving policies, operating initiatives, institutional arrangements, additional investments and new legal authority — must be taken to move the Bay Area further along the path to change.”
Naturally, MTC will be spearheading these efforts, as it is the agency’s duty dictated by law. Yet right there alongside it, every step of the way, a multitude of concerned citizens will be shouldering the load as well, making their voices heard and hoping to exert a little democratic leverage in shaping the region. It wouldn’t be a very vibrant Bay Area otherwise.
The finalized version of Transportation 2035: Change in Motion is due to be published in the near future. In the meantime, for printed copies of the draft plan, contact the MTC-ABAG Library via email at library@mtc.ca.gov or by phone at (510) 817-5836.
By Alec MacDonald
The adoption of the new RTP signaled a greenlight for the establishment of an 800-mile High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) network, one of the plan’s most talked-about aspects.
Traversing all nine Bay Area counties, this network would expand upon existing High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lanes, where carpooling vehicles (those containing a minimum of two or in some cases three people) have the ability to bypass both traffic and bridge tolls. As the name indicates, HOT lanes would allow single drivers to share in this privilege for the price of a toll.
Money would be collected from these drivers via the automatic FasTrak system currently in use on the region’s toll bridges, and this revenue stream would cover the costs of developing and operating the lanes. Surplus revenue could be used for a variety of improvements along the lanes’ corridors.
Many transportation leaders feel that such market-based pricing will be the wave of the future, making freeways more efficient, easing congestion, and decreasing vehicle emissions — but this strategy has its detractors, too. Some fear that making driving a breezier experience in this manner will foster increased auto dependence at the expense of public transit and the environment, while others feel the system simply won’t work.
There may not be long to wait in finding out who’s right. Legislation in the form of Assembly Bill 744 (Torrico) is now being considered that would permit the Bay Area Toll Authority to create the network, and two lanes (on I-580 in the Livermore Valley, and on I-680 along the Sunol Grade between Pleasanton and Fremont) are already scheduled to open up late next year.
Visit http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov for updates and further information.
By Alec MacDonald
Journeys that begin or end at Oakland International Airport often total thousands of miles. What’s another 3.2? Mathematically, almost nothing, but politically, it feels like everything.
The short distance between the airport and the Coliseum BART station has become subject to scrutiny in a heated debate over how to get people from their planes to their trains and back again. Currently, travelers can take AirBART, a shuttle bus that makes the trip in roughly 15 minutes for three dollars. As soon as 2013, however, they may be able to save time by taking an elevated tram instead, although at double the fare.
Crowds have flocked to BART board meetings as supporters and opponents of the tram idea have both sought to make their case. Those in favor claim that the service would attract more riders, and that construction of the project would create some 13,000 new jobs. Those opposed counter that the existing shuttle system could be improved for much cheaper; by spending approximately $50 million, they believe BART could operate an enhanced express bus line without even charging riders a single penny.
At its May 14 convening, however, the board elected to pursue the tram option, which has been projected to cost ten times the proposed alternative. How to gather enough funding to match this expense? A collection of regional, state, and federal dollars will be needed, and so BART staff have been trying to assemble all the pieces of this complicated financial pie. The agency is well on its way, but will need a loan of $150 million through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s TIFIA program. What’s more, the Port of Oakland will have to pitch in with $44 million, a move which that agency’s board will discuss in the near future — in what may be yet another jam-packed meeting.
By Chris Ingraham
Perchloroethylene is a colorless, highly stable, nonflammable, halogenated liquid known to dissolve many organic materials, which makes it useful as a solvent in dry cleaning. Once exposed to air, however, the liquid evaporates, and airborne exposure acts as a central nervous system depressant and is considered a probable carcinogen to humans. At high occupational levels of exposure, dizziness, headaches, fatigue, and even unconsciousness can result. Liver and kidney damage, along with memory loss and confusion, may also be exhibited at occupational levels. Most every expert agrees that perchloroethylene — or perc for short — is toxic to humans and animals, but more than half of the Bay Area’s dry cleaning facilities use it. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, therefore, has spearheaded a call for amending the region’s dry cleaning regulations.
Last March, the agency’s board of directors conducted a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to some of the key Air District regulations governing the emission of perc from dry cleaning operations. The new amendments were adopted during the public hearing; they provide deadlines that update and more thoroughly and aggressively regulate environmentally insalubrious practices related to the use of perc and other synthetic solvents.
The first of these deadlines is July 1, 2009. Dry cleaning operators will then be prohibited from purchasing spotting solutions that contain halogenated solvents like perc or trichloroethylene; use of halogenated spotting solutions will be completely prohibited on July 1, 2010. By December 31, 2009 any facility still using perc solvent must officially submit its intent and, where appropriate, the relevant construction applications needed to convert to an alternative dry cleaning method. All facilities must provide either the expected dates of their new equipment’s installation, or the date their perc equipment will cease operation. The ultimate deadline these regulations are working toward is January 1, 2023, when all perc dry cleaning operations will be prohibited. Before then, there will be one more intermediary deadline on July 1, 2010, when all co-residential perc facilities, converted machines, and all perc solvent machines whose date of manufacture is either prior to July 1, 1995 or unknown, will cease operation. Thereafter, all perc equipment with a date of manufacture after July 1, 1995 must cease operation when the equipment reaches fifteen years of age.
The history of the state’s battle with perc dates back almost two decades. California’s Air Resources Board first identified it as a toxic air contaminant in 1991, under California’s Toxic Air Contaminant identification and Control Program. In 1993, the Air Resources Board adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations. This “Dry Cleaning ATCM” (other ATCMs concern regulations for industrial pollutants, diesel engine exhaust, and so on) delineated the initial requirements for equipment, operations, maintenance, record keeping, and reporting that dry cleaners throughout the state would need to fulfill in order to pass muster. Where the requirements called for trained experts, an environmental training program set forth the criteria by which the Air Resources Board might approve instructors capable of training dry cleaning operators on the proper use of perc dry cleaning equipment. The problem seemed to be solved.
Ten years later, in 2003, the Air Resources Board evaluated the effectiveness of the Dry Cleaning ATCM, and, although they found the measure to be 70 percent effective, they also determined that more stringent measures could be taken to reduce perc emissions from dry cleaners more thoroughly. These changes took effect in 2007, becoming state law, to which the Air District’s new amendments offer still more assiduous attempts to eradicate the hazardous emission of perc.
When non-halogenated dry cleaning machines eventually replace those that rely on perc solvent, the new non-halogenated equipment will face regulations of its own. All new non-halogenated dry cleaning machines must be closed-loop, which are very efficient and only emit small quantities of solvent (from leaks and loading doors). Non-halogenated machines will also face new annual gross consumption levels in order to be deemed exempt from permit requirements. Whereas 700 gallons per year sufficed previously to qualify for exemption, the new figure has dropped to 200 gallons per year. Registration will be required for facilities exempt from permit requirements. If the Air District’s new checkpoints proceed as scheduled, by 2023 California will have shown that ideal to be possible.
Port of Oakland Finalizes Maritime Air Quality Improvement Plan On April 7, the Port of Oakland adopted its Maritime Air Quality Improvement Plan. Visit www.portofoakland.com/environm/prog_04c.asp for more details, and www.bayareamonitor.org to read previous Monitor coverage of this issue. |
|---|
By Gail Schickele
The biofuel industry is growing at an explosive rate, as oil companies to “green” upstarts race to find fossil fuel alternatives to lower carbon emissions and help curb global warming. But critics allege we may be moving too fast in the wrong direction.
The two most common forms of biofuel are ethanol (usually made from corn and intended for use in gasoline-powered engines) and biodiesel (made by chemically combining any natural oil or fat with an alcohol, usually methanol, for use in diesel engines). Ethanol is commonly mixed with petroleum-based gasoline, with the standard blend a mixture of 10 percent ethanol to 90 percent gasoline, known as E10. Biodiesel is commonly mixed with petroleum-based diesel in a blend of 5 to 20 percent (B5-B20). These blend levels reduce particulate matter, keep fuel costs low, and abate concerns about engine performance in this relatively new mass technology.
In 2003 Berkeley paved the way in the Bay Area by converting all city diesel vehicles to 100 percent biodiesel (B100), but later switched to a B20 blend.
In 2004, the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Division of Measurement Standards, in response to the standard set by the American Society for Testing and Materials, prohibited the sale of fuel containing more than 20 percent biodiesel to the public, pending further testing. Waivers were awarded to maverick biofuel stations such as Berkeley’s worker-owned cooperative Biofuel Oasis, which sells B100 on the condition they file quarterly reports on vehicle types, the amount of fuel used, and any fuel related problems.
“B20 maximizes most environmental benefits of biodiesel,” explained Shelby Neal, director of State Governmental Affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, a trade association representing the biodiesel industry. “Over B20 you start to see diminishing returns except for carbon reductions, which are maximized at B100,” he said, adding, “We see a lot of municipal fleets that use B20 for this reason, including San Francisco.”
Other Bay Area municipalities are following the biofuel path as well.
In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act stipulating a Renewable Fuel Standard Program, which required nine billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels blended into gasoline last year. The amount will rise annually toward 36 billion gallons a year in 2022.
Now, new business and investment opportunities are expected to result from the Obama Administration’s plan for biofuels research, its directive to the Agricultural Department to preserve biofuel industry jobs, and the appointment of an interagency group — led by the secretaries of the Energy and Agriculture departments and the administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — to explore ways to get automakers to produce more ethanol-fueled cars and fueling stations.
Yet despite the momentum toward replacing fossil fuels with biofuels, critics point out that there’s trouble in biofuel paradise.
On May 5, the EPA reported findings about what kind of greenhouse gas emissions might be expected from a massive increase in the usage of biofuels. Over a 100-year timeline, the agency projected corn ethanol producing 16 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline; however, corn ethanol will likely be replaced by more efficient fuels before the beginning of next century. Therefore, it may be more realistic to look at a 30-year timeline — which the EPA also did, calculating that corn ethanol would account for five percent more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline during this span. Either way, both projections fail to meet the requirement for renewable fuels: bettering gasoline by a margin of 20 percent.
The EPA’s findings were not universally accepted; controversy has surrounded the fact that it accounted for the possibility that domestically, corn grown for ethanol may displace food crops, which in turn could drive agriculture to other countries, resulting in the loss of carbon dioxide-capturing forestland. Proponents in the ethanol industry argue that such inclusion is unrealistic and undermines competitiveness, while some scientists contend that it gives a misleading profile of biofuels, and that proper management of land after it’s turned to cropland is key to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. But other experts disagree, maintaining that growing enough crops to meet the demand for food, animal feed, and renewable fuels will require converting too much of the world’s remaining forests and open spaces over to agricultural land.
According to Matthew Brown, an energy consultant and former energy program director at the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, replacing only five percent of the nation’s diesel consumption with soy-based biodiesel would require diverting about 60 percent of today’s soy crops to biodiesel production. (The National Biodiesel Board, on the other hand, claims this figure is closer to 30 percent.) On the ethanol side of the equation, according to Cornell professor David Pimentel, about $6 billion in annual government subsidies is spent for corn ethanol, 1,700 gallons of water are used for every gallon of ethanol produced, and corn is the primary cause of soil erosion in the U.S. Such independent studies on ethanol by Pimentel (former chairman of the Gasohol Panel of the Department of Energy) and by U.C. Berkeley professor Tad Patzek (a former Shell Oil scientist) indicate that ethanol is a net energy loser.
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, who chairs the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, questioned whether the current U.S. market could absorb annual increased ethanol supplies. “As [gasoline] consumption decreases our biofuels standard increases,” he said in an April hearing. “Are we moving too fast for our infrastructure and engines to handle the biofuels safely?”
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has purchased over 63,000 gallons of B20 to fuel diesel-powered equipment such as generators and pumps and diesel vehicles for NASA Ames Research Center in Santa Clara County’s Moffett Field. Now, NASA scientists are suggesting using algae-based biodiesel, considered by some to be a promising new kind of “clean energy” process that cleans waste water, removes carbon dioxide from the air, retains important nutrients, and doesn’t compete with agriculture for land or freshwater. Algae plants are oil-rich and easy to grow but they need freshwater to thrive, so NASA research scientist Jonathan Trent proposes using offshore membrane enclosures to grow algae.
“We’re going to deploy a large plastic bag in the ocean, and fill it with sewage,” he said. “The algae use sewage to grow, and in the process of growing they clean up the sewage.” NASA is testing these membranes for recycling dirty water on future long-duration space missions. According to Trent, the system does not pose a risk of introducing an invasive species to the ocean, because if the bag leaks, the enclosed freshwater algae will die in the saltwater. The bags are expected to last two years, and will be recycled afterward.
In the meantime, it appears that biofuels are here to stay as we make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, which is competitively researched and created each day from a combination of sources including wind, solar, hydrogen, hydroenergy, and geothermal, along with one integral component upon which everyone agrees: conservation.
Further reading online from the EPA, NASA, and Tad Patzek:
www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f09024.htm
www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/greenspace/clean-energy.html
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/qatop.htm