<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A pragmatic view of cellulosic biofuels]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Arjuna http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:51:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/1 Missing a key point

You're missing one of Khosla's central points - parallel hybrids are cost prohibitive - ie: the incremental cost relative to a standard car is going to add several thousand dollars.  That's why he is pushing serial hybrids.  

There's potentially something to that argument depending on whether mass production of parallel hybrids could drive the cost down faster than alternatives - but the added complexity does suggest his point may be valid.

]]> Missing a key point

You're missing one of Khosla's central points - parallel hybrids are cost prohibitive - ie: the incremental cost relative to a standard car is going to add several thousand dollars.  That's why he is pushing serial hybrids.  

There's potentially something to that argument depending on whether mass production of parallel hybrids could drive the cost down faster than alternatives - but the added complexity does suggest his point may be valid.

]]> Comment #2 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:11:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/2 missing what?

You're missing one of Khosla's central points - parallel hybrids are cost prohibitive - ie: the incremental cost relative to a standard car is going to add several thousand dollars.  That's why he is pushing serial hybrids.

I don't see why you think Joseph is missing this point, nor why you think he would disagree.  Serial hybrids are the future, and any plug-in hybrid is necessarily a serial system (i.e. able to drive exclusively on the electric motor).  If anything, Khosla is dismissing serial hybrids as he casts aspersions on PHEVs.

]]> missing what?

You're missing one of Khosla's central points - parallel hybrids are cost prohibitive - ie: the incremental cost relative to a standard car is going to add several thousand dollars.  That's why he is pushing serial hybrids.

I don't see why you think Joseph is missing this point, nor why you think he would disagree.  Serial hybrids are the future, and any plug-in hybrid is necessarily a serial system (i.e. able to drive exclusively on the electric motor).  If anything, Khosla is dismissing serial hybrids as he casts aspersions on PHEVs.

]]> Comment #3 by Solarspike http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:18:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/3 Bio fuels VS EVs

Several people (including Ken Regelson in Colorado) have done calculations comparing the number of miles per acre per year for biofuels vs photovoltaics and electric cars. The range for various biofuels is between 6,000 and 30,000 miles per acre per year. PV is between 1 and 2 million miles per acre per year. The show stopper for all biofuels is the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. Kohsla may know how to make money but he fails to understand basic energy issues. I have no idea why he hangs onto this ethanol issue. He is dead wrong but so are all the politicians. (among presidential candidates the exception is Gravel and possibly Kucinich)

]]> Bio fuels VS EVs

Several people (including Ken Regelson in Colorado) have done calculations comparing the number of miles per acre per year for biofuels vs photovoltaics and electric cars. The range for various biofuels is between 6,000 and 30,000 miles per acre per year. PV is between 1 and 2 million miles per acre per year. The show stopper for all biofuels is the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. Kohsla may know how to make money but he fails to understand basic energy issues. I have no idea why he hangs onto this ethanol issue. He is dead wrong but so are all the politicians. (among presidential candidates the exception is Gravel and possibly Kucinich)

]]> Comment #4 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:34:31 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/4 Bait and Switch

But Khosla's argument is largely correct.

It's classic debate style, actually:
Step 1. A is better than B
Step 2. C is kinda like A
Step 3. C is better than B

_

Say the starting point is a Camry.
The "Marginal CO2 Abatement Cost" of switching to a Corolla most likely IS cheaper than a Prius.
(However this is where he switches the argument on you!)

His argument is that the cost of running a Corolla on Ethanol is a monthly increase of 2$ for the FlexFuel system
And a monthly increase of 0$ for the fuel itself.
From there he also makes the argument that Corn Ethanol reduces CO2 emissions.

THEREFORE, the Marginal CO2 abatement cost:
FFV Corolla < Corolla < Prius
FFV Corolla < Prius

_

The huge flaw in his argument though is that the additional cost of running a car on ethanol fuel is NOT zero dollars.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/13/diesel-vs-hybrid- ...

But the TRUTH to his argument is that creating a more bare-bones smaller lighter mass-produced car, is a more cost-effective way to reduce emissions than Hybrids.

(Especially when taken to the extreme in countries which are more labor intensive than capital intensive, such as the $2500 Tata Motors car.)

However I think it's clear that in an American market, downsizing the size and acceleration speed, and still creating a desirable car doesn't really work.
So even thought his first argument is true, it's still faulty.











]]> Bait and Switch

But Khosla's argument is largely correct.

It's classic debate style, actually:
Step 1. A is better than B
Step 2. C is kinda like A
Step 3. C is better than B

_

Say the starting point is a Camry.
The "Marginal CO2 Abatement Cost" of switching to a Corolla most likely IS cheaper than a Prius.
(However this is where he switches the argument on you!)

His argument is that the cost of running a Corolla on Ethanol is a monthly increase of 2$ for the FlexFuel system
And a monthly increase of 0$ for the fuel itself.
From there he also makes the argument that Corn Ethanol reduces CO2 emissions.

THEREFORE, the Marginal CO2 abatement cost:
FFV Corolla < Corolla < Prius
FFV Corolla < Prius

_

The huge flaw in his argument though is that the additional cost of running a car on ethanol fuel is NOT zero dollars.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/13/diesel-vs-hybrid- ...

But the TRUTH to his argument is that creating a more bare-bones smaller lighter mass-produced car, is a more cost-effective way to reduce emissions than Hybrids.

(Especially when taken to the extreme in countries which are more labor intensive than capital intensive, such as the $2500 Tata Motors car.)

However I think it's clear that in an American market, downsizing the size and acceleration speed, and still creating a desirable car doesn't really work.
So even thought his first argument is true, it's still faulty.











]]> Comment #5 by verkwon http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/ Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:24:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-vinod-khosla-is-very-wrong/5 it's not the fuels, it's the cars

until we get away from the need to drive at all costs, we will continue down the road to doom.

I know this strays away from the original arguments, but really isn't our auto-based suburban sprawl the primary cause of the transportation CO2 blues?

back to the main debate of this thread.  I agree that smaller cars, could do as well.  I grew up driving econoboxes that regularly got 40+ mpg. Mazda GLCs and Honda Civics.  Can't the car companies at least match that with all their new technologies?  and diesel?  For the kind of driving I do, this is a much better option than a Prius.  

in short, many options to attack the problem, and no one solutions will do it all.

thnx

]]> it's not the fuels, it's the cars

until we get away from the need to drive at all costs, we will continue down the road to doom.

I know this strays away from the original arguments, but really isn't our auto-based suburban sprawl the primary cause of the transportation CO2 blues?

back to the main debate of this thread.  I agree that smaller cars, could do as well.  I grew up driving econoboxes that regularly got 40+ mpg. Mazda GLCs and Honda Civics.  Can't the car companies at least match that with all their new technologies?  and diesel?  For the kind of driving I do, this is a much better option than a Prius.  

in short, many options to attack the problem, and no one solutions will do it all.

thnx

]]>