I have been hearing so much about green energy lately, and seen so many smug celebrities doing their best Ed Begley impressions, that I have to ask, exactly how "green" is all this "green energy" of which they are so proud?

Let's start with "bio-diesel". This is one of those feel good energy sources that the green crowd proclaims as beneficial, yet doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Yes, it is possible to use things such as used cooking oil to power vehicles, but that is rarely done. First of all, to the degree cooking oil has broken down during use, it contains less energy. Second, used oil often contains impurities which make it a pretty bad choice. Instead, most bio-diesel advocates end up using clean vegetable oils. And how do those vegetable oils get produced? From farms using petro-chemical driven harvesters, fertilized with traditional fertilizers, etc. In other words, producing that gallon of "bio-diesel" required just as much pollution as burning a gallon of traditional diesel would. In fact, thanks to the relatively low energy content of most bio-fuel sources, it probably took more pollution to produce the energy.

So, what about electric cars? Well, ignoring the incredible problem with availability (as recharging can take most of day, and gives you the range of about 4 gallons of gasoline), the question arises where the electricity originates? As I already covered the problems with solar and its diffuse nature, I doubt anyone is using a few square miles of solar cells to charge their car. So, unless your power provider wisely sues nuclear, or you live next to one of the rare geothermal generators, I am imagining your electricity comes form dirty old coal, gas or oil. Which means, once again, the energy you think is so "clean" is really just as dirty as a gasoline driven auto, you just don't see the pollution.

And, in the end, that is the problem with most "green" energy sources, that they simply shuffle the pollution out of sight, while not eliminating it. Be it bio-diesel, gasahol, electric cars, what have you, most plans for "green" energy just move a diffuse source of pollution to  create centers of pollution at generators or farms, often ending up with more pollution as well. (The gasahol program is a perfect example of using more energy to produce less, as a result producing more pollution as well.)

I can see two relatively easy "green" energy sources which are currently outside the pale for most environmentalists inside and outside the government. First, electric cars powered by nuclear energy, though they retain the big availability and recharging problems, and, even better, fuel cell vehicles powered by hydrogen created through electrolysis driven by nuclear electricity. The second solution would have the benefits of not only being a clean power source, but having none of the availability issues purely electric cars have.

However, while environmentalists have been willing to consider fuel cells, very, very few have been open to nuclear power, and the government appears to be actively opposed to it. Which means that the best source of clean energy is taken off the table from the beginning, which seems a strange position for those claiming to want "clean energy".

Which is why I often ask if some in the environmental movement have a different agenda, rather than simply wanting to make sure we use "clean" sources of energy.

POSTSCRIPT

I know "gasahol" is a somewhat out of date term for gasoline/alcohol mix, but the current favored term "ethanol" confuses me, as to me "ethanol" is simply grain alcohol. However, as it is usually used to describe what is an ethanol/gasoline mix, (or sometimes a mixture of denatured alcohol and gasoline, thus a mix of ethanol, methanol and gasoline) it seems strange to call the resultant mixture "ethanol". It is akin to calling a milkshake "ice cream" or pancake batter "eggs". So I am sticking with the older term "gasahol", a sit makes more sense to me. (Yes, some of the "ethanol" in use is used as pure ethanol, or as denatured alcohol -- ethanol with some included methanol-- but the vast majority is used mixed with some quantity of gasoline, making the "ethanol" designation confusing, to say the least.)

POSTSCRIPT II

Oddly enough, a rerun of Gordon Ramsey's The F Word showed production of biodiesel from cooking oil. First of all, I noticed the cooking oil was relatively clean, not broken down. But secondly, they had to add caustic soda and methanol. Both of which also require energy for their production. Considering that, it appears that once again the production of "green energy" requires other energy inputs, the polluting quality of which is never considered. (I had not even thought of the conversion process from cooking oil to diesel, and had forgotten the additional inputs. This actually makes me think even less fondly of the biodiesel movement.)

POSTSCRIPT III

Actually, the methanol does explain something. As diesel is a relatively concentrated energy source (though not to the degree gasoline is),  I often wondered how a less potent source such as cooking oil could be a 1-to-1 replacement for diesel. I think biodiesel actually gets less mileage than standard petro-diesel, on a gallon to gallon basis, but it still seemed odd that cooking oil could be even a close substitute. The processing with methanol and other chemical explains a lot to me. Thanks to the methanol (a source of energy) the cooking oil picks up more stored energy. That now makes sense, though it gives lie to the idea you can run a car on nothing but old cooking oil, which seems to be the line promoted by many environmental groups. Instead you can run a car on cooking oil, caustic soda and methanol, which is a lot less surprising. And a lot more polluting.

CORRECTION

Glenn corrected me and pointed out diesel actually contains more energy per gallon than gasoline. (My mistake was due to the generally bad engineering of diesel cars a few decades ago, where available power was usually less. I can't speak of more modern diesel vehicles as I don't drive at the moment, so they may better, I don't know.) This still does not change my point, as bio-diesel simply does not produce "clean energy" without inputs of polluting energy, and I do still recall hearing that mileage is worse with biodiesel than petro-diesel, but I can't find a link at the moment, so I may be in error.