|
OPINION
|
|
|
President Bush’s energy policy, presented in his State of the Union address,
projected a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline usage in 10 years, primarily
through a massive expansion of ethanol production. This is to be augmented, to a
smaller degree, by improved efficiency of new cars starting in 2010 through
yet-to-be-legislated higher CAFE mileage standards.
This plan is flawed, for several key reasons. First, increasing ethanol
production fivefold over the already aggressive 2012 target may be good for the
ethanol producers, but is not good for the U.S. or world populations as well as
not practical or achievable! There is not enough corn in the U.S. to make 35
billion barrels of ethanol a year without adding 40 million acres of new crops.
Why should we ask people if they would rather “eat or drive,” by using a
fuel choice that has extremely poor fuel efficiency, and will dramatically drive
up the cost of most corn-based foods to people in the U.S. and throughout the
world.
Second, mileage is worse with ethanol. In recent tests, Consumer Reports showed
that ethanol, while offering some improvement in emissions, has a much lower
energy content than gasoline and, therefore, provides much worse mileage -- only
75 to 85 percent of typical gasoline miles per gallon. Also, reports from
Cornell University scientists and other researchers show that the amount of
energy expended in producing a gallon of corn-based ethanol -- from the
fertilizer and tractor fuel to the harvesting, production and delivery of the
finished ethanol fuel -- is actually greater than the net energy recovered when
we burn each gallon of corn-based ethanol. Ethanol made from sugar crops and,
preferably, switchgrass (cellulosic) offers more attractive returns, but
cellulosic-ethanol production methods are still being refined, with high-volume
processes not yet commercially viable.
As quoted in the MIT Technology Review, David Victor, head of the Energy and
Sustainable Development Program at Stanford University, feels that “the target
that (Bush) sets of cutting down gasoline consumption by 20 percent in a decade
is, almost certainly unachievable.” “[There are also] big economic problems
because [making ethanol from corn] certainly isn't competitive with other ways
of making biofuels, such as from sugar”.
However, Bush’s other key method of increasing the U.S. CAFE (corporate
average fuel economy) standards by 4 percent per year starting in 2010, makes
far more sense, but will only contribute a small amount in the near term to his
overall goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years. For
instance, reducing the fuel used in new vehicles sold in 2010 by 4 percent would
reduce the overall total gasoline consumed, by only about one-quarter of 1
percent since the new cars sold each year (about 17 million) represent only
about 7 percent of the total U.S. vehicle population of over 220 million.
However, after five to six years of continued increases of 4 percent per year in
the CAFE standards, the total fuel savings could amount to a more significant
aggregate level of 3 to 5 percent, depending on how broad the new standards are
made.
Another factor is the impact on light trucks and SUVs, which represent over 50
percent of new vehicle sales. Higher CAFE standards are a more practical way to
begin to wean our country from our “addiction to oil.” As stated by Stanford’s
Victor, ”Some sort of a ratcheting up of fuel-economy standards is long
overdue. And a lot of people have been calling for it. And maybe they have
enough votes for it on the Hill, and enough support from the White House that
something will actually get done about it.”
But why wait until 2010 to improve our vehicle efficiency and start reducing our
use of fuel ? Why not start conserving fuel today with simple actions that
everyone can take to improve their vehicle efficiency, regardless of the type of
vehicle or fuel they use! With several simple, cost-free steps, as mentioned on
the weekly radio talk show “This New Car,” virtually anyone can get 10 to 20
percent better mileage -- today!.
Although many of us drive hybrid vehicles, which are already quite efficient,
there are several easy steps that we can take to further improve efficiency and
reduce our use of fuel -- even with hybrids. The simplest, fastest method is to
properly inflate our tires, preferably close to the maximum recommended
pressure. This alone could save 4 to 6 percent of total US fuel use, if everyone
would take just a minute to pump up their tires.
Another simple approach is to slow down! Just reducing the average highway
driving speed to 60 miles per hour (from over 70 on many roads) could save
another 3 to 5 percent. Also, more conservative driving habits (slower
acceleration, anticipating upcoming lights and stop signs, less aggressive
braking, and more coasting) will further increase our mileage. Other simple
measures include using cruise controls on trips and paying attention to onboard
miles-per-gallon displays -- which should be mandatory on all new cars!
Other methods include reducing weight of extra “junk” in our vehicles and
reducing drag from roof-rack crossbars as well as open beds and tailgates on
pickup trucks. For those purists who want the last 2 to 3 percent of mileage
improvement, you should switch to synthetic oil and change your air filter and
PCV valves on a regular basis.
If every American did just the simple things mentioned above, we could
immediately reduce our country’s total use of gasoline by over 10 percent –
today! In fact, these ideas should be viewed as standard conservation measures,
just as we do in our homes by switching to fluorescent lights and smart
thermostats, etc. to save electricity.
The most promising, but futuristic, concept offered by the president was the
development of plug-charge hybrid vehicles with enough additional battery power
to operate solely on electric power for up to 50 miles, dramatically reducing
their use of gasoline, with net equivalent mileage of over 100 miles per gallon.
Although plug-in hybrids are five to eight years off, dependent upon the pace
and cost of new advanced-battery development, they offer the most significant
method of reducing the use of fuel, relying instead on our existing power grid
and use of excess off-peak power for recharging. Other emerging energy-storage
technologies such as nanostructured batteries from Altair Nanotechnologies or
A123 Systems, or even new high-density ultracapacitors from EEStor,
could speed up the introduction of affordable plug-hybrids and represent
significant potential savings in future U.S. fuel use.
# # #
On Feb. 6, 2007, Mark A Smith <Bbitsmark {at} aol.com > wrote:
James Dunn is spreading ignorant propaganda with his article "Bush’s
Energy Plan Is Off Track and Unrealistic." The following quote is an
example of his uninformed personal opinions:
"Why should we ask people if they would rather 'eat or drive,' by using a fuel choice that has extremely poor fuel efficiency, and will dramatically drive up the cost of most corn-based foods to people in the U.S. and throughout the world."
Ethanol is neither a "poor efficiency fuel" nor does it require a
"choice" between food or fuel, or as Dunn phrases it "eat or
drive." Most corn is grown as feed corn. Sweet corn and flour corn have
never been included in ethanol economics. Most U.S. feed corn exported comes
right back to America or Europe in the form of fatty beef to make more
"fatty Americans".
100% of the feed value, or more, is contained in the fermentation by-product.
You don't choose between food or fuel. You get both food and fuel. Every acre of
corn can produce the same amount of meat, milk and eggs in addition to fuel if
you first fractionate the starch and oil out of the grain, producing ethanol and
biodiesel. Most of the starch and fat in the whole grain, when fed as a ruminant
feed, is fermented into "cow farts" and heat or otherwise wasted as
low quality biomass production such as viscera (gut and organ hypertrophy). The
rest simply induces a hormonal disorder which causes the "fattening"
process, not to mention an inhibition of microbial populations which can process
the fiber component (the anti-nutrient effect of high-starch feed). All
cattlemen and dairymen understand the negative effects of feeding high-energy
feed. They use grain because they can store and feed it efficiently, but use it
sparingly.
Ethanol production is just a way to produce useful work from the whole grain in
addition to the feeding value of the protein, fiber and ash fraction, via
controlled fractional processing rather than farting it away, or just making fat
cows.
Whole grains, or distiller's dried grains or soybean cake is nothing more than a
supplement to the entire feed input for growing cows or other ruminants. These
creatures want and expect low-density high-roughage grassy material and that's
what they'll get most of their lives until the feedlot time comes. DDG provides
the best high-energy/protein supplement without the gassy-fart carbs or
anti-nutrient soybean chemicals, plus a bonus of yeast anti-microbial
nutriaceuticals and bioavailable minerals made during the "high-quality
feed supplement process" ie the ethanol fermentation process.
At the very least, no America, Canadian or "Other World" farmer ever
needs to buy Saudi, or Texan, petroleum ever again. Nor "pay" to
import it, in all the different ways payment is made these very dangerous days.
[One] might want to get a bachelor's degree or higher in animal husbandry,
perhaps with a minor in carbohydrate metabolism, before [going] off spouting
EXXXCON anti-ethanol propaganda as if it's scientific fact, let alone Big-R
Reality.
Contact David Blume at http://permaculture.com
for the real facts on ethanol ecology.
Look over Lion Kuntz's H2-PV website.
- http://h2-pv.us/wiki/tiki-index.php
- http://h2-pv.us/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=102
* * * *
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050704110527.htm Source American Institute of Biological Sciences |
"Ethanol cannot alleviate the United States’ dependence on petroleum," Dias de Oliveira and colleagues conclude. They argue for the development of multiple alternatives to fossil fuels. Ethanol may, however, still be useful in regions or cities with critical pollution problems, they write, and to make use of agricultural wastes.
• Provides big tax incentives for motorists to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles. Because these hybrids rely far more on electric power (and less on gasoline) than today's hybrids, they would qualify for bigger tax breaks than today's models do.
• Ramps up oil displacement with biofuels by, among other things, offering tax breaks to gas stations that offer ethanol and other fuels.
• Establishes a detailed oil-conservation program, which would include "oil savings" audits of federal agencies.
• Boosts research on ethanol made from plant fiber and other noncorn materials by $1 billion over five years.
• Offers tax credits, loan guarantees, and grants to automakers and suppliers that retool factories to build more efficient vehicles.
The critical element is to place far less emphasis on Corn based ethanol, which offers no real net energy gain, but instead accelerate the development of Celluosic and Algae based biofuels, while beginning the ultimate shift to Zero emission energy sources with the new Plug-in hybrids and pure Electric drive vehicles being shown in detroit for future market launch.
For further info on ethanol as a fuel, see the 10 primary issues of ethanol, from CalGasline.com http://www.calgasoline.com/facttopten.htm
* * * *
See also
|
||||
|
||||
| Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan Jan. 1, 2007 Last updated February 07, 2007 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Feed