Bart sums up the problem of this kind of thinking succinctly: the USA and the world is not going to solve its oil, broader energy, or climate change problems by subsidizing vehicles or the fuels they use.

kn99 writes:

Biofuels are relatively small part of the plan. Their supply would gradually expand to about 4 or 5 times more than today. At this level, the environmental effects remain positive (i.e., reducing CO2 emissions), while creating an alternative fuel supply chain.

A four- or five-fold expansion in biofuels use would not be trivial. Already, at today's level of production, there have been huge impacts on the markets for grains and vegetable oils. Even if the biomass for biofuel feedstock were to be produced sustainably, the displacement effects of devoting that much land to biofuels could mean either much more-intensive production on the remaining land, in order to meet the pre-existing needs of food, fibre and feed (which undermines the GHG emission benefits), or an expansion of crop production into prairies or forests.

Subsidies are applied in the short term and phased out as the vehicle market develops. With Europe and most of Asia even more vulnerable to oil shocks, it's unlikely they would not follow suit and remove their reliance on oil as well.

If you are talking about the biofuels market, all the evidence is to the contrary. The industry has been subsidized for almost 30 years now, and legislation under consideration in the U.S. Congress would both extend the subsidies and boost them. So what would Sandalow's plan do differently?

Again, Sandalow's book is worth checking directly.  The growth in biofuels is gradual over 20 years, with the early growth in domestic corn and imported cane ethanol, and 75% of the long-term production from agricultural residues (of which there are many adequate sources -- again, check the book).  And that's without progress on algae, biobutanol, etc, all of which have promise over 10-20 years.

About subsidies:  If the peak oil theories are right, they are not a problem -- at oil over $50 per barrel, today's biofuels are profitable.  The problem in the past has been that oil production never peaked, and prices were under $25 per barrel for decades.

In any event, it's the shift to electric power that is critical.  If oil prices go very high, even today's PHEVs are economic.  With high enough prices, or shortages in biofuels, Sandalow's plan shifts more to electricity.  The plan assumes only 40-mile batteries and overnight recharging.  With higher oil prices, larger battery packs become economic, vehicles can recharge during the day, and they can have replaceable battery packs (similar to today's replaceable propane tanks).  These are small disruptions at minimal risk, and the can push the reduction in oil use to 90%.

Sandalow's book makes the point that his plan is already close to mainstream thinking.  Even the Brookings Institution is promoting it, the book is endorsed across the political spectrum, and that's in response to today's ecological and geopolitical costs of oil (before the coming economic costs of peak oil.)

does the book go into how to get all the political opposition locked in jail for this stuff to pass?

A series of orders guaranteed over ten years would be better.  Say 30 million?  But 30,000 is a start.

If the design was rear wheel plugin electric drive, with a standard economy car front wheel drive internal combustion engine, retooling would be minimal.

Each car company could produce models to fullfill contracts, conversions of present models.  It's a real shortcut to renewable electric transportation and distributed power storage.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog