Gristmill community chastised!
The global nature of global warming 70
-
Posted 12:35 AM on 2 Dec 2007
by Biodiversivist -
Posted in
-
Read More About
My real name is Russ Finley. I live in Seattle, married with children. Suffice it to say that although I am trained and educated as an engineer, my passion is nature. I very much want my grandchildren to live on a planet where lions, tigers, and bears have not joined the long and growing list of creatures that used to be. In an attempt to minimize the workload on Grist editors responsible for turning my submissions into intelligible articles, I will also be posting on a seperate blog called Biodiversivist, which will contain articles in addition to those submitted to Grist.
Related Stories
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
A Siegel Posted 9:37 pm
01 Dec 2007
Couple points/thoughts/perspectives:
To me, "ethanol" and biofuels are a potential small piece of Silver Buckshot (at most ... a fragment). There are situations/environments where some pursuit of them can truly make sense. This should be done, as much as possible, in conjunction with efforts for greater efficiency (as you write), but there are situations where they make sense. Now, to me, these almost entirely move past corn ethanol to things like biofuels from waste or, perhaps, jatropha in Haiti for making biodiesel.
The one 'silver bullet' element of biofuels in the United States, to me, is the potential that gem-flex fuel PHEVs, using some biofuels in the mix, could be game changing in terms of US use of liquid fossil fuels. If a PHEV creates a path for a 90% reduction in fossil fuel and, well, cellulosic ethanol (if it ever emerges) could be producing the equivalent of several percent of today's fuel requirements, this creates a vehicle with 500+ mpg equivalent for gasoline.
As a query, there is an interesting systems of systems element. I've not tracked back but have seen (David Sandalow, Freedom from Oil) that the savings in reduced farm subsidies are more than twice in value (now?) compared to the costs of the corn ethanol subsidy. Interesting item to factor into the discussion.
Back to the top: much appreciated/excellent post.
Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:02 pm
01 Dec 2007
What BioD said!!! Jia Yo!!! (Means go on, you will here it as a chant a lot at next year's Olympics, might as well start getting used to it!!).
I wish I had my QQ dancing walrus to send you!!
Go!! Go!! Jia Yo!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:22 pm
01 Dec 2007
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
trock Posted 10:44 pm
01 Dec 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:24 am
02 Dec 2007
Well that one depends how you look at it.
On the other hand, it's driving up rents, for renters. While at the same time raising up input costs.
http://greyfalcon.net/farmers2
For a farmer that doesn't outright own their land (Which is about half of all farmers) Their marginal returns are getting worse.
Permalink
nedruod Posted 2:05 am
02 Dec 2007
My opinion is ethanol has a place, in moderation. It's not a replacement for oil, certainly not in the quantities we currently use, but as an additive it is positive. People have cars today that will be on the road for another twenty, and they won't get more efficient, and they won't start being able to run off batteries, hydrogen, or (except for a few cases) E-85 or biodiesel. But they all run on E-10 just fine.
In the future we hope more efficient cars will be produced, purchases and used to replace cars that have reached the end of their usable life. We also hope many battery/electric cars, or at least plug-in hybrids will be produced to take more pressure off liquid fuel usage.
As this happens, one of the big arguments against ethanol and bio-diesels will disappear because less liquid fuel consumption will mean it will be plausible for these fuels to meet a bigger percentage of the liquid fuel demand without increases in production.
We also hope that production will become more efficient. How much is hard to say, but some progress is certain.
So, say 15 years from now 50% of our vehicle fleet is electric, 30% is standard petrol, 10% is diesel, and 10% is flex fuel. Say, cellulosic has
increased production efficiency by 50%. Today, ethanol is about about 6% of gasoline, so that would mean about 9% of today's usage. The 30% petrol vehicles would use about 3% of ethanol produced as E-10, and the 5% E-85 would use about 4.25%. Together they would reduce gasoline usage by 20% and use 20% less cropland than it does today.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:05 am
02 Dec 2007
It reminds one of the nuclear power and clean coal advocates.
How can obviously intelligent, articulate people like this fail to perceive and aknowledge the fatal flaws in their favorite schemes (scams)?
Because what is missing in all these studies and graphs is a simple presentation of the facts and how they fit together to provide enlightenment. Overly complex argumentation containing mainly superfluous content makes self deception very easy.
Without self deception, the internal integrity factor could have them looking for other work. Jeremy Carl and Brooke have similar problems, if they aknowledge reality, there goes either their integrity or their pay check.
We need to keep the pressure on them to convert their POV and careers to a more realistic mode. We need them in this battle..on our side.
Grist actually gets to the heart of these complex matters and exposes the simple decisions that need to be made. If they aren't boiled down to simple decisions, forget gathering any kind of political will behind a real energy policy to stop GHG climate disaster, economic decline from ever rising energy prices, and endless wars over oil and nuclear proliferation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
trock Posted 2:17 am
02 Dec 2007
What I would like to see in rural America is a grove of trees of about 500 acres next to each town. Put in 10 miles of trails for walking, hiking and Bicycling, some cabins maybe for vacationers, park areas. That would give people some room to exercise and maybe reduce some health bills. The grove can be harvested sustainably for firewood and eventually lumber. But with expensive land, it could never be done.
Fence row to fence row crops strips towns of recreation and interesting things in a community. We are after the money grab, but we forget some about the people. Personally, I've never been impressed with expensive cars, personal property, give me recreation and something fun to do anyday.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:25 am
02 Dec 2007
One aspect of this whole debate that is increasingly coming to the fore is the issue of displacement. Until very recently, GHG emission comparisons made no allowance for carbon released as a result of land-use change. The life-cycle analyses examined by Alexander Farrell et al. in their much-cited article in Science, for example, ignored this effect. However, the importance of the displacement effect is being increasingly recognized.
A good illustration of this is the recent (August 2007) study by by Tom Beer, Tim Grant and Peter K Campbell of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO): The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in
Australia, Report Number KS54C/1/F2.27. Here are the results of a comparison the authors made of the life-cycle emissions of different varieties of biodiesel compared with petroleum diesel, in grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilometer driven:
Ultra low-sulphur diesel .............. 834
Canola (rapeseed) ..................... 433
Tallow (rendered animal fat) ........ 209
Used cooking oil .......................... 109
Palm oil from existing plantation .... 175
Palm oil from rainforest ................ 8,075
Palm oil from peat-swamp forest .. 18,108
Note that biodiesel made from palm oil produced on land that until recently was peat-swamp forest yields GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis that are more than 20 times greater than for petroleum diesel.
Of course, the comparison with biodiesel made from canola (rapeseed) assumes that the canola is farmed from land already under cultivation. But the same logic applies to canola as for palm oil (or for ethanol feedstocks). Ultimately, from the standpoint of GHG emissions, it matters less whether the feedstock comes from a particular farm that is no longer releasing carbon from the soil, but whether the diversion of that feedstock into biofuels leads to the conversion of grasslands or forests to agriculture elsewhere.
That is the fundamental flaw in the response of some environmental groups and European governments: "Don't worry, we'll ensure all of our biofuels are sourced from certified sustainably operated farms -- ones that were not created by chopping down forests or ploughing up grasslands."
Assume for a minute that all of the palm oil used to make biodiesel were to come from old, 19th-century plantations in Malaysia or Indonesia. Would the former consumers of that oil just shrug and say, OK, I guess I'll stop using palm oil? Probably not. The price for palm oil will rise (as it has in the last couple of years -- dramatically), and new plantations will be created. The effect on GHG emissions will be the same as if the palm oil had been sourced from those plantations instead and the original consumers had simply kept buying palm oil from the established plantations.
Permalink
Another Tom Posted 2:34 am
02 Dec 2007
As I read your response to Brooke Coleman's defense of corn-ethanol, what immediately jumps out at me is the higher corn prices you cite. Let me first say that while corn acreage has increased in the short term, the trend has never been consistent, and it is not now at a historical high.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, corn acreage planted in the U.S. in the 20th century peaked at 113 million acres in 1932. Since then it has trended down, and for the most part, fallen in a range of 70 to 95 million acres. In 2007, the total was 93.6 million acres or about 30% less acreage than the peak in 1932.
Additionally, surplus corn, or carryout, this year is projected at 1.9 billion (not million) bushels, a 45% increase over 2006. The surplus this year exceeds the 20-year average and is the fifth highest level in the last two decades.
The contention that the development of farmland for corn is destroying open space lands not used previously for farming is not true. The fact is land devoted to farming has been trending lower since 1932. All acreage under cultivation that year totaled 320.4 million acres compared to 278.1 million acres in 2007, or 13% less land used for farming this year.
Corn production per acre has increased five fold since 1932, which explains how we get more corn. The USDA and several other agencies agree that 170 million bushels and more can be achieved in the next decade.
Ok, this begs the obvious question. Why are corn prices so high? Actually, corn prices are not very high, but the sudden jump this past year is speculative in nature and not a result of actual market conditions. We've heard this before...in the oil markets. Speculation is rampant in the commodities, and corn speculation has increased ten-fold, based purely on the ethanol factor, while ignoring the fact that we have such a huge surplus.
Your mention of how hungry the world is getting, and you're hopeful that other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks is both uninformed and baseless. The numbers tell the story. Just check with the DOA.
On to ethanol. Henry Ford was the first to burn gasohol in his new engine, but in reality, the ethanol industry is in its infancy. As someone who has watched the technology advance in just three years, I have a hard time with those that close the book on ethanol because they do not see what's happening every day. Simply, the ethanol industry does not have the dollars to compete with Big Oil propaganda.
Just a couple of examples: Panda Ethanol will open its Hereford, TX plant in early 2008, which is located in West Texas--the king of cattle manure. The piles of cattle manure are 30 feet high, and produce enough methane gas to dwarf a large refinery's contribution to "bad" emissions. Panda will use this manure to power its plant and virtually eliminate the need to burn natural gas to fuel the plant, plus solve a local environmental problem.
POET, the country's largest ethanol producer is doubling the capacity of its Chancellor, SD plant, from 50 to 100 million gallons per year, without increasing fossil fuel use. They are building a solid-waste fuel boiler that will generate enough steam to produce more than half of the expanded plant's power needs. There is also much movement on water usage, which has been another criticism that has gained ground in recent months. Several plants have already reduced water consumption by 20 percent or more through recycling efforts. More efforts are on the way. But the fact is ethanol plants rank low on the industrial scale with respect to water usage.
I could go on and on, but I would be sitting here all day, and I do have football to watch. My main point here is traditional production of ethanol is evolving daily. In the next ten years, it will be an industry that you won't recognize. Self criticism is very apparent in this industry. They understand that if they get up in the morning and put on a green suit, they need to "walk the talk." The people I have met in this industry believe in what they are doing, beyond just making a profit. That's far better than the oil industry that still denies global warming even exists. (And please don't believe those BP commercials about "green"...BP has been one of the worst violators of the public trust regarding environmental hazards created intentionally and unintentionally to save a buck.)
Yes I know, your bloggers write volumes about oil, but there is something that is never considered. You may have discussed this topic, and if I missed it I apologize. Much consideration should be given to the cost of oil. And I'm not talking about $90 per barrel. I'm talking somewhere in the $300 to $400 per barrel we the taxpayer is paying for oil. It's our defense budget. Our estimate of the Pentagon's budget attributable to keeping oil flowing around the world is somewhere around 75%. The first Iraq war was not really a defense of Kuwait, it was to make certain Saddam didn't invade Saudi Arabia and seize its oilfields. I'm still not certain about the current Iraq war, except to say that oil is without a doubt part of the equation, and I suspect a large part of the equation.
I have written extensively on this subject and would be happy to forward other articles that go into more detail.
It's easy to dismiss cellulosic ethanol as an unproven science, when in fact it is actually proven. It still needs to be proven commercially, but that is also close to a reality. Whether it's wood chips, corn cobs, switchgrass or just plain old garbage, it is coming.
I noticed you took issue with E85, and the lack of fuel savings and you cited your source for the prices you quote. That site is completely dependent upon voluntary submissions, and is not at all reflective of the true picture.
E85 is a complicated product. First, it's at the mercy of those that sell gasoline traditionally. Many of these are wholesale jobbers that do not have restrictions placed on them by their suppliers--in many cases independent brands. These jobbers though set the profits for their retailers. Major oil company intimidation plays a major role in limiting the amount of E85 available today.
Retailers that install E85 pumps are not necessarily in a position to keep the prices down. Yes, the wholesale ethanol price is lower than gasoline (Currently about 30 cents per gallon lower), and of course there is the 51 cents per gallon blending credit. And who gets the blending credit? That would be the wholesaler (small to mid-sized oil company), and it's not reflected in savings to the consumer. They try to keep the E85 price about 20-25% lower than gasoline.
However, there are those that are selling E85 for much less, in some cases at $1.00 per gallon below unleaded regular. We recently did a survey to find out how E85 is priced, and we found that the majority of retailers are sticking to the 20-25% discount range, while the oil company swallows the blending credit, passing very little if any of it along.
Adkins Energy is an ethanol producer in Lena, IL and sells about 2 million gallons per year into the local E85 market. They told me that "the problem today is that the blender's credit is not passed along to the consumer, which was the intention." As a result, Adkins tries to keep retailer margins under control, insisting that a 15 cents per gallon retail margin is necessary to get the best price for the ethanol it produces. The result in that local market has been E85 that was priced below $2.00 per gallon for much of 2007. In our survey we found E85 prices as mush as 63 cents per gallon higher than in Lena, IL.
E85 is going to have a tough road ahead. However, consider that ethanol has displaced about 4.5 to 4.7 percent of gasoline sold in the U.S. this year, and saved consumers a lot of money in the process. I live in New Jersey, and we have almost 100% compliance on E10 as an unleaded regular grade blend. We reduced gasoline consumption by 10% in 2007, and we have had the lowest retail prices in the nation this year. I found that incredible because New Jersey never has the lowest price for anything.
I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."
Just one glance at the "fossil fuel" results, I have to laugh. I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. Most Canadian crude travels via pipeline. But the significant amount of crude oil that must travel the oceans of the world burn bunker fuel, a high sulfur dastardly concoction of heavy oil. And those tankers do not get very good mileage.
Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil. Ever wonder what the electric bill of a refinery might be? And how much coal is burned to produce that electricity? They never did. To suggest that ethanol's emissions contribution is worse than fossil fuel is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. Frankly, in E10 regions, air quality has improved dramatically. These are EPA findings, not computer modeling.
Food prices rise because oil prices, or specifically diesel prices, rise. This is a fact. On every occasion where there has been "food inflation," without exception, our data has shown that oil prices have been the major factor.
Finally, regarding your reference to consumers not clamoring for ethanol. First, oil companies control the price of E85 in most cases. There have even been lawsuits from oil companies to stop retailers from selling E85 at severe discounts to unleaded regular grade gasoline. Typical consumers are not going to clamor for anything that is not cost effective. Frankly, I admire your ability to reduce the amount of gasoline you consume, and I agree that electric cars would be nirvana, except that the cost of pollution due to recharging batteries that in large part comes from electricity that is produced from coal offsets much of the gain. We need the perfect recharging battery.
But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf and perhaps Venezuela, is a critical necessity because our dependence is the No. 1 national security threat we face. If we do nothing, we are doomed to a presence militarily in the Middle East for decades to come, and we continue to support the very terrorism we claim to fight. Our presence also guarantees that the number of enemies we face will multiply.
The biggest mistake Bush has made is telling everyone to go shopping instead of contributing to the effort to make us safe. I agree with you that the one sure way is to reduce oil consumption, and personal sacrifice is the way. Unfortunately, most Americans are spoiled, and don't want to make changes, until the next attack on America.
But don't underestimate ethanol and how it can contribute to the ultimate goal. It's not a perfect solution, but it is part of the solution. And ethanol is not starving or polluting the world. However, I'm certain that you and many of your bloggers have already developed conclusions about the viability of ethanol...I only hope you keep an open mind and once the pipeline of misinformation slows down, give it another look.
Another Tom
Permalink
Orfintain Posted 2:36 am
02 Dec 2007
People keep saying that ethanol is about 85% as gasoline. That is true in a gasoline engine but if you stick gasoline in an ethanol engine the numbers are reversed. It has to do with the expansion characteristics of the gas.
There was a study that got buried in the bureaucracy about a car that runes on a mixture of ethanol and water(~30%), the normally wasted resistance heat from the combustion process vaporises the water generating more expansion pressure. You can't do this gas because it isn't miscible with water.
In other words you can't compare ethanol efficacy to gas energy without considering gasoline in an ethanol engine would be a fraction of that efficiency.
Not to mention this study(http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/06j ...)
showing a ethanol turbo injection system in which
The consumer cost payback time shows a 4:1 improvement over turbo-diesel and a 5:1 improvement over hybrid. In addition, the problems of water absorption into pre-mixed gasoline (causing phase separation), supply issues of multiple mix ratios and cold-weather starting are avoided.
You can't compare ethanol prices to gas
prices without considering peak oil meaning 5-10 years from the comparison will quite different.
Ethanol makes good sense from an economic standpoint.
I'm glad you reduced you're usage by 80% you're really walking the walk. I'd be great if the American meat consumed dropped by 50%(thus saving the rainforest's from beef farms) too but a-lot of consumption habits are based on economic ability not conscious decisions. Look at china for example.
Much like the nuclear power debate we have people on one side dreaming of an ideal world and others more worried about the best option for tomorrow, the optimists and the pessimists I suppose.
Sure reducing how much energy we use is important but we have to start bringing in more too.
I haven't mortgaged my home on cellulosic but it's odds are alot better than oil.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:14 am
02 Dec 2007
By exposing every possible pro-ethanol argument to Gristmill scrutiny it might get enough attention to kill this boondoggle for good. We might even change her mind? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:19 am
02 Dec 2007
But here's a dirty little secret: oxygenates such as ethanol are required by the Federal Clean Air Act. Given that MTBE was found to be fouling our water supplied as a toxic, and that TAME and other ethers were very expensive, ethanol won the day. Thus it is required in wintertime areas having carbon monoxide and in summertime areas having ozone exceedances (reformulated gasoline). The blending rate is usually 5-10% to gasoline, metered at the terminal rack or splash blended in large tanks.
Interesting, in pursuing the oxygenate mandate the EPA knew that ethanol contributed to additional vapors that could form ozone (refueling, vapor leaks in gas tanks, car fittings, etc.). This is called the "Ethanol Waiver." Most experts would agree that the improvement in carbon monoxide levels due to ethanol-in-gasoline was one of the finest achievements of the EPA air programs.
But there are questions about pushing a market - using our tax money in the form of subsidies - towards higher blending rates such as E85. For all the good intentions, the number of "flex fuel" vehicles and refueling stations just isn't there, which is putting a damper on the corn-ethanol market. If the past experience with government requirements for their fleets to use "bi-fuel" propane or natural gas, one would expect most of these vehicles to run on gasoline most of the time, anyway.
So the real danger is that all these incentives will lead to a glut of tanked ethanol that can't be sold as quickly, thus depressing prices during what could become a recessionary economy in a double whammy. It's ludicrous and idiotic! That's our leaders for ya!
And thanks for the side comment that like most transportation fuels, ethanol is not sold for what it is truly worth. You'll have to talk with the pit and program traders at CIBOT and NYMEX for those answers ...
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:22 am
02 Dec 2007
trock,
We happily accepted the useless $3000 government handout when we bought our Prius. Who in their right mind hands money back to the government? So, take advantage of the good fortune, just don't let it convince you that corn ethanol is good for the planet.
Siegel, nedruod
I agree. Some kind of biofuel may well be used in whatever vastly more efficient vehicles we will be using in the future. If so, the market, guided by good government policy (carbon prices) should pick which fuel, not the lobbyists and well-meaning but misinformed renewable energy enthusiasts. And we sure don't need it today, especially when you consider that putting it in a flex fuel SUV is tantamount to pouring it down a toilet.
The reduction in farm subsidies resulting from the high price of corn can hardly be hailed as a success story. In a free market it is the consumer who is supposed to be king, not business owners. That reduction in subsidies has been offset by the higher prices consumers here and all around the world are paying for other corn products. It is a misleading statistic. The only Americans who have benefited are those who grow corn and produce ethanol and of course the politicians and lobbyists, which would be fine if there were no penalty to the rest of us for improving that group's lot.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:54 am
02 Dec 2007
Indeed, we get this paragraph from "Another Tom":
Yes I know, your bloggers write volumes about oil, but there is something that is never considered. You may have discussed this topic, and if I missed it I apologize. Much consideration should be given to the cost of oil. And I'm not talking about $90 per barrel. I'm talking somewhere in the $300 to $400 per barrel we the taxpayer is paying for oil. It's our defense budget. Our estimate of the Pentagon's budget attributable to keeping oil flowing around the world is somewhere around 75%. The first Iraq war was not really a defense of Kuwait, it was to make certain Saddam didn't invade Saudi Arabia and seize its oilfields. I'm still not certain about the current Iraq war, except to say that oil is without a doubt part of the equation, and I suspect a large part of the equation.
Tom, the author of the Iraq calamity has not just been a reflexive booster of ethanol; he's been it's biggest White House booster ever. Look at who his main ag advisor is.
So we have a contradiction: a president willing to wage war for oil throws billions at an "alternative" to oil. How to evplain it? Here's a shot: ethanol is a good way to generate rents for a few corporate friends, gain some votes in the midwest where farmers have been hammered by ruinous corm prices for decades, grab green cred (evidently) from the gullible ... all without challenging the primacy of big oil an iota.
Meanwhile, the stunning surge an ag productivity you cite has been accompanies by cascades of artificial fertilizers and pesticides,while relying on gigantic fuel-guzzling contraptions called combines. This is our answer to the depredations of the oil industry?
Couldn't we just start investing in mass transit and drive less? Invest in local-ag infrastructure and eat closer to home?
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:38 am
02 Dec 2007
Obviously, we're not at the level we were before the car and suburban sprawl became popular, nor are we anywhere close to say, European standards, but we are movin' forward on those fronts.
Many cities are expanding their mass transit projects, and I know of several cities that are implementing light rail and other systems, and there is growing support for region and nation-wide mass transit.
I've also noticed a large increase in local farmers markets and home gardens.
There's also increased interest in new urbanism and urban infill and urabn village developments. Just a decade or two ago, there were hardly any, now there are hundreds in various stages of development.
I think we're movin' that way, it may be a little slow at times, but I think it's pickin' up speed.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:11 am
02 Dec 2007
Nineteen-thirty-two was the beginning of the dust bowl, following years of over-production and poor rotation practices. As Timothy Egan describes it in his book, The Worst Hard Time (p. 113):
What was happening to the land in the early 1930s was nearly unnoticed at first. Still, it was a different world, off balance, and ill. So when the winds blew in the winter of 1932, they picked up the soil with little resistance and sent it skyward.
In a word, the U.S. farming system in 1932 was unsustainable. Even while farmland was turning to dust in the high plains, corn was being planted up to the crests of ridges in the Appalachians, encouraging massive erosion. No, I don't think we want to return to those days.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:34 am
02 Dec 2007
Is he talking about Paul J. Crutzen, the guy behind the Ozone hole theory?
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
Or Mark A. Delluchi, a well researcher at the Institute of Transportation University California Davis?
http://greyfalcon.net/lca.png
Or Mark Z. Jacobson a nationally acrediced astrophysist operating off of a NASA funded research grant
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/04/vinod-khosla-and- ...
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/mark-jacobson-res ...
Also is that even relevant, since the USDA/DOE studies admit that they do not include land use, soil carbon sinks or nitrogen fixation in their models.
While these studies do. (Although even they still don't give a full impact)
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/landuse
Ad hominem is a rather poor substitute for a real argument.
Frankly, I admire your ability to reduce the amount of gasoline you consume, and I agree that electric cars would be nirvana, except that the cost of pollution due to recharging batteries that in large part comes from electricity that is produced from coal offsets much of the gain. We need the perfect recharging battery.
No it doesn't.
I've never heard of any study that comes to that conclusion.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html
And we don't need a "perfect" battery for plugin hybrids.
Lead acid will do, Nickel Metal Hydride is better, Lithium better, Lithium Polymer best.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
Even the old EV1 could pull some decent recharge speeds if you weren't drained all the way to zero.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf and perhaps Venezuela, is a critical necessity because our dependence is the No. 1 national security threat we face. If we do nothing, we are doomed to a presence militarily in the Middle East for decades to come, and we continue to support the very terrorism we claim to fight. Our presence also guarantees that the number of enemies we face will multiply.
But the alternative isn't "nothing at all".
So thats a rather crass assumption to make.
Instead we're making it artificially more competative with more realistic solutions.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/02/gm-responds-to-us ...
http://greyfalcon.net/oregon
Also the concept that we are ever going to become "Energy Independant" with biofuels;
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
Or that thats really even going to make a difference on the Geopolitical scale is rather laughable.
As long as humans place a high value on liquid fuels, the oil will continue to be sold. Maybe not to the US. But it will certainly continue to be sold. And acting like it won't be is just wrong.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:17 am
02 Dec 2007
I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."
Of course, any study that is not favorable to ethanol MUST be funded by Big Oil. (BioD, did you forget to mention that you got a grant from Exxon to write this blog?) Tom, could you please point to us where in the Crutzen et al. (2007) article to which BioD refers, it mentions how the research was funded?
By the way, Tom, are we talking about the same Big Oil that is funding research into biofuels at U. of California, Berkeley? That has announced it is to become the leading marketer of biofuels in Australia? That is investing in ethanol capacity in Brazil and Canada?
Should we really expect that oil companies would outright reject liquid fuels that can be blended with petroleum products, given that the availability of such fuels increases the attractiveness of owning an internal-cumbustion engine, which is the type of propulsion system that best suits their main product?
In reference to life-cycle analyses of GHG emissions, Tom writes:
I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. ... And those tankers do not get very good mileage.
Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil.
Certain, eh? These studies are not called "well to wheel analyses" for nothing. (See also this study.) They try to compare like with like. And they most certainly take into account the energy consumed in refining crude oil into its constituent products.
As for GHG emissions associated with shipping crude oil by tankers, I presume they are taken into account in the LCAs; but even if not, the emissions are not as large as people think: perhaps 4% of the carbon released by the fuel they are shipping. Partially offsetting the higher transport-related CO2 emissions on the front end of the petroleum cycle, of course, are the higher transport-related CO2 emissions on the back end of the ethanol cycle (transporting it from plant to final user), since ethanol cannot be transported by existing pipelines in the United States, and must be hauled by rail or tanker truck.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:03 am
02 Dec 2007
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/researcher-desc.h ...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:35 pm
02 Dec 2007
Let me first say that while corn acreage has increased in the short term, the trend has never been consistent, and it is not now at a historical high.
I am aware of this, Tom. I also don't see how that fact is relevant. I have never suggested that we have run out of land to be plowed under. That marginal, difficult and expensive-to-farm "environmentally sensitive" land has become wildlife habitat and carbon sinks thanks to the Conservation Reserve program. Didn't I say that already in my post?
Additionally, surplus corn, or carryout, this year is projected at 1.9 billion (not million) bushels, a 45% increase over 2006. The surplus this year exceeds the 20-year average and is the fifth highest level in the last two decades.
From the National Corn Growers site: http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/november/112907.asp
"Surplus corn, or carryout, for the 2007 season is projected at 1.9 billion bushels, a 45 percent increase over 2006. This surplus is well above the 20-year average and is the fifth-highest level in the last two decades."
First, let's define "corn carryout."
"Corn Carryout means the amount of bushels of corn that are currently forecasted to be on hand or in supply that have not been spoken for in trade, or usage. Usage usually consists of corn being used for cattle feed, seed, or ethanol production."
To put this into perspective, according to this site, a billion bushels is only equal to a 30-day supply here in the US. So 1.9 billion bushels is enough for sixty days. Interestingly enough, I found two sources that contradict yours, er, the one I found that you lifted the sentence from: http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templa ...
For 2006/2007, McCambridge expects the USDA to estimate corn carryout at 1.4-1.6 billion bushels. That compares to USDA's April 2005/2006 corn carryout of 2.301 billion bushels.
And http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2007/november/112907.asp
When the USDA released their report on October 12th the current marketing year (2005-06) had a corn carryout of 1.971 billion bushels. The prediction for corn carryout for the next marketing year 2006-07 was reduced to 996 million bushels.
Confusing isn't it? When most people hear the word crop surplus they envision food being sent to a landfill. A crop surplus is good. It is essential to any farming industry. My family is presently drawing down on our 2007 crop surplus. We have bags of dried cherries, bowls of tomatoes, eggs in the fridge and just finished the last of the zucchini bread. All of the grain produced in the United States gets sold to somebody somewhere in the world. The world is flat. If one limits one's vision to the boundaries of the continental United States as you corn ethanol proponents all seem to do, you have a narrow viewpoint--the perspective of a horse with blinders on. In the end it all comes down to how much profit was garnered. Nothing gets sent to the landfill.
The contention that the development of farmland for corn is destroying open space lands not used previously for farming is not true. The fact is land devoted to farming has been trending lower since 1932
It sure isn't true. But that statement is also a huge strawman so I am going to discard it now that I have pointed that out. Re-read the posts. Nobody claimed we are destroying open space in the US not previously used for farming. We have pointed out that putting this grain in gas tanks does destroy open space lands not used previously for farming in other parts of the world.
Your mention of how hungry the world is getting, and you're hopeful that other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks is both uninformed and baseless. The numbers tell the story. Just check with the DOA
Hmm, my statement was backed up by a link to a source that led to other links and other sources. Your statement is not backed up by anything but a vague allusion to the DOA. So, who's statement is uninformed and baseless?
I could go on and on, but I would be sitting here all day, and I do have football to watch. My main point here is traditional production of ethanol is evolving daily
Translation: they are finding more profitable ways to turn corn into ethanol, as one would expect in any market with competitors. What this means is that more of the planet will have to go under the plow if that increase in profit leads to an increase in volume.
The people I have met in this industry believe in what they are doing, beyond just making a profit
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It makes no difference if someone "believes in what they are doing" if what they are doing turns out to be a bad idea. This is not a moral issue. As for this endless attempt to play off big oil, I'll defer to Philpott's response. Unlike you, I am not in the habit of painting companies who do damage to the environment as being populated by evil, greedy, monsters. They are just people rationalizing away unpleasant facts to keep the paycheck coming in, as ethanol proponents are also now doing.
This repeated attempt to paint biofuels as the answer to human conflict is naïve in the extreme. Picture a future when all transport is driven by biofuels and Indonesia becomes our main biodiesel supplier. One day, Malaysia decides to invade them. You don't think we wouldn't go to war to protect our foreign source of oil? Please, spare me. If the Middle East were to suddenly refuse to sell any oil to us tomorrow do you really think ethanol would make a measurable difference? Not a chance. We are at war because the red states (read Corn Belt) voted an imbecile into office twice--period.
It's easy to dismiss cellulosic ethanol as an unproven science, when in fact it is actually proven. It still needs to be proven commercially, but that is also close to a reality. Whether it's wood chips, corn cobs, switchgrass or just plain old garbage, it is coming
You do know what a strawman argument is? I didn't say it is an unproven science. You tell us it is close to a reality, when half a dozen links in the comments suggest otherwise. Personally, I'm going with the experts. It is a moot argument in any case. The debate is about corn ethanol. You can't debate the pros and cons of something that does not exist. That debate will have to wait.
Like the rest of your comment, the above is just a string of unsubstantiated words. Again, you have been provided links to links to links, and you provide nothing but unsubstantiated words. They just don't hold as much punch as links to unbiased experts. Go look at those links.
But what is really important is that your above remark was slammed good by the original post and in comments. When I find that I'm repeating myself, it means my opponent has quit listening or isn't bothering to read posts.
I noticed you took issue with E85, and the lack of fuel savings and you cited your source for the prices you quote. That site is completely dependent upon voluntary submissions, and is not at all reflective of the true picture.
Where is your link? I picked that site because it showed the highest prices for ethanol. Want to see the other links I found?
However, there are those that are selling E85 for much less, in some cases at $1.00 per gallon below unleaded regular
Link please? You are not referring to stations who are selling below profit margin as a lost leader for some special? The E85 in my spreadsheet is selling for an average of $2.39 against the gas price of $3.04 but when adjusted for the lower mileage is still more expensive (I used the mileage data from the Consumer report link in my OP).
Major oil company intimidation plays a major role in limiting the amount of E85 available today.
Gossip and hearsay are poor substitutes for reasoned argument backed with credible sources. Your arguments, although repetitive and common are not logical. If there is more profit in E85 why would any company, oil or otherwise, throw that profit away? They wouldn't. Oil companies, or companies indistinguishable from them will one day own all biofuel production.
However, consider that ethanol has displaced about 4.5 to 4.7 percent of gasoline sold in the U.S. this year, and saved consumers a lot of money in the process.
Exactly how has this use of ethanol provided a net savings for all Americans? No more unsubstantiated opinion please, give me hard numbers backed up with unbiased reliable sources. This is getting tiresome.
I live in New Jersey, and we have almost 100% compliance on E10 as an unleaded regular grade blend. We reduced gasoline consumption by 10% in 2007, and we have had the lowest retail prices in the nation this year.
Did I miss something? New Jersey has used less gas this year, and how does this support your pro-ethanol argument? You have hard numbers proving that ethanol was behind the reduction or is this just your personal assumption?
I won't get into details about the study you cite regarding emissions, headed by a Nobel Laureate, but it's based on computer models and not actual data, and funded in large part by Big Oil, as are other studies that skew the data to offer one message... "oil is good, ethanol is bad."
You have yet to provided a single link or calculation to back up anything you have said. Almost nothing you have said to date is verifiable and where I have checked, it hasn't checked out. So, my confidence level in the accuracy of your statements is real low.
Just one glance at the "fossil fuel" results, I have to laugh. I'm certain that the study did not include transport of the fuels, because in the U.S. we import better than 60% of our crude oil, which is shipped via tanker from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait, and elsewhere. Most Canadian crude travels via pipeline. But the significant amount of crude oil that must travel the oceans of the world burn bunker fuel, a high sulfur dastardly concoction of heavy oil. And those tankers do not get very good mileage.
...Also I'm certain they never considered the actual cost of energy consumed to refine a barrel of oil. Ever wonder what the electric bill of a refinery might be? And how much coal is burned to produce that electricity? They never did.
Ah, you seem to have gotten little off track at this point.
To suggest that ethanol's emissions contribution is worse than fossil fuel is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. Frankly, in E10 regions, air quality has improved dramatically. These are EPA findings, not computer modeling.
At this point I'm not sure if you are referring to the Swiss study, the study in Science, or the one in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. I think the latter. If so, that study does not deal at all with tail pipe emissions. It has simply found that on a lifecycle assessment, previous research has underestimated nitrous oxide emissions. It is about GHG, not local tailpipe pollution.
But ethanol offers a bridge to somewhere. It is far better than doing nothing at all.
Read the original post again. It points out why I think both of these comments are false.
I agree with you that the one sure way is to reduce oil consumption, and personal sacrifice is the way. Unfortunately, most Americans are spoiled, and don't want to make changes, until the next attack on America.
We made no sacrifices to drop our consumption 80%. We simply traded a 24 MPG car for a 48 MPG car and I started running most in-city single occupant errands on my hybrid electric bike instead of in my old Cherokee. Our new car is better than our old car. Riding this hybrid bike is a blast. People envy our car and my bike. What sacrifice? We save money, get exercise, have fun.
You are essentially saying that because Americans are too stupid to give up their trucks and SUVs, they must be duped into subsidizing corn ethanol and then forced to buy that same fuel back regardless of price (as a mandatory blend) in the name of national security. You may be right, but I'm not sure not one of them.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:54 pm
02 Dec 2007
I am attaching a very interesting post that supports what many of us have been saying about the wisdom of using food as an oil replacement:
"Ethanol and food price volatility
If this is what we get in a good year, what will happen when we have a bad crop?
American consumers are starting to see some of the consequences of our ill -fated ethanol policy in the prices of everything from meat to ice cream. While well-fed Americans may gripe, the implications for those in sub-Saharan Africa are quite alarming.
All of these concerns arise from the higher average price of corn that necessarily results from an increase in the use of the corn crop for ethanol production. But another issue well worth considering is the effect on the volatility of corn prices.
Food prices naturally are quite volatile because unpredictable and uncontrollable variation in weather can produce a bumper crop one year and a big shortfall the next. Usually consumers are able to mitigate somewhat the consequences of the volatility of supply by switching between foods depending on what is most cheap or expensive at the moment. However, whereas the demand for food is relatively price elastic, the demand for gasoline is quite inelastic. If the quantity of ethanol demanded does not fall much when there is a bad crop, the quantity of corn used for all other purposes must make an even bigger proportional adjustment. For example, if 1/2 of our corn crop were devoted to ethanol production and ethanol demand were completely price inelastic, a 10% reduction in corn production would require a 20% reduction in use of corn for other purposes.
A recent analysis by University of Illinois Professors Darrel Good and Scott Irwin notes that over the last half-century, corn-production shortfalls as big as 30% are not that uncommon. Very inelastic demand means that having a stable, reliable source for fuel is a very high priority for consumers. Having the supply for such a commodity depend on something as volatile as U.S. corn production does not seem like such a brilliant idea."
from: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/07/ethanol_and_f ...
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:13 pm
02 Dec 2007
While the stated goal of promoting FFVs is to increase the demand for E85 and subsequently reduce our dependence on oil, I believe that the real consequences have been to increase the consumption of oil.
How? By facilitating the production of very low mileage vehicles that are allowed to pass the CAFE standards as being very economical vehicles via the FFV loopholes in the NHTSA's CAFE rules. This merely allows more crappy mileage vehicles to get a pass under the fleet average. Ironically, as part of our ethanol policies, this is probably offsetting all the stated reductions in oil consumption by increasing ethanol sales.
Ethanol guzzlers are making us more dependent on oil! When the ethanol proponents lobby Congress to get rid of the FFV loophole, I'll start believing more of their arguments.
Permalink
trock Posted 1:04 am
03 Dec 2007
Does anybody know of any studies of using corn for heat in corn furnaces and then using the saved fuel oil that would have been used for heating used as a vehicle fuel?
Permalink
Greta Posted 1:22 am
03 Dec 2007
But, I have to tell you, as I started to read BioD's "article" (herein), I started looking for my asbestos jumpsuit. The flaminess of his arguments was off-putting and trumped what probably were solid points, IMO. I finally stopped reading, seemingly just in time...before the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument unfolded. And, you wanna talk about ad hominem:
Seriously, go read the link provided by greyflcn. Read a few more of his links while you are at it. You seem to be a little behind the learning curve. You seem to think that because gamblers wanting to get richer have plowed dough into cellulosic it must be a sure bet. Have you mortgaged your home and put it all into cellulosic?
Then, I read "Another Tom's" response - a stark contrast. Without judging the individual facts: well crafted, cogent argument, without the insults. It will be left for me to sort out all of the facts from studies and reports of reference. But, for those people who don't take the time to do so, gravitas is a big seller.
Next year, people will vote for a U.S. president, in much the same way. How a candidate carries himself/herself might well win out over substance.
I applaud BioD's passion, but I think that Grist does a disservice to the "general public" audience 'just tuning in' by giving him, or anyone else, such a prominent forum for such an emotionally combative approach. I might expect it in the discussion sections, but not as a feature. And, yes, it is a GristMill Blog section, but that is not necessarily clear from the home page link. It appears as other items that seem to be features. Others, less familiar with Grist, certainly might make that mistake.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:13 am
03 Dec 2007
Rather than feeling Grist chastised as a community, I thought the discussion attached to Tom Philpott's post in which Brooke's comments appreared was very useful and thoughtful. I don't blame him if he declines to join this particular flame war.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:25 am
03 Dec 2007
Since when is it ad hominem to point out someone's apparent lack of information? That's not a personal attack.
The same old talling points come up over and over again and are just as deceptive and invalid as they were when some energy industry think tank consultant, Limbaugh producer, or rovian political hack dreamt them up.
I know I get a bit sarcastic as a way to deal with this, once it is clear that the opposition intends to pursue the talking point irregardless of any information to the contrary. It's not as polite as a debating society around here.
But it's a lot more interesting. We are fighting massive lobbying and media campaigns on corn ethanol and other energy issues. Heat is generated along with some illumination. We try to be as efficient as CFLs, but sometimes fall short and become incandescent. LED efficient debate might put everyone to sleep.
Bio-d tends to use a lot of factual content that more than offsets any sarcasm. In the age of "Colbert" some sarcasm has to be expected. Who else can you think of who "walks the walk" like he does? Did you see his articles on his hybrid bike? He built it himself.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Greta Posted 2:49 am
03 Dec 2007
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:07 am
03 Dec 2007
Always feel free to comment here. Differences of opinion are not only welcome, they are essential. You can't debate the pros and cons of an issue if everyone agrees. Ethanol proponents obviously feel free to come here to express their opinions as they should. There are no winners or losers in a debate. There are only arguments that stand or fall on their merits. Of course, emotions and feelings enter in because we are emotional, feeling beings. Most of us feel their way through life. Reason and logic usually play a distant second fiddle.
Find any room with more than one person in it and you will find differences of opinion. I have on rare occasion dropped into biodiesel enthusiast sites to discuss the downsides of biofuels. These sites do not want debate. They exist solely to promote biofuels. That is not what this blog is about. Grist blog contributors routinely disagree and debate each other all the time. Eric's comment above is a timely example.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:17 am
03 Dec 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:56 am
03 Dec 2007
How? By facilitating the production of very low mileage vehicles that are allowed to pass the CAFE standards as being very economical vehicles via the FFV loopholes in the NHTSA's CAFE rules. This merely allows more crappy mileage vehicles to get a pass under the fleet average. Ironically, as part of our ethanol policies, this is probably offsetting all the stated reductions in oil consumption by increasing ethanol sales.
Yep, those are pretty much in line with the findings of the US Government Accountability Office's report.
An increase of 9 billion gallons of oil consumed due to the CAFE loophole.
And that almost all flex fuel vehicles manufacturered get relatively horrible mileage, because the prioriety of the manufacturers is to leverage that loophole for all it's worth.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07713.pdf
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 11:57 am
03 Dec 2007
Thanks for the welcoming message. Why this response is not in the other thread, I don't know. I will bite and respond, because this thread seems to have received a lot of attention.
You seem to think that anything is better than oil. But believe it or not, in the real world, we sometimes have to pick between the lesser of two evils, at least until something better comes along.
No, I do not think anything is better than oil. I do think ethanol is better than oil, and could be much better than oil. BTW, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, and other well-respected environmental groups have published reports in support of biofuels. No, they don't think biofuels should be produced in the wrong way, but they recognize the benefits.
Plowing under the world's remaining grasslands and forests to grow industrial agrofuels dwarfs the damage done by oil spills. What happens when you take grain off the world food market and stuff it into American gas tanks? I'll tell you. Someone somewhere on this planet takes advantage of the high prices to plant more of it to fill the hole in the human food chain. Where is the arable land they need to do that? It is under an existing carbon sink or has another crop on it already.
My primary criticism of the community here is many of them seem to live in the abstract; in fact, they seem to indulge in these abstract, over simplified statements. It is true that this planet can support only so much biofuels production. Instead of recognizing this reality, and advocating for careful policy, you seem to be screaming bad! just like most everyone else here. If biofuels are simply bad, just say so, because I would think that reasonable people would conclude that we can support some biofuels production. NRDC, for example, has taken a position. So has UCS. What's yours? Zero? If so, fine, but understand that more oil will be burned as a result. To be honest, you seem to get this. But others in this green community may not be so thrilled about that position. They seem to think that they can replace a gallon of ethanol with a Prius. Fuel diversification and better efficiency are two different challenges, especially politically.
The second leading cause of global warming is deforestation. How hard is that concept to understand? Global warming is global. What we do here screws everybody.
Pretty obvious statement, like your other one. The question is how to protect them. Screaming about biofuels is not a rainforest protection strategy. In other words, we need to do a better job of protecting rainforests in addition to being careful about energy policies that could threaten them. Ranting will not help, nor does it particularly fortify your anti-biofuels stance. Rainforest protection is mostly a governance issue. If enviro groups want to use biofuels to raise awareness for rainforest degradation, that might be smart of them in the long run and within their limited mission statement. But let's not overdo the real cause/effect going on here.
Using less oil is not the same as replacing it with ethanol. Using less oil is a better strategy than replacing it, because corn ethanol is worse than oil for the environment.My family has reduced its use of liquid transport fuel about 80% in the last few years while improving our standard of living. Simplistic, myopic viewpoints do not cut the mustard in today's world.
Except for the silly last line, I congratulate you and agree. More families should be like yours, and if they were, we might not need biofuels. In fact, I will agree that not burning oil is always better than burning a different liquid fuel. But I would disagree that we can just conserve our way out of this problem we have. Either way, they are two different political challenges; the pols protecting oil interests are different than those protecting auto interests. How do you propose we get a more aggressive CAFÉ standard passed? Because the current one, while a step in the right direction, will not get us where we need to go on its own. I think I have made clear that our position is we need to conserve and diversify fuel markets. Both.
Corn ethanol is a horrifically wasteful use of natural resources, tax dollars, energy, and effort, just to reduce oil consumption a fraction of a percent. You could obtain the same goal by simply using less oil. Last time I looked, the Prius fleet alone saves more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in 2001.
This is your classic "false choice" statement. Biofuels are a fuel diversification strategy. I said before, and now again, that conservation is absolutely critical. We need to burn less fuel, whether from Iraq or Iowa. But we also need to burn better fuel. You think oil is better than ethanol. I respectfully disagree. But maybe a vehicle that gets 100 MPG on ethanol is a good thing.
Instead of lobbying the government to stop subsidizing competing energy schemes, one group after another lobbies the government to support their favored energy scheme -- corn ethanol, cellulosic, soy biodiesel, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, and on and on it goes.
These groups have to survive in the subsidy world. I think I have made clear that the right position is leveling the playing field. Yes, people ask for subsidies when their competitors get them. I actually think that energy subsidy reform is probably the single most important thing for green groups to rally around (in addition to complaining about it on blogs). But if you are implying that energy companies that have to compete in this jungle of subsidies should advocate for less subsidies for their sector, no wonder nothing has changed in fifty years. Not going to happen. This is a consumer issue needing a louder voice. All for it.
A) Corn ethanol has been sucking from the government teat for how many decades now, Brooke?
B) If it doesn't need to be bailed out, why do you support the bailout? Of course it needs to be bailed out by legislation. If the subsidies stopped tomorrow, corn ethanol would disappear about two days later, as it should. There is no real market for this fuel. It is mostly going into gas tanks as an additive, by government fiat. Consumers aren't clamoring for it now, and they certainly won't if the huge subsidies offered by fellow taxpayers' dry up.
C) Corn ethanol is a scam.
Actually not. I just Googled the cost of gas and E85 for this month and when adjusted for the lower gas mileage, E85 is still more expensive than gasoline (huge blending subsidy aside). Here is my source for the prices. I cut and pasted them into a spreadsheet. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet.
No offense, but good grief. Tom's original point (like yours) is that ethanol is a false market, which implies that it cannot compete. I told you that the WHOLESALE price of ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. And you go and google the retail prices to shoot the argument down!? Again, ethanol is cheaper at the distribution point and oil companies are not buying it. If the market worked, independents would gobble up ethanol and stick it to the majors (at the retail point) if the majors refused to buy it. But fuel energy markets don't work, largely because the oil companies have been allowed to integrate, gobble up distribution and retail points, and manipulate the market. So ethanol companies are forced to ask Congress to make oil companies blend it (that's the only market stimulus the oilies respond to). Yes, it would be better to bring the free market back to fuel markets. But ethanol folks have real business interests to protect, so they do what they believe they have to do (and in a rigged market, who can blame them? You?). One simply cannot talk about "real markets" in the fuels world with a straight face. Oil companies say, "stop giving ethanol a false market" in the halls on Congress all the time, while simultaneously refusing to buy the (cheaper) product. False markets?? That's a better description for the oil markets. But it's interesting that this "false market" thing is echoed here all the time.
Grist contributors have written millions of words on the problems with fossil fuels. This particular article was about the problems associated with corn ethanol. You can't seriously expect Tom to write a paragraph on the ills of oil to balance every paragraph he writes about the ills of corn ethanol. Tom has not misled anyone.
I am not moved by this defense of Tom. He was complaining about subsidies, so I think it would make sense to give people a better sense of energy subsidies instead of pretending that ethanol exists in a vacuum. And, based on what I have seen, the anti-biofuels crowd has given oil a free pass on the subsidy issue, generally. The uninformed will rise up in blogged anger when told about ethanol subsidies, but is the solution to oil dependence to isolate them and take them away? I am accusing this community of misplaced anger re: subsidies.
Consumers here and all around the world are dancing with glee that they have reduced the welfare to the American farm industry ($6 billion-3.5 billion) by paying higher prices for the corn they must purchase thanks to more government distortion of the market.
You rob Peter to pay Paul ... squeeze the cost of ethanol to the taxpayer from one end of the balloon to the other. This is your opportunity to explain why the retail cost of gasoline is the same within a few cents in Europe, Canada, and the United States when adjusted for taxes. Are they all coincidentally applying the same government subsidies to gasoline or could the reality be that the price of gasoline is primarily controlled by the market value of global crude oil and that subsidies make little difference in the cost of gasoline at the pump?
I've made my argument here. I think most reasonable people would conclude that if oil companies had to pay the tens of billions of dollars they should pay in taxes, and billions more getting their product to market, that the price at the pump would reflect that. Why do you think the current federal oil tax reform bill is failing? Oil repubs are saying "over my dead body." Why? Because it doesnt really matter to oil companies? This is just a strange argument. Heck, futures market experts now recognize that the price of oil now includes a "risk premium" of at least 20%. Imagine the risk premium if our military didn't guard all the pipelines, shipping lanes, etc. for these billion dollar multi-national companies?
Odd, your list is missing other studies that show corn ethanol is worse than fossil fuels. The above studies were all unaware of the higher nitrous oxide release, found by the international team of researchers headed by a Noble Laureate. You need to compare all positives and all negatives to come up with a net positive or negative, as this study did:
That was my point. The Grist biofuel writers are obsessed with the studies that whack ethanol ... they are all over this site ... I was adding the ones that are ignored. And no, the researchers I mentioned were not unaware of nitrous oxide. They just aren't silly enough to assume that all corn would go away if not for biofuels. Not even 20% of corn in this country is grown for ethanol. All these studies are based on a set of assumptions. I agree that they should all be considered together ... except that's not what happens here.
why not advocate for carbon standards to incent good ethanol?
First, because Tom's article isn't about the carbon market. Secondly, because carbon standards assume energy schemes would compete with each other based on a price on greenhouse gases -- corn would be crushed by a GHG standard. A recent study in the Atmospheric Journal of Chemistry and Physics has shown it may be up to 50% worse than fossil fuels, because of greater than realized nitrous oxide emissions.
C'mon. This is more of the same from you. Isolating reports and forgetting to look under the hood. I have commented on that study. If the goal is to quantify real impacts and your fundamental assumption is silly, then is the conclusion silly? Generally, the life cycle GHG picture is pretty clear for ethanol. Policy should incent the cleaner ethanol production, which the proposed energy policy does (not to perfection, but does). Models should include more upstream emissions for BOTH ethanol and petroleum. Over time, carbon should become part of the regulatory scheme, and most likely the driver. This is what people are working on right now.
A recent study in Science shows plowing up Conservation Reserve carbon sinks to plant more corn releases twice as much carbon as the corn would remove over a thirty year period (15-30% of US emissions are being absorbed by our carbon sinks). The Swiss study above gives corn ethanol an environmental score that is many times worse than fossil fuels.
Ok, great. And other studies give it a good score compared to gasoline. The point is we need to better incorporate upstream impacts into the GHG analysis. It is no surprise that tearing up sensitive lands to plant biofuels feedstock is not a good thing, for GHG especially.
The absurdity is that more corn is being planted in place of other crops, by plowing under Conservation Reserve land and other carbon sinks. You are telling us that the less corn we plant, the less environmental damage it will do. And you are right. And you just shot yourself in the foot.
My feet are looking good. You missed the point. See above. Because there are bad ways to produce ethanol does not mean either that" all ethanol is produced that way, or that all ethanol is bad.
[On cellulosic] go read the link provided by greyflcn. Read a few more of his links while you are at it. You seem to be a little behind the learning curve. You seem to think that because gamblers wanting to get richer have plowed dough into cellulosic it must be a sure bet. Have you mortgaged your home and put it all into cellulosic?
Stop reading Gray Falcon and start doing basic analysis of the industry. Investments being made. Price of enzymatic breakdown in last five years. Real progress you will find.
It is a moot argument in any case. We don't need to provide infrastructure for your coming ethanol economy, or someone else's hydrogen or biodiesel economy. If a real consumer market were to ever spring into existence, manufacturers would respond in very short order with the necessary hoses in the engines and tanker trucks and gas stations because they would all be motivated to do so to make this dough.
I agree with some of this. First, the part I don't agree with. There is no real consumer market in the energy space. There are some free market forces, but real markets? The free market crowd is living in denial if they try to apply it to U.S. energy markets. Waiting for market forces is a recipe for more of the same. On the infrastructure side, I agree that when the markets emerge, whatever the spark, the service side of the industry will respond. If they don't, because they are all bought up by oil companies, break up the oil companies or deal with it accordingly.
Wrong. If not ethanol, use less oil. Burning E85 in a car that gets the American average of 24 MPG is a ham-fisted and comically inefficient way to use less oil and reduce GHGs. Burning gasoline in a car that gets 48 MPG is less destructive, less wasteful.
I share your frustration about E85 loopholes. But this just comes back to you thinking that ethanol is a dumb idea, and my thinking that it is part of the solution. Disagreement.
Actually not. Using less oil is far less environmentally destructive and far, far less expensive than replacing oil with ethanol.
Wow. Seriously? Oil imports now account for about a third of our 700+ billion dollar trade deficit. Did you include that? While criticizing the impact of mono crops on biodiversity, did you also take into account the public health impacts of petrochemicals? Asthma? Cancer? What about military expenditures (not all of them, but ones directly traceable to resource protection)? I don't find this as credible argument. You have Greenspan now admitting that the Iraq War is largely about oil. I mean, the expense of oil dependence is off the charts.
Blogs might save this planet.
I agree that blogs now take a lot of information "to the people." But I think you go too far here.
Your erroneous comments on the price of ethanol along with your lack of understanding of why the global market for crude is the primary driver of the price of gasoline at the pump, combined with your ignorance of the ramifications of crop leakage to other parts of the planet, suggests to me that this shoe belongs on your foot.
Again, your pricing analysis needs serious readjustment (mixing up retail and wholesale pricing will not produce accurate results). I agree that crude is the driver here, but I don't agree that oil companies will mysteriously absorb billions of dollars every year, if made to pay proper taxes and expenses. We've beaten that one to death.
The contributors and commenters here know the score as well as anyone anywhere. Take a gander at this excellent forum while you're here.
I don't agree. My guess is your definition of knowing the score is different than mine. My original criticism was that Tom didn't seem to understand why the RFS was necessary. You don't seem to understand what's going on in the pricing markets. Others gobble up oil industry talking points like M&Ms. Knowing the score is a prerequisite to getting things done in today's policy world, not simply knowing how things are and how they should be.
Until then, keep playing their fiddle ... biofuels are bad, biofuels are bad.
Will do, El Capitan! Biofuels have turned out to be not only more expensive but also more environmentally destructive than what they were meant to replace. On a planet of 6.5 billion people, we find a biofuel with a razor thin to non-existent return on energy and GHG reductions being propped up by politicians who are funneling tax dollars to the farm industry in return for votes. The only beneficiary of this policy is that miniscule percentage of the global population who grow corn in America and the politicians buying votes from them.
Again, it is relatively easy to point out the ills of this country's energy and farm policies (or some of the more unappealing realities of democracy). There is little return on investment here though, because the biggest advocates of reform are disorganized from a group strategy perspective. Further, the advocacy community often cherishes the role of antagonist, even if it produces no discernable results. But anyway, I don't agree that these policies only benefit the bad guys. Visit some of these states. I bet you live on a coastline somewhere.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are starting to get hungry. Hopefully, other countries will grow grain to replace that being burned in American gas tanks before famine sets in. Unfortunately, they will have to do so by increasing global warming via the destruction of more ecosystem carbon sinks.
This is the type of sensationalistic, oversimplified rhetoric that, in my opinion, undercuts the useful debate you want to have here. Throw the studies this way, because I know you will, but in reality the food issue is quite simple. Big Livestock (what about them?) is annoyed that they cannot buy corn for "below cost" prices; trust me, they enjoy farm subsidies more than the farmers. In other words, they have to share more of the consumer food dollar that "trickles" to them with corn growers. So they jack this issue politically and from a PR perspective, with much help from the oil companies (seem to have aligned interests!). Food was the primary point of opposition to the federal RFS from people like Exxon this year. People think that increased corn prices must be hurting them in the grocery aisle, until they realize that: (1) grain is only a small part of food costs (~ 20 cents per lb of meat); (2) only 19 cents of the consumer food dollar makes it back to the farm, and only a portion of that is grain related; (3) most of the cost of food is in marketing, distribution and packaging (the Nabisco part), which is highly sensitive to increased oil prices. This "starving the poor" argument is even more ridiculous, because we don't alleviate starvation with corn (or even food exports). We don't send any corn to the world's poorest nations, but Japan gets a lot of it. If you want an interesting report about this, see ...
http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=100001.
This food issue is about livestock profit margins. So which "poor" person are you talking about?
That said, we do need to make sure that the increase in biofuels production and use does not throw everything out of whack. This could happen if we get too drunk on the biofuels. But we are a ways away from that. To this end, making sure that protections are built into policies is key.
Thanks for the chance to debate this important issue with someone with a different perspective. You guys, along with global warming skeptics, seem to be getting fewer and further between.
Too much sarcasm on this site. I assume it is the unfortunate consequence of pack syndrome. But thanks for putting in the time to respond. This community definitely is interested in having a debate, even if I am suspicious of their ability to reconsider biofuels.
My hunch is many of you will dismiss these arguments as oft-heard. There wont be much refuting them ... they just dont fit your "anti farmed fuel" position. Either way, I dont find the biofuels information here balanced or informed. Plain and simple.
The bottom line is this: auto companies could have long ago put oil out of business. In addition, oil companies ride a wave of subsidies every year while preaching free market to the legions. Go find a political pressure point and run with it. We cant break this juggernaut with puffs of smoke.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:17 pm
03 Dec 2007
Peak Oil/Energy Security
Global Warming
_
Now I will grant you that the food versus fuel argument is largely not an issue in the medium to long term.
If the market demand is there, Food will just be grown elsewhere.
_
Similarly, one may argue the subsidy angle.
And yes, Oil gets plenty.
However I think we can both agree that it is inappropriate for biofuels to get more federal subsidy than solar, wind, and geothermal combined.
_
I would also argue that it's inappropriate to benchmark these fuels on incomplete lifecycle analysis's from sources which refuse open peer review.
And that ignoring land use, nitrogen fixation and secondary market effects, on balance, results in cumulative results which are considerably dirtier than those models would project.
Especially when a large portion of those models refer to technologies which do not even exist, and are hinged upon the assumption of highly specific technological breakthroughs, which may never come.
I would also argue that the development and entrenchment of unsustainable biofuels practices and infrastructure is NOT a path that leads towards entirely different practices and infrastructure.
My key criticism about biofuels is that I do believe that the cumulative effects of the current generation of biofuels are not beneficial, and result in more greenhouse emissions than they prevent.
And that the premise of biofuels is largely squandering the political will to act on serious fuel economy legislation. (Contrasted with the massive legistlation support for biofuels, which pushes the boundaries of whats even considered to be possible.)
_
As a baseline, I can bet you that there is not a single study out there that claims that the greenhouse gas emissions from diesel or hybrids are higher per mile than that of corn ethanol.
And that there is not a single study out there that says that corn ethanol produced using coal-electricity results in any emissions reductions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:03 pm
03 Dec 2007
The you have your studies and we have our studies argument is not cutting it. It seems to be your only attempt at injectibng facts. Except the fuel pricing and subsidy one.
The bottom line from the subsidy perspective. Only so much money is avauilable for this purpose. Most of us here would like oil, coal, and nuclear to lose their subsidies, and have it directed to renewables and conservation.
Subsidies to ethanol that uses a gallon of oil (per gallon of ethanol produced), in tractors, tanker trucks, chemicals, and fertilizer, and a bunch of coal to process, ferment, and distill; those subsidies take available capital away from plugin hybrid subsidies. And subsidies for a renewable power grid to recharge them.
These plugin hybrids would lower oil use enough so it will last the 2 decades needed to go completely renewable. With only a 40 mile electric range, almost no liquid fuel will be burned in average daily driving.
Your idea that ethanol is somehow better than oil does not work. Because it takes a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol.
Ethanol also lowers the mileage of a conventional car. E 15 lowers it 10% so that means you need to buy an extra gallon for every 10 gallons to go the same distance. Burning an extra gallon of fuel.
NRDC supports it so we must? Now that's a hot one. NRDC opposes wind power, in the form of Cape Wind and supports clean coal and nukes as well as fuel farming. NRDC sold out.
You write a very long post Brooke, but mainly repeat the same bad arguments over and over.
Can you see some way that ethanol could be farmed sustainably and that didn't involve the use of oil and fossil fuels? With electric tractors, organic fertilizer recycled from waste, and renewable energy for processing?
Well sure, but if we have all that then why would we need ethanol? Whoops. Ethanol goes in the wrong direction. It is merely an excuse to keep guzzling gas and dole huge subsidies for agribizz.
And get back campaign "contributions" for corrupt politicians. And support spokespersons for ethanol.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:14 pm
03 Dec 2007
I agree with this assessment:
In my opinion, there is a place for biofuels, albeit in niche applications and not as a major energy source. I think we will continue to have a need for some long-range transportation options (e.g., shipping, airline transportation) that would be difficult to electrify. But for the most part, the future has to be electric. The sooner we shift focus from biofuels to electric transportation, the better.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/10/review-how-can-we ...
I'd also add that the military is also probably one of those institutions which won't be getting off liquid fuels any time soon.
Also frankly I can't really consider a world without plastics and other polymers. So we're gonna need that too.
It will have it's niche, and it will be a necessary one. But it will be the exception, not the primary solution.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 pm
03 Dec 2007
What we don't know, is whether the cumulative effect of biofuels will INCREASE the emissions of greenhouse gases. And many studies I've been reading have been pointing out that that is exactly what will happen. (Especially when indirect effects are included)
So regardless of the prices involved, the key issue is that I don't like supporting something which is even worse than petroleum. (Or worse than Coal-to-Liquids for that matter)
_
And frankly I just don't trust the studies put out by the USDA/DOE (specifically Michael Wang) to be an accurate representation of the facts.
(Which are exactly the studies that the NRDC and UCS are referring to. Unnasch and Farrel are pretty much just restating Wang's reports.)
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:01 pm
03 Dec 2007
So while many of us agree that ethanol will have a place among a diversity of energy sources it will be very difficult in a global economy to confine biofuel production in an ecologically responsible and sustainable niche. There are troubling signs in many places already. Mr. Coleman seems to want to push the responsibility for containing biofuel onto the environomentally conscious consumer rather than on the biofuel investment community. And that, as consumers, is what we are ranting about. And he doesn't like it.
Mr. Coleman downplayed the role of corn ethanol on food prices but he did not address the point I attempted to make about its impact on prices when we encounter a major down year in corn production. Since we ramped up production we have not seen a bad crop year. Although farmers do receive a small percentage of food prices, the ethanol boosters are not going to reform the basic economic reality of food processors, feeders, packers, and retailers pushing on their costs to the consumer. The ethanol industry has yet to experience the enormous consumer backlash that will occur when a major drought hits the Midwest.
Mr. Coleman also argues about the potential benefits of low wholesale ethanol prices. This is somewhat laughable considering that the industry is pulling back planned production for the very reason that the wholesale price is too low to incentivise investments. And if the infrastructure was in place for people to purchase cheaper ethanol vs. gas, the projected supply would not meet the demand except in very limited locales.
And this is probably the niche for ethanol -- in limited locales close to the points of production. We should not even be considering building ethanol distribution pipelines. If consumers in the Midwest can benefit from local production this would have the same impact on reducing oil demand nationally as attempting to push this fuel to all parts of the country via government mandates and subsidies. People in the Midwest live in this sacrificial landscape; let us benefit from some of the "external" costs of ag production. And our state (as well as your federal) tax dollars are also subsidizing local production so let us reap the local rewards first. If Illinoisans and Iowans can drive on E85 more economically and ecologically than on gas, OK. But pushing this nationally is stretching both the economical and the ecological arguments for it.
If Mr. Coleman wishes to put a better face on ethanol he should address the "Ethanol Guzzler" bumper sticker that the Renewable Fuels group has printed. I'd like to see some evidence that the ethanol trade is lobbying Congress to remove the Flex Fuel Vehicle loophole in the CAFE standard. When I see signs that the ethanol industry is attempting to conserve ethanol AND oil by promoting highly efficient cars, I'll put more stock in Mr. Coleman's arguments.
Permalink
DustHead Posted 10:17 pm
03 Dec 2007
Is everyone around here just so unhappy with ethanol that we should be using rickshaw? Cellolosic ETOH has potential. A recent study by Auburn University validates Gulf Ethanols method.
I never thought I would be reading pro oil arguments on Grist. Also, sorghum for ethanol is coming along nicely.
You guys are wrong, anything is better than being beholden to Venezeula, Iran, Russia, and Nigeria.
Sheesh. Idiots..
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:25 pm
03 Dec 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:54 am
04 Dec 2007
Fuel farming takes a gallon of oil to make a gallon of ethanol. So ethanol uses oil. And it takes 4.5 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol.
In this case it is better to use the gallon of oil directly and not bear the ecological burden of agribizz chemical (oil powered farming) on the soil, air, and water.
Better still is to drive a (40 mile battery range)plugin hybrid, because the first 2 gallons of oil (in a 20 mpg gas guzzler) of every trip are not burned.
Oil as a rarely used backup fuel in a plugin hybrid charged with renewable electricity, the best transition to 100% liquid fuel free, combustion free vehicles.
Fuel farming is a diversion from this course. A money making, subsidy and bribe swilling diversion. When you buy a gas guzzler from US auto makers (Toyota makes money on these monsters), they sell it with huge rebates, at a loss. Why?
So you have to visit the gas pump over and over, that is where they get payed. it is like buying a flashlight for a dollar. The battery company that sold the flashight at a loss, makes it's money selling batteries.
The same interests that own the auto companies also own the oil companies. Board room members are interchangeable.
Japan never has had signifigant domestic oil production. Toyota execs do not have the best interests of oil companies at heart. They get payed for the car, that's it. Nothing from selling the oil to run it. So they build cars that use less gas, like the Prius.
But they can't introduce plugin hybrids to the uS market for fear of this oily administration imposing trade restrictions.
Audi seems to be bucking this interference, we'll see. But remember this. Where did the first, best selling economy car model come from (way back in the late 1950s)? VW, the parent company of Audi.
Have you noticed how Bush and the leader of Germany get along? It's a strained relationship to say the least. Is that because of Iraq? And Bushs' habit of man handling her? Sure.
But it could be that German companies are not nearly as afraid of trade problems as Japan's are.
Stop fuel farming! Put the scarce capital, political and financial (currently waasted), into plugin hybrids and a renewable power grid to charge them and energy conservation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jonas Posted 1:18 am
04 Dec 2007
We don't feel we need to defend ourselves in any way, because the biodiesel is consistently less costly than petrodiesel.
With high oil prices farmers in Congo's rural areas can't get their products (including their palm oil) to market, so they remain in perpetual poverty. Likewise, the cities have to import food from elsewhere, which is very expensive (they even import palm oil by plane, can you imagine?). Moreover, high prices make it costly to transport basic inputs to the farmers, which are so urgently needed to improve productivity.
Palm biodiesel is around 40 per cent less costly than petrodiesel (number when oil is at $75). We are also working on utilizing straight palm oil in diesel engines for boats.
It offers very positive impacts, we think, for all stakeholders.
We are less interested in the greenhouse gas problem. It is a problem for wealthy people. The average Congolese makes around $700 per year, but our farmers only make $200 per year; they cannot be forced to pay some form of carbon tax. Congo contributes 0.007% of global emissions. The average Congolese has a carbon footprint of 0.05 tons of CO2 per year. The average American has a carbon footprint of 20 tons - around 400 times higher. So it's clear where the responsabilities must be laid.
You can see this at the Human Development Report's carbon calculators:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/climatechange/
So the West and the big transition countries (China, India), should tackle the greenhouse gas issue.
The Congolese should focus on making food and on the biofuels needed to transport it.
PS: the palm biodiesel is made from whichever palm oil the farmers supply, most is manufactured by hand screw presses. We are looking into small mills, but they require capital.
Palm oil to the people!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 1:23 am
04 Dec 2007
Because the best way to utilize biomass is by burning it in CHP or CCHP plants.
Wealthy people can afford to talk about electric cars and plug-in hybrids. That's good, and you can power them with solar, wind and biomass.
But would someone please be so courageous to develop a heavy electric truck and tugboat on electricity, which is cheaper than trucks and tugboats on palm biodiesel?
Then we could recharge them with hydropower and biomass.
So that's the challenge for you. We will be waiting.
Permalink
justlou Posted 1:30 am
04 Dec 2007
Need to correct this statement. The concept is basically correct -- there is little net yield of ethanol BTUs per unit of fossil fuel BTUs invested. So for each BTU of fossil fuels -- natural gas, coal and petroleum combined -- you get back about 1.3 BTUs of ethanol. You also get about 25% lower mileage by burning ethanol in autos and trucks so that also has to be factored in.
The best that can be said of ethanol is that you are getting some form of liquid fuel from a huge investment in both liquid and non liquid fossil fuels. Ethanol is basically exploiting the infrastructure built on fossil energy. A transition to where we are already and don't want to remain.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:41 am
04 Dec 2007
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 1:49 am
04 Dec 2007
Amazingdrx keeps saying that it takes a gallon of oil to make ethanol. This is a very basic mistake.
The energy balance critics of ethanol say that it takes as much energy (or slightly more or less) to produce ethanol as ethanol contains. But the primary energy inputs are fossil fuels, NOT petroleum. In other words, amazingdrx, you are mixing up fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas) and oil.
Why is this important? First, your statement is wrong, so that's not good. Second, your theory that we should just use that oil directly in cars falls apart because most cars don't run on natural gas (or coal for that matter). Third, alot of people support ethanol because even if it has only a marginal energy gain, it has a major petroleum gain (and for some, oil dependence/energy security is their biggest concern).
If you are still confused, think of it this way. Yes, an ethanol plant relies on tractors, but only for a very small part of its overall "energy in" profile. The bigger player is how the plant is fired, and in most cases, that's natural gas. So even if you complain about too much energy going into ethanol production, it's not oil energy, it's fossil fuel energy. Important difference.
For the record, I am critical of the net energy balance folks. I am with NRDC, UC-Berk, UCS and others in noting that it's better than oil (.71 energy balance) and getting better, so let's work on moving forward not backwards. I know the EROEI crowd like to point to 6 to 1, etc., but that method leaves out the fact that corn grows back and an oil reserve doesn't. In other words, read this:
http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/
See summary of results.
Also, GreyFalcon asked for NRDC and UCS reports.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ethanol/ethanol.as ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/biof ...
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 2:26 am
04 Dec 2007
Nonetheless, I want to make two comments. First, I'm with Greta--not that a sarcastic and overly personal tone will stop me from reading the commentary, but it's a better and more credible post if the poster manages to restrain him/herself from that chaff.
More importantly, I have a question. Given that electric engines are much more efficient than internal combustion ones--I read something today that said by a factor of five--wouldn't it make sense to drop all of this as quickly as possible to invest in a transition to an all-electric transportation system? Yes, we would still have the pollution produced by generating the electricity, but if it's one fifth the total, this has got to still be a major improvement.
It being that I live in West Virginia, my hackles rise at any hint of a suggestion that we should burn more coal--currently half of all electricity in the US is produced by burning coal. But there is a big push right now to subsidize and build coal-to-liquids plants for vehicles--surely the worst of all "solutions." And there are a lot o ways to generate electricity. I envision parking lots at workplaces and shopping centers and hospitals covered with a roof that not only protects the cars from the elements but recharges them all via solar panels.
Why shouldn't we convert as rapidly as possible to electric transportation systems instead of arguing the merits of various liquid fuels?
Thanks,
Mary
Permalink
Jonas Posted 2:30 am
04 Dec 2007
America and Europe no longer go to Africa, they are afraid. China is building everything instead. And that is very good.
Boats are more efficient still than rail, per tonne kilometer of goods transported. They require liquid fuels.
And all the transport from farmers' fields over secondary and tertiary road to rail hubs, requires trucks and liquid fuels (or electric trucks, if you would be so kind to develop these).
So yes, rail and waterway is extremely important for Africa.
If these infrastructures are in place, a first criterium has been met, on the basis of which Africa can finally become a major food and biofuel exporter. The continent has enormous potential and gigantic amounts of non-forest land to grow food and biomass.
But one thing is certain: you can't build a railroad to each individual village. Let's start by one big railroad. That would already be a huge advancement!
Feel free to ask your government to help African governments invest in this. It would cost only a few billion dollars. You can afford this.
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:42 am
04 Dec 2007
So, does this corn grow back all by itself, in a self sustaining kind of way?
Sure, it grows back and is processed -- each year -- by the same inputs of fossil fuel energy.
It appears that you are using your own choice of "facts" to justify your energy argument.
If we go down the corn road we will be faced with a spiral of inflationary costs associated with both fossil fuel energy and production inputs.
The cost of corn production is rising very rapidly.
Mr. Coleman, you have avoided addressing any of my criticisms.
Please respond.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:50 am
04 Dec 2007
If they are really interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the people at Grist should write about carbon negative bioenergy. It has never done so. This means it can't be taken seriously as a green blog.
Carbon negative bioenergy takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 1000 grams per kilowatthour in a BIGCC plant.
If you utilize a carbon negative biofuel like biohydrogen, you do not merely "reduce" emissions from say 160 gram per kilometer to 100 grams. You do not even reduce it to 0 grams per kilometer. You actually take -30 grams of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So all this dumb talk about the carbon profile of old stupid liquid biofuels made from food, is extremely annoying.
If Grist wants to present it as a green blog, it should write about green things.
Brooke Coleman too, why don't you start to invest in the future, instead of sticking so stubbornly to the past?
Carbon negative bioenergy - the only technology which allows you to take historic CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. All other renewables, and nuclear, are all carbon neutral at best.
Common Grist, you can do it. The question is: why don't you? Do you have a hidden agenda too?
Permalink
justlou Posted 5:20 am
04 Dec 2007
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:31 am
04 Dec 2007
There are several projects out there already producing carbon negative bioenergy (the low tech biochar approach); others are in the pipeline (high tech biomass + CCS); still others are on the drawing board waiting for both the emergence of a global carbon market and for the implementation of CCS projects on which they will act as parasites.
The question is: why don't you ever report on this?
I mean the concept is well publicized in the scientific literature. All sources are available. You never have done the effort to look into them.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:37 am
04 Dec 2007
Is it pretty much just Coal-to-Liquids with Carbon-Capture-and-Sequestration.
Except with biomass instead of coal?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:52 am
04 Dec 2007
As you mentioned, when cost is the bottom line, you can't really be bothered with Greenhouse impacts.
_
Same goes for Carbon Capture and Sequestration provides another bait and switch approach.
A "We Promise to install it later" doesn't really give me much confidence.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:59 am
04 Dec 2007
And considering there's nowhere near enough biomass to support BTL+CCS on a dominant scale, the ONLY alternative is that BTL becomes CTL.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:08 am
04 Dec 2007
Currently there are only a few IGCC (integrated coal-gasification combined-cycle) plants operating in the world, and only a few test facilities capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
But for anybody interested, here is a link to a paper (from 1999) that describes IBGCC plants and their properties, and another link (from 2004) to a for-purchase paper on "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) with CO2 removal".
What I don't see, Jonas, is how this relates to the debate over current biofuel policies, unless your point is that the poower to drive electric vehicles could actually be carbon negative.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:01 am
04 Dec 2007
Perhaps that may be the case in the market (though, as I have argued, it hardly seems logical that the oil companies would oppose new sources of liquid transport fuels per se, since they mesh so well with their own business), but certainly not in the halls of power.
Against the meagre resources of the environmental community and other independent critics (e.g., taxpayer organizations) are people with political connections who invest in ethanol and then get special laws passed to favor the industry.
Consider this story, for example, on California's former Secretary of State, Bill Jones, now Pacific Ethanol's board chairman and director, and how he used "his political connections and 21 years of Sacramento experience to shape policies that are dramatically boosting California's thirst for ethanol -- stemming the state's dependence on gasoline, but at a cost of millions in taxpayer subsidies."
Or this story on a recent, and pathetic, e-mail campaign, started by the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest (not to be confused with the national chapter of the ALA), to influence an unscientific poll on ethanol run by a Minneapolis area television station. The e-mail reached as far as the U.S. Department of Energy, where instead of being deleted, it was forwarded on to "300 employees and 150 contractors at the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" by an aide to Assistant Secretary Alexander Karsner, "complete with voting instructions."
Then we have the long record of lobbying and campaign contributions from the nation's leading ethanol producer, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). There have been so many articles written on ADM's activities, from the early 1990s (e.g., here and here) through the present day, that they are no longer considered news, just part of the political landscape.
David may be small, but he wields a very, very big sling.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:39 am
04 Dec 2007
Thanks,
Mary
Thats pretty much exactly the point.
But the argument isn't really arguing various liquid fuels, to me atleast. The argument is to me is:
Increasing Energy Supply versus Reducing Energy Demand.
_
I support Hybrids, Diesels, Electrics, and Lightweighting, and other similar approaches because the primary component is reducing demand.
BioFuels, Hydrogen, and Coal-to-Liquids are all about a increasing supply.
_
Reducing Demand, largely leads towards reducing greenhouse emissions.
Increasing Supply, largely leads towards solving "Peak Oil", by decreasing the price of liquid fuels.
_
Going after both approaches at the same time, I believe, is counter productive.
Especially when you consider that Jevon's Paradox mentions that unless you increase the price of energy, then the increases in efficiency will NOT result in decreases in consumption, and may actually increase consumption.
Permalink
DustHead Posted 10:02 am
04 Dec 2007
Those that you that push for coal should visit a mountain top removal mine in West Virgina, and come back and say that coal consumption is good for the environment. I would rather have new and safe nuclear plants than coal.. Any day of the week.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:10 am
04 Dec 2007
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:31 am
04 Dec 2007
The point I was trying to make is that, if you take climate change seriously, then we should adopt and promote radical technologies that not merely "reduce" greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere. We should instead be promoting technologies that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Only carbon-negative bioenergy can provide this (except for bizarre oddities like sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere with geoengineering tools such as increasing the alkalinity of oceans - which are extremely expensive, but not technically impossible).
At Greyfalcon. Where did you ever read that there isn't enough biomass? There is potential to produce 1400 Exajoules of exportable bioenergy by 2050, roughly 7 times the amount of oil the world currently utilizes and roughly 3 times the total amount of all energy consumed by the world today. These projections are from the IEA's own Bioenergy Tasks, and they deal with explicitly sustainable production: no deforestation, and meeting all food, fiber, fodder and forest product needs of growing populations first.
I think 1400EJ of energy is quite a lot. You think it's not. We differ.
What would be wrong with promoting a transition towards electric transport powered by carbon-negative bioenergy, which delivers the baseload for 'merely' carbon-neutral and intermittent renewables like wind or solar?
Moreover, if ever we were to make a transition to hydrogen, then the most efficient and cleanest production pathway is production from biomass. Out of more than 40 pathways. And bio-hydrogen can be made most radically carbon-negative, so that's extremely promising.
I'm not against CCS applied to coal, simply because the world will be utilizing coal for a very long time, especially the developing world (China), so we better see them apply methods that make it less destructive. And if the big money machines make cheap technologies for capturing CO2, then why wouldn't we apply these to biomass power plants to generate negative emissions?
I prefer technologies that radically tackle climate change over those that do not really have a large impact. Because I take climate change quite seriously.
By the way, the IPCC has given explicit backing to the concept of bio-CCS - check out the final report.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:36 am
04 Dec 2007
And hypercar designs that are much lighter, safer, and more efficient. As new technology to produce electricity from liquid fuel comes online, it could replace infernal combustion gas guzzling.
Solid oxide fuel cell/turbines have been built at the small powerplant level. Boeing is working on one for backup generation on their aircraft and as a power source for unmanned vehicles. These are a few times more efficient than an ICE generator or engine.
Compressed biogas would even be feasible as a fuel with this technology, as very little fuel would be needed. Mileage could be the equivalent of 200 mpg on gasoline.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:44 am
04 Dec 2007
Biogas generation from the waste stream is carbon negative, it prevents the release of methane, 23 times worse as a GHG than CO 2.
Prevent the release or actually remove it once it has been released, it still has the same effect, reducing harmful GHG. The time frame is not really that important.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 11:56 am
04 Dec 2007
GreyFlcn writes;
The argument to me is:
Increasing Energy Supply versus Reducing Energy Demand. ...
Going after both approaches at the same time, I believe, is counter productive.
Especially when you consider that Jevon's Paradox mentions that unless you increase the price of energy, then the increases in efficiency will NOT result in decreases in consumption, and may actually increase consumption.
Consider this statement.
"Energy consumption causes global warming." True or false?
Earth has a diameter of 7,930 miles. The concentration of solar power at our distance from the sun is 1,147 watts per square yard. Calculating the area of earth's disk and multiplying by the solar flux gives the power intercepted by the earth, 175,500,000,000,000,000 watts.
Dividing by earth's population, 6.5 billion, reveals that earth receives 27 million watts of solar power for each human on the planet. That's not just at high noon on a clear day, that's 24 hours a day every day.
Some of that energy is reflected back into space by clouds and the earth's surface while the rest is absorbed and later reradiated into space along with a relatively small amount of heat emerging from earth's interior.
Over the suns 11 year cycle its output varies about 0.1%, 27,000 watts per human. Over the long term it has probably varied much more.
The 11,300 watts that support each of our lives in the U.S. (total energy, not just electricity) equals 0.04% of our share of solar incidence. With such enormous energy flows going all the time, how can our puny 11,300 watts change the earth's temperature significantly? It cannot.
The concern is that some of the gasses we are releasing into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, are restricting the reradiation of energy into space. A net 1% increase in the retention of solar flux would be an additional 270,000 watts of heat per person.
The point is that every human on the planet can enjoy a lifestyle more energy intensive than our own as long as we do it in a way that does not interfere with the natural energy balance of the earth.
In the future, as now, energy will be abundant and cheap, or limited and expensive. Limited and inexpensive is not an option.
The best and fastest way to cut down on the emission of greenhouse gasses while maintaining a safe comfortable lifestyle, is to tax emissions at a rate that fairly represents the cost of the damage they do, and provide a source of cheap, clean, carbon free energy, so that people will rapidly and willingly move away from expensive fossil fuels.
Fission is the only proven technology that can supply sufficient power to eliminate most combustion of fossil resources, and meet the world's energy needs at an affordable price.
Consuming energy does not cause global warming.
I believe future humans will prefer a world in which energy is abundant and cheap.
Trying to force the other option will not work.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:47 pm
04 Dec 2007
What do we really want?
The energy, or the services derived from it?
_
A compact flourecent lightbulb, for instance, connected to a predominantly coal powered grid.
What we want is light.
Now which would be simpler, quicker, and cheaper?
Replacing the coal plants, or replacing the lightbulb?
_
The greenest energy is energy you don't use in the first place.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:24 pm
04 Dec 2007
Maintaining Forrests in Tropical regions, like the Congo, Amazon, and Indonesian rainforrests.
As well as other natural ecosystems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7119913.stm
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:25 pm
04 Dec 2007
Not insignificant is the cost of maintaining roadways. Most people haven't noticed yet but the high cost of oil is leading to deteriorating roads in most areas. Asphalt and concrete roadways are not insignificant portions of the energy budget we allocate to transportation. A cost that is becoming too expensive for sustainable maintenance even now. Please note the increasing frequency of bridge collapses due to lack of maintenance funds.
Moving people requires roads and the cheapest roads to build and maintain are light overhead monorails. This is also one of the cheapest ways to move modular loads as evidenced by the widespread use of overhead rail systems to move goods in factories and even some agricultural operations such as bananas.
Steel wheels on steel rail hung on pylons do not require grading, massive bridges, overpasses built for the millennia or other monuments of concrete and rebar. The whole system would use a tenth of the energy input for each kilogram moved than current vehicles and could easily transverse difficult terrain without disrupting the ecology.
Endless arguments about wether our future transit needs are going to be supplied by ethanol powered vs. biodiesel vs. plug-in hybrids with flex fuel steam gensets are all going to be moot if we can't afford to pave the road to Maggie's farm anymore. There isn't going to be a road worth the name to get your biomass to the plant without cheap heavy crude.
At the turn of the 20th century light, electric, rail was profitable making milk runs to loading docks in the middle of fields all over america. Light rail requires extensive grade development to install. PRT systems that use overhead monorails could move pallet sized loads automatically the same way they are move in factories, by overhead rail. This would be cheaper than maintaining the grade for concrete, asphalt or light rail systems. Lest you think grade maintenance is trivial right now Interstate 5 is right now under 10 feet of water closing traffic between Portland and Seattle. That would just be brushing the bottoms of low flying monorail traffic and traffic would still be flowing.
We will continue to attempt to support the automobile economy but ultimately personal vehicles with wheels of petroleum driving on petroleum roadways is the energy equivalent of burning fuel just to watch it burn. What people need is transit that is independent of weather and flexible enough to handle freight and diverse routing. PRT combined with bicycles can provide that kind of service.
Links: http://www.jpods.com/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/
http://www.jpods.com/JPods/004Studies/CostsperMileRoads20 ...
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 2:32 am
05 Dec 2007
What do we really want?
The energy, or the services derived from it? A compact flourecent lightbulb, for instance, connected to a predominantly coal powered grid. What we want is light. Now which would be simpler, quicker, and cheaper? Replacing the coal plants, or replacing the lightbulb?
Grey, we should work both sides of the supply - demand equation. As you point out there is some low hanging fruit on the demand side, but in the long run the big gains will be supply side.
My recommendation is to tax emissions at a rate that fairly represents the cost of the damage they do, and provide sources of cheap, clean, carbon free energy, so that people will rapidly and willingly move away from expensive fossil fuels.
We should price coal fired electricity at the appropriate level, including the cost of the death of 20,000+ Americans each year, a silent 9/11 attack every two months.
See Page 12 of;
http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/dirtyAir.pdf
This will make buying CFLs, and all other conservation measures, more cost effective now, a more logical choice. More people will apply conservation measures more quickly.
At the same time it instantly makes it easier to attract the huge amounts of investment money to build low emission energy systems quickly.
Forcing or incentivising (with tax breaks, rebates etc.) people to replace their light bulbs and implement other conservation measures, without pricing emissions accurately, actually makes it easier to continue our addiction to coal.
Reducing U.S. emissions now is of minor importance. If we eliminated all of our greenhouse emissions tomorrow, the developing world will gobble up the savings in a relatively short period of time.
The most important goal for the U.S. should be to use our technical capacity to develop technology that is so inexpensive it can be implemented all over the world.
A recent study showed that U.S. children placed 29 in math and science, behind Croatia, Iceland and Latvia, so we better solve this problem quickly before we lose the intellectual capacity. See page 23 of the pdf.
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
One of the sample questions is on the greenhouse effect, page 18 of the pdf. Does everybody know a correct answer? Are you smarter than a 15 year old? Post your answer here, lets see what readers think.
We should increase R&D for non fossil energy systems from $2 per person to $200 per person, $60 billion per year. I believe the savings from this level of research would reach break even in 15-20 years and save over $1,000 per year per person within 30 years.
And by the way, you know whats better than bio-CCS?
Maintaining Forrests in Tropical regions, like the Congo, Amazon, and Indonesian rainforrests.
Right. If destroying a rainforest releases an enormous amount of CO2, and if an appropriate fee was charged for those emissions, then the only activity that would enable that act would be something with a much larger benefit. The forests would be well protected.
Permalink
rbcoleman Posted 6:23 am
07 Dec 2007
What we do in the US with ethanol does impact the destruction of rainforests and other endangered ecosystems off shore. Our biofuel policies have huge leak overs in all kinds of ways. And US firms are major investors in off shore biofuel schemes that are endangering critical ecosystems. The demand we create here for future biofuels does have far reaching consequences for the entire planet.
No argument there. That's why we support better upstream emissions modeling and sustainability protections that are reasonable and enforceable.
So while many of us agree that ethanol will have a place among a diversity of energy sources it will be very difficult in a global economy to confine biofuel production in an ecologically responsible and sustainable niche. There are troubling signs in many places already. Mr. Coleman seems to want to push the responsibility for containing biofuel onto the environomentally conscious consumer rather than on the biofuel investment community. And that, as consumers, is what we are ranting about. And he doesn't like it.
I was saying that subsidy reform is a consumer issue; that we cannot count on companies that need them to compete in a overly subsidized market to all of a sudden turn around and reject them. That's just wishful thinking. My position on "confining" biofuels to a responsible niche may be different than yours. I think we need to get progressively more sustainable without jeopardizing already sustainable land use, which is far different than opposing everything that is good but not great.
Mr. Coleman downplayed the role of corn ethanol on food prices but he did not address the point I attempted to make about its impact on prices when we encounter a major down year in corn production. Since we ramped up production we have not seen a bad crop year. Although farmers do receive a small percentage of food prices, the ethanol boosters are not going to reform the basic economic reality of food processors, feeders, packers, and retailers pushing on their costs to the consumer. The ethanol industry has yet to experience the enormous consumer backlash that will occur when a major drought hits the Midwest.
Corn crops will be good and bad, and this will affect markets. But oil is volatile too. There have been plenty of bad corn crops in recent years though. Volatility in commodity markets is unavoidable. Doesn't mean we should not have a more diversified fuels market.
Mr. Coleman also argues about the potential benefits of low wholesale ethanol prices. This is somewhat laughable considering that the industry is pulling back planned production for the very reason that the wholesale price is too low to incentivise investments. And if the infrastructure was in place for people to purchase cheaper ethanol vs. gas, the projected supply would not meet the demand except in very limited locales.
I dont know what's laughable about this. A non-competitive energy market makes all alternatives laughable because they need government support to compete, which in turn provokes ridicule from this crowd. The oil industry likes to say that ethanol would have a place in the market if the infrastructure was in place, but why then are they not blending more ethanol in conventional gasoline markets where E10 (the max warrantied blend) is not prevalent?
And this is probably the niche for ethanol -- in limited locales close to the points of production. We should not even be considering building ethanol distribution pipelines. If consumers in the Midwest can benefit from local production this would have the same impact on reducing oil demand nationally as attempting to push this fuel to all parts of the country via government mandates and subsidies. People in the Midwest live in this sacrificial landscape; let us benefit from some of the "external" costs of ag production. And our state (as well as your federal) tax dollars are also subsidizing local production so let us reap the local rewards first. If Illinoisans and Iowans can drive on E85 more economically and ecologically than on gas, OK. But pushing this nationally is stretching both the economical and the ecological arguments for it.
So I guess your position is that the Midwest is a natural market for ethanol but the coasts are a more natural market for oil? I dont see how shipping oil from Iraq, Russia or Venezuela (or Alaska for that matter) is more reasonable that using Midwestern fuel.
If Mr. Coleman wishes to put a better face on ethanol he should address the "Ethanol Guzzler" bumper sticker that the Renewable Fuels group has printed. I'd like to see some evidence that the ethanol trade is lobbying Congress to remove the Flex Fuel Vehicle loophole in the CAFE standard. When I see signs that the ethanol industry is attempting to conserve ethanol AND oil by promoting highly efficient cars, I'll put more stock in Mr. Coleman's arguments.
This is just more idealistic, never-going-to happen stuff. They should be in charge of closing the loophole? Why? Their members are trying to sell ethanol. The usefulness of ethanol is to displace petroleum. If you think they should be a leverage point for CAFE, sorry, but that's just out of touch with reality. Passionate but pointless.
If there are additional comments you want responses to, please let me know.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:00 am
07 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 12:02 am
08 Dec 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/6/162114/094
Permalink