Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Bush's Dangerous Energy Proposal

Moving too quickly on alternative fuels could backfire, says one expert on ethanol fuels.

By Kevin Bullis

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
David Victor, head of Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, says the president’s energy proposals may be leading the nation in the wrong direction.
Credit: David Victor, Stanford University

In President Bush's State of the Union address this week, he announced several key energy proposals, most notably increasing the use of biofuels such as ethanol. But some critics are skeptical of the president's proposal to rely largely on ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in a decade. Indeed, this could do more harm than good, says David Victor, director of Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. This week Victor is participating in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where climate change leads the agenda. Technology Review caught up with him by phone to get his views on the president's speech--and on what the United States should be doing.

Technology Review: At least superficially, President Bush's remarks on energy echo some of your own ideas. What parts of his speech did you applaud?

David Victor: The overall strategy, which is to rely on markets and encourage diversity in energy and to encourage efficiency, all of which he said in one way or another, is absolutely right. What was new last night was the goal of doubling the size of the strategic petroleum reserve. That's an extremely important thing to do.

His emphasis on technology is absolutely crucial. What he did say about climate change did emphasize technology. All of that is sound.

I thought the rest of the stuff was drifting off into the zone of unreality. The target that he sets of cutting down gasoline consumption by 20 percent in a decade is, I think, almost certainly unachievable.

TR: One of the technologies the president emphasized is converting wood chips and grasses, known as cellulosic feedstocks, into ethanol. Could that make his goals achievable?

DV: You have to be careful because a very large part of our biofuels policy is not about energy at all. It's really about the heartland and farm politics because the current corn-based biofuels don't really save us that much energy. Cellulosic biomass [which is potentially much more efficient] is still really some distance off in the future. If we try to meet these aggressive targets very quickly, what we're going to end up with is a much, much larger version of the current, already inefficient, corn-based ethanol program.

TR: Documents released by the White House said that the vast majority of the 20 percent reduction in gasoline use in the next decade should come from using more biofuels such as ethanol. Is this a good strategy?

DV: In my view, this is a dangerous goal because the other technologies [such as cellulosic ethanol] are not available, [and] it really demands that we dramatically scale up our corn-based ethanol program. And I think that has serious ecological problems because of the large amount of land that they're going to have to put under cultivation. [There are] big economic problems because [making ethanol from corn] certainly isn't competitive with other ways of making biofuels, such as from sugar.

The other part of the problem is that it now appears that the price of sugar and the price of corn is tied to the oil market. Planters are looking at oil prices and making decision about how much to plant and about how much of their crop they're going to send into ethanol production and how much into food. So if oil prices stay high, then you're going to see the prices of these important food products rising at the same time. And there's already warnings from ranchers, who use corn for feed. And food processors are raising the price of their products and warning their shareholders because the prices of corn syrup and other corn-based feedstocks [are] rising.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Relative price of gas and electric
    tkwaugh on 01/25/2007 at 1:25 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Can someone tell me what the relative prices are for running a vehicle on gasoline vs using electrical energy from coal, natural gas, nuclear, take your pick? I'm curious to know if this plug in hybrid vehicle makes economic sense. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Relative price of gas and electric
      Colin on 01/25/2007 at 3:09 AM
      Posts:
      6
      Check this one and the references in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Relative price of gas and electric
      Rand on 01/29/2007 at 4:44 AM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      The numbers I have read recently suggest that 80% of America's 220 million vehicles could be recharged during off-peak hours with our current generating capacity at a cost of 1 to 2 cents per mile vs. an average 10 cents per mile for gasoline.  This charge on the GM Volt would last for 40 miles, which is slightly more than the average person drives per day.  After that, the small engine will start and power the generator for another 600 miles without refueling.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Relative price of gas and electric
      ydevine on 02/22/2007 at 8:31 AM
      Posts:
      1
      TK,
      Hybrids are not plug-ins - the cars run on electricity in a battery that is charged up while the car is using gasoline.  The electric motor is used for low speeds, idling and backing up.  They are very economical to run and a great alternative until we have better fuel cell batteries to run full electric cars.

      Hope this helps explain the technology.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Where does one start
    chempro on 01/25/2007 at 7:05 AM
    Posts:
    2
    The sceptic has not taken ito account that one must start somewhere - the goal of 20% ethanol is achievable, but will not happen if people take a negative attitude.

    Yes - higher yields are available with other crops, but these must be cultivated, with economics in mind. I cannot recall where the President said it would be cheap - the USA enjoys very low cost gasoline - but - at the expence of the trade deficit. We need to be open minded, and figure on offering solution, not negatives, to ensure the future.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Where does one start
      tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 12:32 PM
      Posts:
      20
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Exactly! What purpose does this spouting of negativity serve? If you want to talk about where the danger lies, look no further than the the foot dragging that got us into our oil dependance in the first place. Is it really better to focus all of our money and resources toward safeguarding our oil imports, or should we put those BILLIONS of dollars toward a new way forward? If you ask me, 20% in 10 years is too slow!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Where does one start
        Troop4Guy on 11/28/2007 at 3:09 PM
        Posts:
        3
        The goal quoted by the “skeptic” is not “20% ethanol”, it is “20% reduction in gasoline consumption”. “Don’t worry, be happy!” is what gave us the past six years of starting nowhere, and giving this president the benefit of the doubt is what gave us the present situation and limited options in the middle east. I would like to see those billions put towards a new way forward, but handing it to agri-business is not the improvement I would hope for.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Proposal to Change
    te26504164 on 01/25/2007 at 9:01 AM
    Posts:
    3
    One way to jump start this process is for the president and congress to raise the fuel economy rating per car company(Corporate Average Fuel Economy) by one gallon per year over the next ten years. The only issue from this is that they may loose some campaign contributions from the oil companies who are in their back pocket.

    In addition, they should add a Federal gas tax of 10 cents/gallon and increase it by 10 cents each year for the next ten years. The revenue from this gas tax can be used for tax rebates for people who by hybrid vehicles and for companies who invest in alternative technologies.

    In summary, without a financial incentive to move away from gasoline the end users will not make the move. This is the current situation with Solar panels. Currently, the technology is there for most homes to use Solar; however with a 20 year breakeven point on your solar investment it doesn't make sense to switch from the grid.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Take a larger view
    kearns on 01/25/2007 at 10:04 AM
    Posts:
    23
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    The elephant in the closet that everyone seems to be missing out on is traffic flow control.  We've invested literally millions in fiber optic control systems, remote cameras, etc., for traffic lights but there is no (or very little) synchronization to ensure that the traffic keeps moving.  Local politics determines traffic light timing, which is often set by shop owners who think that high traffic speeds keep people from entering their shopping centers (a traffic engineer informed me that this is a very explosive issue).  The gridlock we get may be intentional, since it creates business.
    Any car (including my 8 cylinder cadillac) can get good mileage if it's not sitting still.  A car at rest gets 0 miles per gallon, even if it is a hybrid.
    My solution: use the darned computer algorithms to make sure the traffic keeps moving.  You can save billions of gallons that way and that's doable NOW!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Take a larger view
      dparker on 01/25/2007 at 10:30 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I've seen situations like this.  We have a local tourist town that suffers horribly from traffic congestion.  There was an attempt to build a bypass so that unnecessary traffic could be directed around the town.  However the proposal was killed by the merchants in the town for fear of lost profits.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Take a larger view
        kearns on 01/26/2007 at 3:14 PM
        Posts:
        23
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Exactly.  I learned from two traffic engineers that our county and state roads are on two different computer systems that don't communicate.  One road can be perfectly synchronized to pump traffic along at a good clip and then be interrupted by a traffic light that's part of a different system.  It's screwy, not to mention horribly wasteful of fuels.

        Cars stopped at lights get ZERO "0" miles/gallon!!  It's simple physics.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Out Source
    jegflhs@yahoo.com on 01/25/2007 at 11:28 AM
    Posts:
    2
    The raw materials all don't have to come from the "Heart-Land" of American. Why can't we put some of the folks in Mexico to work growing crops and making ethanol would otherwise be coming here as ilegal aliens. They need the opportunity to be weened off of our economy and we need to be weened away from Arabic petroleum.
    Mexico has a new president who appears to want to work with the US, e.g. drug enforcement. I'm sure he would support any efforts the US offers to improve the Mexican economy.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Out Source
      MarkW on 01/26/2007 at 6:31 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Exporting alcohol production to another country is the same as importing an oil product.  The price soon rises and we will be held hostage by yet another country.  We need to plant all available land including interstate roadways where feasable and encourage engineering that will design vehicles to use alternative energy efficiently.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • The real elephant
    pfarber on 01/25/2007 at 12:12 PM
    Posts:
    1
    The real elephant in the room no one is addressing is why we in the U.S. are so addicted to the personal automobile.  This leads to an attempt to continue business as usual by other means.  How about driving less and, instead, using more public transportation, walking and bicycling?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: The real elephant
      lschuber on 01/25/2007 at 6:02 PM
      Posts:
      13
      http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/econ-emissions.html

      The link shows graphically that while pollution has dropped steadily over the last few decades, energy use efficiency has nearly kept up with population growth (in spite of our driving). Fortunately, GDP growth has outstripped our need, but notice that we are driving directly in step with the growth of our wealth. If you want Americans to stop driving, impose an extraordinary motor-fuel tax. The graph also shows that automotive efficiency gains are offset by increased driving. Note that while CAFE standards drove efficiency up, our miles driven stayed above the GDP curve.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: The real elephant
      tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 12:41 PM
      Posts:
      20
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Why we are addicted is irrelevant. True solutions involve achievable goals, not changing habits of the masses.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • my prediction
    enantiomer2000 on 01/25/2007 at 1:00 PM
    Posts:
    25
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    within 10 years, 90% of people will be driving around in pure electric cars and electricity will be almost completely free.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: my prediction
      jegflhs@yahoo.com on 01/25/2007 at 1:37 PM
      Posts:
      2
      I sincerely hope your right, as that is a short time in the future. This would require a practical means of developing a controllable fusion power to generate the electricity.
      This whole energy thing is a great opportunity looking for a great solution and the world is overdue.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: my prediction
      advancednano on 02/22/2007 at 4:58 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      590 million cars now. 65 million new cars and trucks in 2005.
      300,000 new cars were hybrids.
      As of 2006 there are about 800,000 hybrids and electric cars on the road.
      projection is for 2012 to get 2 million hybrids/electrics. So for 2017, it would seem we could see 15 million total if we are lucky.

      Are you predicting that in 2017 there will be 90% of the new cars and trucks will be electric. 72 million out of 80 million?
      Or are you predicting in 2017 that we will have 1.1 billion cars and trucks that are electric out of 1.2 billion cars and trucks?

      Neither seems possible to me.

      According to the most recent update of the J.D. Power and Associates Automotive Forecasting Services Hybrid-Electric Vehicle OutlookSM, U.S. hybrid-electric vehicle sales volumes are anticipated to grow by 268 percent between 2005 and 2012. Hybrid vehicle sales are expected to grow from approximately 212,000 vehicles in 2005 to 780,000 by 2012.

      http://www.hybridcar.com/information-center/hybrid-car-overview/hybrid-car-sales-figures-16.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: my prediction
        Tagamet on 03/17/2007 at 11:11 PM
        Posts:
        7
        Toyota ALONE plans on selling 1,000,000 hybrids in the USA by 2010.
        I'd echo the sentiments that acknowledge that the masses are not going to change their tastes (or appetites). Toyota and to a lesser extent Honda have clobbered US auto makers "simply" by providing what the market desires - NOT what the market SHOULD desire.
        Tagamet
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Mirrors light up the world
    akay on 01/25/2007 at 1:41 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Each square kilometre of desert receives sunlight equivalent to 1,500,000 barrels of oil annually, corresponding to a layer of oil 9 inch deep. Solar energy can be converted to electricity with 13 % efficiency by concentrating solar power plants (CSP) at a cost of $ 3-5 per Watt. CSP plants in California have been working reliably for 20 years and produced more electricity than all photovoltaic panels combined.

    With the amount of money spent in the “2nd oil war” (some $ 378 billion) one could trigger the construction of 300 GW of CSP plants, assuming $ 2 invested by private companies for each $ injected by the government. On a desert area of  7500 km2 (1.5% of the Great Basin) these would generate clean electricity equivalent to 3,000,000 barrels of oil per day, more than imported from the entire Persian Gulf region!

    This would not only make us independent from Iraqi oil, but also save us and our children from climate disaster and radioactive waste as long as sun shines on earth. As a valuable by-product concentrated solar power can provide desalinated water to desert regions. Last, not least the construction or millions of mirrors from glass and steel would create countless jobs e.g. in the suffering automobile industry.

    To fight global warming we need a new Apollo program, not half-hearted “Twenty in Ten” approaches as proposed by Bush!

    http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/articles/gdn_061127_ber_27_15216508.pdf :How mirrors can light up the world
    http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
    http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Solar_Power
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Mirrors light up the world
      GaryB on 01/25/2007 at 1:57 PM
      Posts:
      39
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      While I love solar, I believe the real problem is NOT energy generation, it is energy storage.  What do you do when the sun doesn't shine, how do you pack the energy with you on your car, boat, plane, scooter? 

      A super efficient energy dense battery would solve most of our problems, as would dense methods of hydrogen storage, or efficient conversion of biomass to fuel. 

      What I heard from Bush was further subsidies of his red state cronies, what I wanted to hear was a massively funded multi-pronged (storage, generation...) federal research program starting NOW while oil is still relatively cheap.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Full Political Reality--What No One Wants to Think About
    fcohen888 on 01/25/2007 at 8:49 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Mr. Victor's analysis is certainly logical and compelling, as far as it goes.  However, he fails to consider "Case II" . . . the political realities of the Middle East and the possible loss of virtually all oil production from that area.
    This is not a fairy-tale scenario. Iran, claims to be developing advanced nuclear technology for peaceful uses-- a somewhat suspect statement from a country with huge oil resources. Meanwhile , its fanatical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map," and boasts of his ability and willingness to absorb a retaliatory strike that will send millions of his people to paradise.  There is little doubt that if Iran delivers a nuclear strike on Israel, the remnants of that beleaguered nation will retaliate with a barrage of nuclear strikes against Iran, and possibly against many or all of the other nations that have overtly or covertly supported terrorism . . . a group that would include most of the Arab OPEC members. 
    I am no great fan of George Bush, but I think that this time he’s proposed something that makes sense . . . not from a current economic perspective, but from the standpoint of preparing this nation to function when, literally, “all hell breaks loose.”
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: The Full Political Reality--What No One Wants to Think About
      tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 1:30 PM
      Posts:
      20
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Well put. All things considered, abundant, cheap oil has lured us into that hornets nest. The only real way out is eliminating our dependance on the resource they control. I doubt seriously that Bush will get anything significant done in that regard, but I'll take hollow rhetoric over pessimism any day. If Brazil can run on ethanol, why can't we?
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • president Bush is fake
    gabrielg01 on 01/26/2007 at 7:24 AM
    Posts:
    282
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    President Bush just wakes up one day, and declares that we need to cut our gas consumption. Oh my, really? How about the previous 6 or so years he spent in office, during which he rolled back a lot of environmental legislation?

    Anyone can see that he is just trying to save face of his presidency, which is headed to the dumpster. His proposals are most likely just a fake PR move to improve his image.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: president Bush is fake
      MarkW on 01/26/2007 at 6:51 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Please put aside partisan politics.  Besides, President Bush has advocated energy independence and conservation for the last six years.  Just a few members of Congress always had other motives for blocking the research and development.  We the people need to tell congress to get on the stick and make it happen.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: president Bush is fake
        gabrielg01 on 01/27/2007 at 12:58 AM
        Posts:
        282
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        Bush drifted so far away from the center, that taking his side makes YOU a partisan. His rating by the population sank to Nixonian depths.

        Let's not pretend, Bush is no environmentalist.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: president Bush is fake
          Tagamet on 03/17/2007 at 11:23 PM
          Posts:
          7
          And the Clinton/Gore team accomplished exactly WHAT in their 8 years?
          I agree that playing politics will do us absolutely no good.
          The market will eventually dictate the products that will be provided. So far, it appears that only foreign car mfgs like Toyota and Honda have recognized and filled those needs. The one saving Grace there, is that at least there is still competition driving the FOREIGN mfg's innovators.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: president Bush is fake
      chempro on 01/27/2007 at 2:00 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Wake up and smell the roses instead of burying your head in the sand.
      The ethonol saga has been on the records for ages - President is merely relaying the suggestions of the DOE. One must wonder if you have noticed that all gasoline (well in Texas anyway) has a mimimum of 10% ethonol blended into it.
      THIS ETHANOL ISSUE IS NOT SOMETHING NEW - the crops were planted years ago, the processing plants were designed, fabricated, erected and commissioned, this never happened overnight.
      Try turning the news on sometime - you may be surprised what is going on in the world - especially with the technology sector.

      Nearly forgot - get some help with your hate - it will only poision you - no one else.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: president Bush is fake
        gabrielg01 on 01/27/2007 at 5:35 PM
        Posts:
        282
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        You just killed your own point of defending Bush, because if all this ethanol technology was around for decades, then he cannot take credit for it. Trying to cast himself as an environmentalist has no credibility. He is a fake.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: president Bush is fake
          cgarrels on 02/03/2007 at 4:52 PM
          Posts:
          2
          Bush is a fake, Bush is a fake... Boo-Hoo :(   Hasn't anyone ever told you to never to look a gift horse in the mouth?  It is true Ethanol has been around for decades and maybe its the answer and maybe its not.  Maybe President Bush is only relaying suggestions from the DOE.  But isn’t it his job to listen to the civil servants that we are ALL paying for and take their recommendations seriously.   Why can we just go forward from here, if republicans are taking about alternative energy in the mainstream body politic how can this be a bad thing?  Isn’t this what we all have wanted for decades?  Or is it you just don’t like the messenger?
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: president Bush is fake
        tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 1:37 PM
        Posts:
        20
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Listen, anyone who touts Bush as anything but a corrupt, corporate sell-out has their head in a place far darker than the sand my friend.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: president Bush is fake
          shigley on 02/13/2007 at 6:15 PM
          Posts:
          2
          When all else fails, blame Bush. Remember, the energy problem began in 1972, during the oil embargo, and has perpetuated itself through every president (and congress) since.
          In 1990 I owned a full size Buick LaSaber that got 34/35 miles per gallon on the road. Now, some 35 years later, the automobile manufactures boast a 28/30 mpg automobile as being energy efficient. Now that's progress.  
          Rate this comment: