Here is an article I found in the Renewable Energy Access bulletin asking for further government subsidization of cellulosic ethanol so it can compete with other subsidized biofuels.
It gave me an idea. I looked up some statistics to see how much oil the Prius fleet has saved and compared it to how much ethanol is consumed. Turns out that the 500,000 Priuses sold save about five to seven times more oil annually than all of the corn ethanol consumed in the United States.
As I have said numerous times, the Prius was not spawned by government subsidies. Using less oil is the best answer. Replacing existing consumption levels with biofuels using today's technology is a gold rush fueled by pork politics, profit seekers, and a largely ignorant public. The future cannot be predicted. Millions of entrepreneurs experimenting and testing in the market flush out winners like the Prius. Bungling government bureaucracies have a strong tendency to screw everything up, as the article in Renewable Access laments.
Distortion of markets by endless government subsidization has created a huge corn ethanol industry that has no intention of giving up past gains, with over a hundred giant distilleries, none of which can be converted to cellulosic, all on the backs of taxpayers. The government cannot pick economic winners for us. To date the government has picked for us corn ethanol (unsustainable, ecologically destructive), soybean biodiesel (ditto, taking five times as much land as corn ethanol), and nuclear power (finally halted by consumer concerns). If cellulosic technology finally gets to the point that it is economically viable, it will win with or without government help.
Presently, cellulosic is expensive to produce. In its present technological state, which may or may not advance, it can't compete against other government subsidized fuels (which after a quarter century of subsidization still can't compete). If and when further research finally finds ways to break cellulose down economically, this technology will then have to go head to head with a corn ethanol industry (built by government subsidies) that has as much political clout as the Pentagon. As the Prius attests, technologies that use less liquid fuel are far more cost effective and efficient than trying to grow your own.
Notes: Assuming 37,066,000 gallons of corn ethanol consumed in U.S., 500,000 Priuses sold, 12,000 miles driven annually, saving 24 miles per gallon (national average of 21 MPG).
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Flat
jscorse Posted 5:01 am
07 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:06 am
07 Dec 2006
The Prius is superior to Detroit's non-offerings, but, as Richard Register has noted, it's still a bad idea because it enables people to put off the car-free lifestyle longer. For example, I don't know where your "savings" estimates come from, since the US still uses more oil every year than the previous ones. So did those 500,000 Prii lead to savings, or just encourage people to keep sprawling out further with less strain on their own pocketbook?
Permalink
pecan tower Posted 10:37 am
07 Dec 2006
in the 90's California passed a policy requiring a small percentage of vehicles to be zero emmissions by the next decade. GM was the first on the scene with the EV1, but other automakers--fearing being left behind--came forward with their own models. Toyota's work on electric engines during this period of time is what lead them to develop their hybrid-electric vehicles.
just saying... one could also note that :
Distortion of markets by endless government subsidization of road building, monetary policy, and military oil supply protection, has created and sustained an automobile industry that has no intention of giving up past gains, all on the backs of taxpayers. The government cannot pick economic winners for us. To date the government has picked for us automobile based road transit (unsustainable, ecologically destructive), mortgage interest subsidized mcmansions (ditto, taking many acres of farmland), and coal power (expanding rapidly by lack of consumer concerns).
and so on...
not that i'm a big fan of ethanol subsidies.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:52 pm
07 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:39 am
08 Dec 2006
I agree with you in spirit here. No informed person wanting to consume less oil would even think about buying one of those inane Detroit flex-fuel vehicles. If you want to consume less oil and you must buy a car, pick the one with the best milage within your budget.
But as for cellulosic, I believe that the existing conventional plants can plausibly be converted to cellulosic -- if, as you say, the technology (for which the government has been investing R&D cash for about 30 years) ever improves to the point that cellulosic gets reasonably cheap.
Cellulosic enthusiasts (I almost wrote "industry players," but as yet, there's no industry, just enthusiasm) say it will likely take less to convert an old plant than build a new cellulosic one. And, in fact, refiners will have an incentive to, do so since the supports currently in place for conventional ethanol actually intensify for cellulosic. See Doug Koplow's excellent study on biofuel subsidies for details.)
The problem, to me, is even under cellulosic, corn will still be a main feedstock for years to come. The refiners with the financial clout to adapt early -- ADM, Cargill -- have billions invested in hauling and storing corn. So they'll soak up all of those subsidies and use corn stover as a cellulosic feedstock, And that just means even further mining the topsoil of the midwest to fill our tanks.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:30 am
09 Dec 2006
It it just as likely to be cheaper to start over with a whole new plant somewhere else. An analogy would be to convert a gas power plant into a coal one. Both use turbines in the final step to produce the final product but to convert one into the other is likely to be more expensive than just starting over.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink