Have you ever considered using ethanol as a fuel source?

There are a couple biodiesel stations in West Seattle.  The most reasonable priced currently seems to be Propel on Morgan and 35th.  (Until I can get an electric car, I ride the scooter when it's not raining, and the diesel truck when the weather's lousy.)  There are other Propel stations in the area:

http://www.propelfuels.com/content/station_locator/

Review of open letter from CEO of Shell. My comments are in blue.
Jim Miller
March 5, 2008



From: Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive
 To: All Shell employees. 
 Date: 22 January 2008
Subject: Shell Energy Senarios
Dear Colleagues
In this letter, I'd like to share reflections about how we see the energy future, and our preferred route to meeting the world's energy needs. Industry, governments and energy users - that is, all of us - will face the twin challenge of more energy and less CO2. Energy demand is driven by increasing population and increasing use of mech/electric energy. Fossil fuel has been the “cheap” source of this energy. Shell wants more profits, thus wants more cheap sources of energy since profits is the net difference between gross sales and cost of goods/greed. Less demand and thus lower prices and less CO2 results from having a smaller carbon footprint. This goal can only be achieved by a smaller population, or a lower standard of living – take your pick, you only get one choice.
This letter is based on a text I've written for publication in several newspapers in the coming weeks. You can use it in your communications externally. There will be more information about energy scenarios in the months ahead.
By the year 2100, [actually in 2030 per Albert Bates: http://www.amazon.com/Post-Petroleum-Survival-Guide-Cookbook-Changing/dp/0865715688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205078960&sr=8-1] the world's energy system will be radically different from today's. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy too will have a place. I doubt atomic energy will be used until there is a “safe” way to dispose of the waste other than making munitions out of the waste.
Mankind will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles. This hope is a good one, but a generally false one. The rate of increase of demand for more energy has and will likely continue to outstrip the technological advances. While I agree that technology should be developed and employed ASAP, the fundamental problems of population growth and higher consumption per capita of energy are the causes of our environmental and economic problems.
Indeed, the distant future looks bright, [but only to the super-rich] but getting there will be an adventure. At Shell, we think the world will take one of two possible routes. The first, a scenario we call Scramble, resembles a race through a mountainous desert. Like an off-road rally, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of "more haste" will often be "less speed" and many will crash along the way. My guess is that the greater energy and thought which goes into the “scramble” will, in the long run, achieve greater rewards for the greater mass of folks.
The alternative scenario, called Blueprints, has some false starts and develops like a cautious ride on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technical innovation provides for excitement. The authors of this “blueprint” will of course be the multi-nationals whose “discoveries” are financed by the taxpayers. The multi-nationals will reap all of the profits and never repay the taxpayers directly or indirectly.
Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. True. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.
 We crossed the threshold of the Peak Oil Crisis in USA in the 1970's and world-wide about two years ago. As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy - renewables , yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.
In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast. Local coal may not be an energy source much longer. Consider the cost of environmental clean-up of the waste (high acid content); this cost is not now paid by the coal extractors. When those costs are imposed on the coal extractors, they will shut down the mines and not start new ones.
Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. True. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility. True. Responsible folks have been raising the alarm for many years; yet Bush, et al., ignore the facts. "Energy price spikes" result from the major oil companies agreeing to raise prices in a "follow-the-leader" system of violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
The other route to the future is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. This Blueprints scenario sees numerous coalitions emerging to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation. We have many examples of how pollution is handled: put the dirty plants in economically depressed countries and neighborhoods, extract “energy credits” which are used maintain the dirty plants. Energy credits are simply snake oil, slide-or-hand magic and fake environmental protection.
Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.
As calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a cost on industrial CO 2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, [True, but when you figure in the cost of producing the electricity and hydrogen, this system is at best, a break even and most probably a net loss] while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO 2 and store it underground. Why not use this “excess” CO2 to grow algae?
Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will only know in a few years whether December's Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the beginning of a global effort to counter it. The Bali Declaration continues to guide us toward a cleaner environment. It is based on solid science, not “rhetoric” which is a dismissive term and does not correctly identify the power of fact, logic and wisdom which underpins the Bali Declaration. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington. These governments are the captive vassals of the multi-nationals. Why shift the responsibility to the “actors” when the responsibility rests on the multi-national, super-rich, corporatists?
Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our grandchildren, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy and environment. In other words, van der Veer wants us to trust the super-rich, multi-nationals who have supported torture, murder, genocide and economic repression for centuries. See: See The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw.
For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced. The MIT study was probably supported by these same multi-national energy corporations. I'm not against MIT or planning, but he who pays for the plan gets the plan shaped to his own benefit. Like one pharmaceutical researcher said, “Give me $100,000 and I can prove anything you want.”
The sobering reality is that the Blueprints scenario will only come to pass if policymakers agree a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, mobility and buildings. It will be hard work and there is little time. Trading energy credits is like doing each other's laundry. There is no net savings or profits. The only carbon neutral system I have found is to use the sun's energy, converted to algae, converted to biodiesel, and converted to useful energy.
For instance, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries in 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, there are none. Since CO2 capture and storage adds cost and brings no revenues , government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the very least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store. Again, we see the hands of the multi-nationals dipping into the pockets of the taxpayers and no probability of direct repayments.
Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.
The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driving seat. No, the corporatists are in the diving seat and governments are the vassals. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for a bitter competition or a true team effort.
That is the article, and how I see our challenges and opportunities. I look forward to hearing how you see the situation (please be concise).
The only course Shell can take is to develop alternative sources of clean energy, to use the Sun's daily power by use of wind, photoelectric, sea and plant technology, such as algal oil-to-biodiesel approach. Pardon me while I fall asleep, waiting for Shell to do something along these lines of research.



Regards
Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive