20 in 10

[Shawnee123]

Bush wants to cut back on greenhouse emissions and regulate higher fuel efficiency.

In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush set a goal of reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years. Under his plan, this would be accomplished by increasing the use of alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons by 2017 and boosting fuel efficiency standards in new vehicles.

It seems a good idea, on the surface. Bush gets to look green, car manufacturers are forced to produce higher fuel efficiency cars. What are your opinions? Here are a few of mine:

1) What about now? I'm sure many people would love to buy into a high efficiency car; many of us cannot afford to buy a new Prius or other hybrid. Meanwhile gas prices are through the roof. Are we smoke-screening the issue that gas prices are a hardship on many, that the oil companies still make billions upon billions of dollars with the promise that in 10 years we'll feel better?

2) The burden on our already faltering auto industry is another issue. I'm all for big corporations being environmentally responsible, but another news report I saw last night talked about the eventuality of auto companies being forced to send the work overseas, that a US car will be in name only.

I'm interested in you politically/ environmentally/ economically savvy folks' opinions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ethanol is a false god, being touted without full disclosure.

[Happy Monkey]

I heard someone on C-SPAN this morning testifying that this was the first year that ethanol made a net increase to the fuel supply.

I'm not sure if he meant last year, or a projection for this year, of financial year, or what.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But at what cost?

[Shawnee123]

These are more things I don't know:

Do you need a certain car to burn ethanol? What does it cost? Is it currently marketed to the general public?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But at what cost?

I don't know. What cost?

[xoxoxoBruce]

How about your weekly food budget climbing from an average of 10% of your income to at least 40%. That's until Global warming makes more land unproductive at which point it gets worse.

But not to worry, we can always eat nice safe Chinese exports.
And with the resurgence of food tasters, full employment.

[Happy Monkey]

That would be a plus. It would be nice if corn got expensive enough that it wasn't used to simulate every other food. Maybe get some real sugar in our twinkies and some real fruit in our juice.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That would be a plus. It would be nice if corn got expensive enough that it wasn't used to simulate every other food. Maybe get some real sugar in our twinkies and some real fruit in our juice.

Now there I'm interested. I never thought about the price of corn going up (duh, shawnee, supply and demand) with increased use of ethanol. Will we end up with no better prices? Will the demand keep up?

This is why I started this thread. I'm a bit clueless on economics and I really enjoy this insight.

[lumberjim]

we could just eat oil if corn gets too expensive. popoil ....oil flakes.....oildogs! yum!

[Shawnee123]

That's an oily idea!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

These are more things I don't know:

Do you need a certain car to burn ethanol? What does it cost? Is it currently marketed to the general public?

Ethanol is an additive sometimes used as a replacement for MTBE - a minor part of the gasoline blend. Another blend would be 85% ethanol / 15% petroleum. But ethanol does bad things to metal and has a bad tendency to absorb water from the air. (Some should expect to have water problems or even rusting in their gasoline tanks.) Vehicles and gasoline stations must be carefully redesigned to use the 85% ethanol blend - ie so called "flex fuel" vehicles.

Ethanol also cannot be transported in pipelines. Therefore transport costs are increased by truck or train where ethanol is mixed at the refinery. Therefore rail and truck lobbies also pay to have ethanol required.

Ethanol, as made in the US, must break down enzymes that are difficult to process. Compare this to enzymes in warmer weather plants (above 25 degree C) that break down readily. As a result, Brazil is a great source of ethanol using simpler crops (ie sawgrass). But when cost controls and political agendas are more important, then we must pervert the free market. Each gallon of Brazilian ethanol gets slapped a $0.50 per gallon tax. Each gallon of American corn ethanol gets a $0.51 government subsidy. Free markets from 'the Bush'?

What is the actual cost of ethanol? With so many government subsidies, transport costs, and .... well American corn ethanol exists for reasons political and not for reasons science or economic.

Best answer available is that American ethanol is an energy break even. Any energy gained is lost in additional energy consumed to manufacture and transport the stuff. Economically, ethanol is a losing proposition which is why ethanol requires government 'corporate welfare'.

And still, no one can explain why Brazilians - who did the innovation - are denied US markets. If ethanol was all that it is hyped, then Brazil would be a nation of strategic importance to the US. But K-street 'politicians' know better what is good for us.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ethanol is a false god, being touted without full disclosure.

I agree.

[HungLikeJesus]

This week I'm in a two-day biomass conference in Wyoming. The presentations are mostly related to cellulosic biomass. Cellulose is the part of the plant that is usually considered waste (corn stover, cobs, the fiber that gets between your teeth). It also includes other woody biomass (wood chips, construction and demolition waste, MSW, etc.)

The parts of plants that are currently converted to ethanol are the starch and sugars. These are also the parts that are edible by humans. Studies estimate that the maximum quantity of US transportation fuel that can be replaced by sugar-based ethanol to be about 5-10%, based on land requirements.

In 2006, US ethanol production was about 5 billion gallons.

Because of high corn prices, farmers are planting more corn for ethanol production. Since there is a limited amount of farm land, this reduces production of other crops, making all food more expensive - including meat.

There are many projects currently under way to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources, including corn waste, straw and switch grass, C&D waste, yard and vegetable waste, and other wood residues.

Other products are also being investigated, including DME - which is an isomer of ethanol that can be used in a special diesel engine (Chemrec and Volvo), and standard diesel from FTL (CHOREN and Daimler Chrysler).

It's thought that cellulosic biomass can be used to replace up to 20% of our current transportation fuels.

Tomorrow's presentations include "Wood Biomass to Ethanol" and "Production of Syngas from Wood Biomass."

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That would be a plus. It would be nice if corn got expensive enough that it wasn't used to simulate every other food. Maybe get some real sugar in our twinkies and some real fruit in our juice.

That's all well and good but with the fuel mandates and government subsidies more land will be switched over to corn production. How much do you think you'll have to pay for lettuce or carrots in order for the farmer(agricultural corporation) to consider growing them instead of the guaranteed profit in corn?

When they can efficiently make ethanol from non food biomass we'll be in good shape.
When Brazil has a bad growing season they import ethanol from the US and Canada.

One more thing, all the meat that eats grain will go up too.