Political Discussions
U.S. seen unlikely to meet ethanol fuel-content goal
Posted by timethief • 10/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, corn, ethanol cap, fuel, switch grass, usa
The United States will likely not meet its goal of blending 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the gasoline supply in 2010 unless it raises the proportion of ethanol allowed in fuel, a U.S. industry group said on Tuesday.
Retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, co-chairman of the Growth Energy group, said the 100 million gallon level could be reached in time if the cap on the permitted level of ethanol in regular gasoline is increased to 15 percent from 10 percent.
Read the full article www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE58S5QO20090929?feedType=RSS&...
Discussion
Do you think the cap should be increased?
User Comments
-
I don't know enough about the numbers, but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with using food for fuel. One recent example of the consequences of such policies is Guatemala, whose serious hunger crisis I heard about in a German news program this week. The government attributes its ills to global warming, but having so much land in the hands of big agriculture for ethanol production is helping to create the problem too.
-
Agreed. To be a viable choice biofuel means something very easily replaceable and essentially sustainable over time. Using corn for fuel and not for food is fundamentally wrong because it pushes up the price of food and reduces the supply.
I have family and friends and in the US who are violently opposed to biofuels because they are coming from corn grown on previously food-producing land. They don't like "regulation" it is "economic socialism and un-American".
Cellulosic biofuel can be made into any type of fuel ethanol, petrol, diesel or jet fuel. If sources of waste carbohydrate, probably in the form of cellulose, then and only then will biofuels be part of the answer. Also production of algal biomass in natural waterways an/or sewage treatment systems offers another source of ethanol and will also result in cleaning up contaminated rivers and can provide another part of the answer to this problem.
I think $800 million of funding for the Department of Energy's Biomass Program is a step in the right direction.
-
-
Most car engines can only handle 10 percent ethanol and last for a shorter period of time even at that level. Moving up to 15, many car engines simply won't be able to handle it. I'm also glad that Clio brought up the point about used food for fuel and why it is wrong, and when you live in the inner city like I do you really get to see first hand the human cost of that.-
Another cost of ethanol is that it contributes to deforestation. I'm a bigger fan of algal based fuel that have the additional benefit of either cleaning waterways or filtering industrial waste. -
@xmarks: Absolutely! Prior to Ethanol Subsidies, America was actually reforesting overall because cotton farms and others were going out of business and paving way for lumber farms, which create new forest land for up to 80 years before harvesting and take CO2 out of the air. Algal based fuel is a much better idea, although I myself am a bigger fan of EV's and nuclear power.
-
jj: ethanol is causing even more deforestation in developing countries where the rules are easier.
EV - yes. Nuclear - part of the mix but I think we could get their faster and cheaper through solar, micro hydro and wind. As mentioned on another thread, I would also want to see some pretty solid plans on how and where we handle/store waste. -
@xmarks: Faster and cheaper? Nuclear's cheaper then coal and could be even cheaper if regulation was restructured and nuclear related manufacturing resurrected (right now, only one factory in the world produces reactor shells, and some power plant parts have to be hand built ala Rolls Royce.) Solar is a cost disaster. Wind can be useful in places, but requires significant subsidies most of the time (though still cheaper then most carbon reduction schemes) while nuclear is built by anyone who can get a permit with completely private money. I definitely think wind should be part of the mix, but nuclear has to be part of it and is certainly the most beneficial.
-
The cost of solar continues to decline as the technology improves. Additionally, many power providers don't allow for the excess energy to be sold back to the grid. The market for solar is still rather small. A major push to expand solar could continue to bring the cost down. The additional benefit is that solar could be produced where the electricity is needed most.
Think using expenses already provided differently. Many states and cities reduce taxes to attract certain companies. Instead of just giving them a reduction buy them solar panels for their manufacturing plant. The company still has incentives and, once the panels are installed, its electricity costs are dramatically reduced for decades. The solar onsite also reduces risk of brown and blackouts. That risk, as well as electricity costs, are very real for some manufacturing facilities. -
@xmarks: "The cost of solar continues to decline as the technology improves."
From what to what. The cost of every kind of energy (including nuclear with reprocessing technology) continues to decline as technology improves!
Further, nuclear's cost is many times what it has to be, even with current technology, as a result of regulation. It also has the exact same kind of underproduction and lack of economy of scale that you point out for solar.
"The company still has incentives and, once the panels are installed, its electricity costs are dramatically reduced for decades."
What if electric costs are insignificant for that particular kind of manufacturing? (Like final assembly work or shipyards?) Further, they know what they're giving up (free money) to receive your solar panels, and you would have to buy more solar panels then the amount of solar panels that could be bought for that free money because solar panels can be used for one thing (generating electricity) while incentives can be used for anything. Thing is, if solar panels were that valuable to them, THEY'D BUY THEM!
There's an immense lack of humility in this line of argument. Not that we aren't all sometimes guilty of that, but it certainly isn't a virtue.
"The solar onsite also reduces risk of brown and blackouts. "
Your assuming 1) the solar produces enough power for the plant and 2) the plant only runs, or needs electricity, during the daytime. If (2) is true, the risk cost of blackout for this plant is pretty low as a blackout effectively happens every day. If (1) is true, electric cost for this plant is low and your "incentive" would be tiny. -
You are assuming that solar would be the only type of incentive given. I threw it out as an alternative incentive where it works. One size does not fit all. Additionally, if this is something that they city (for example) wants to make work, they would not offer free money vs. solar incentives. The benefit for solar vs. free money is that you know the construction will happen in your district in addition you have given the company more incentive to say in that building for longer into the future. Free money only lasts as an incentive as long as you are willing to keep giving free money. The solar project has a useful benefit to the company for decades but only requires one purchase from the city.
Regarding what you think I am assuming.
First, no I am not assuming that the solar power can power the entire plan. For companies that continuous power is an issue they have back up plans. Solar power would be one component of that.
Second, regarding the plant only needing power during the day, actually I'm not making the assumption. As already mentioned, companies that need continual power would have a back up plan. Solar power would simply extend the resiliancy of that company. In addition, black/brownouts do happen 24 hrs a day but the sun is up 12 hrs a day. That cuts the risk (notice I do not say eliminate) of black/brown outs even if the company does not have a robust back up plan. -
@xmarks: Free money can be used to buy assets which do last, including buildings, and usually are. Personally, I would like to see states just ditch incentives altogether, but I know that's probably too idealistic. Also, those solar panels only last for 25 years tops, most for less.
About your "assumptions," the point is that if the company faces large risk with regards to brownouts or blackouts, they will have to buy their own generator. The solar panels don't lower the cost of that, and the generator is really not that large of an expenditure. This only really becomes a huge issue if they are having to run the generator all the time, like in India and some other developing countries, because generators are almost always less efficient even when transmission cost is taken in to account.
I've also seen some micro-hydro projects in WA and thought they were complete disasters. The costs were enormous and the benefits small. -
In my years in business, I find that free money usually doesn't go for purchases like buildings. Usually it just goes into the P&L and gets blended in with the rest of the money. Then the company decides what to buy and the free aspect is lost unless there were strings attached.
You can continue taking one example and generalizing it. In the real world, there are situations wjere things make sense and where they don't. I'm stressing mix, which means putting the right solution in the right situation.
I've see some micro water. Some worked well. Some didn't. -
@xmarks: And I see no way that your solution would ever practically work, not on this earth or any other planet.
-
You don't see a solution based on multi-source energy production utilizing a combination of financial resources and blended motivation pushing pragmatic programs?
-
It's not a pragmatic program. It does not address pragmatic concerns but merely dogmatic ones.
-
jj: you don't know my solution, so how can you pass judgement. You keep focusing on one piece, attacking it and then saying the whole solution won't work.
The main difference between between what I've said and what you've said is that you put a lot more focus on nuclear and I put a little more focus on solar and micro hydro. Additionally, I would also put effort in conservation.
IMO you have not fully vetted putting so much effort behind nuclear. If you look at the price of uranium in the last ten years, consider the possibility that we have already reached hubbert's peak, the effects of massive increases on specialized industries, etc. the cost of nuclear will likely increase with dramatically more plants.
-
-
Ethanol isn't very green. It takes carbon production to plant, harvest, and process.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
