BioD already mentioned it in comments, but I thought I'd draw above-the-fold attention to this post from Robert Rapier on The Oil Drum.
One often hears that Brazil is the model for biofuels usage: They've come close to achieving energy independence by creating ethanol with sugar cane. As Tom Daschle and Vinod Khosla said in their recent NYT op-ed, "Brazil has it figured out; why can't we?"
Rapier explains exactly why:
Yes, Brazil has in fact "figured it out" with respect to energy independence. But the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol. Increase their energy usage to U.S. levels, and the "energy independence miracle" would quickly vanish. This is the factor that the media and the politicians have overlooked. On the other hand, if the U.S. had the same per capita energy consumption as Brazil, we would be net oil exporters. In fact, our per capita energy consumption could be 11 barrels per person per year -- triple the consumption of Brazil -- and our production and demand would be in balance. We would be energy independent.
The real lesson from Brazil is that energy independence can be achieved by slashing our energy usage. It is simply not realistic to expect the U.S. to achieve energy independence with biofuels -- unless we sharply curb our consumption. The next time you hear someone say we should emulate Brazil's example, ask them to calculate the amount of ethanol this would require, and ask them how we are supposed to produce that much. It is time to start demanding details from the "Brazil believers". In doing so, we may convey the gravity of the situation to those who think ethanol will lead us to energy independence.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
How industry pressures and competing national agendas dim prospects for a climate treaty
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Flat
Ralph Swartz Posted 4:51 am
08 Apr 2007
Why is this? It is because petroleum costs more in Europe, and the Europeans have adapted. They drive smaller cars and they utilize public transportation. Their national trucking fleet is more efficient. They rarely use petroleum for electrical generation or home heating.
Yet the Europeans pay the same price for oil as America does. Where does the difference come from? The difference is because of taxes imposed on petroleum products. The revenue from these taxes makes petroleum less attractive while at the same time funding capital-intensive public transportation projects, more efficient highways, etc.. Europeans (and Japanese) are currently paying about $7 per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, and they are getting along quite nicely in spite of it!
We can not suddenly increase the cost of motor fuel in the U.S. to $7 per gallon. The results would be catastrophic to the economy. What needs to be done is a phased-in tax that would be announced NOW and implemented over a period of 10 to 15 years. This way everyone in the U.S. (and the rest of the world) would know that we are serious about cutting our petroleum dependence and would be able to plan accordingly in their purchase of their next automobile. It would not immediately ruin the value of all the existing SUVs, but people would think twice about replacing them with a similar vehicle in their next buying cycle.
The method to this would be to add a 3-cents per gallon tax per month for the next 120-months (10-years). This additional 3-cents would hardly be noticeable for the first year. (12-mos.= 36-cents), but it would get people and manufacturers thinking and planning for the future. The revenue generated would be earmarked for public transportation projects and research towards alternative fuel. 120-months X 3-cents-per-month would ultimately result is $3.60 per gallon tax by 2018, putting U.S. motor fuel on approximately the same level as Europe is today.
The auto makers would have plenty of time (10-years) to adjust their model mix accordingly. The message sent to the rest of the world (ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST) would be clear that the U.S will be reducing it's petroleum demand by probably 85%. What would this tell the Middle East? That their power will be diminishing soon and that they should probably stop their ranting and raving and become citizens of the real world!
If the U.S. consumption of petroleum per capita were reduced to the same level as European consumption per capita the numbers might look like this:
U.S. Petroleum consumption is currently about 800 MILLION gallons per DAY!
Reduce this by 85% (to European per-capita levels), and this would mean a savings of 680 MILLION gallons per day!
Tax revenue the first year would be approximately 87-Billion dollars. This would make the down-payment on a LOT of public transportation projects!
This would not overly impact the poor. In Europe, the 'poor' are actually benefitted by the availability of extremely efficient public transportation.
Sincerely,
Ralph Swartz
Silverthorne, Colorado
Permalink