Bush's Dangerous Energy Proposal

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. 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

within 10 years, 90% of people will be driving around in pure electric cars and electricity will be almost completely free.

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

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.”

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.

Most hybrids deliver more than 20% efficiency over regular vehicles. So, why all the corn hoopla? If we mandated hybrid power trains for all newly manufactured vehicles, then we'd achieve that 20% savings within a few years.

really, one unhonest corrupted expert,i.e. prof.DV critized one stupid ignoramus, i.e. pres. Bush.

I suspect OPEC will most likely make a similar move to what they did in the 70' by dropping the price of Oil which defuses public anger and anxiety over Oil.

This will inevitably drain public support and funds from renewable energy sources just like it did back then.

Can the current level of Biofuel/ethanol production be sustainable enough not to shock food production but sufficient enough to power/run large scale mass transit systems like light rail and then be supplemented by people equipped with the right devices to telecommute 1 to 3 days per week? Why move a single car down the road when you can power a Tram Car or above ground subway system. Those who choose to not travel can still be productive using computers and communications systems.

Its my understanding ethanol is a very high octane fuel.  To maximize IC engine effeciency I believe you need to use high compression IC engines.  However, Detroit etc. for reasons I can't understand is producing flex fuel vehicles which can run on fossil fuel gasoline or a blend of fossil fuel gasoline and ethanol.  Why doesn't Detroit make and offer IC engines that run on pure ethanol, so we improve the utilization of the ethanol being produced in this country ?  Continued low compression use of ethanol seems a total waste program designed to simply lower Detroits investment requirements and keep us addicted to big oil longer than ever ?  Does Bush or his people ever read Consumer Reports articles on ethanol using auto's ?  This is where a smarter congress could help draft smart incentive legislation ?  In the end I see ethanol only as a short term fix and am sorry its so politically midwest dominated. We need to educate the media, media educate Joe Sixpack socongress moves in right direction and we don't waste money in non productive non economic ways....  Bush is always 10 yrs behind times.  I lived thru the 70's oil crunch and feel bad we are still spending money on NASA instead of solving and working on the end of oil problem !  When will Joe Sixpack wake up and think about more than the next moment or month or year and think long term ?  Who is educating him and our members of congress ?  I guess we all, who read websites such as this, have to get started and motivated.  Maybe we need energy demonstrations and non global warming demonstrations instead of against the war demonstrations ? I think we all need to start writing our members of congress on this subject every day.  Maybe the answer is we all need to become much more active on the political side, as the pols seem to need lots of help figuring out the correct action to take and what is best for them to support and fund in new alternative energy incentive programs ?  I am curious, what exact technology approaches is the US Dept of Energy supporting ?   Why didn't Bush talk about the government programs in this area of research ?  We certainly have at this point huge US Labs such as Argonne etc. working on problem ?  What are they working on, and what looks promising ?

Combustion engines need to be replaced entirely. For Gods sake, its nineteenth century technology.
If not the combustion engine, start making car bodies out of carbon fiber instead of steel, and find an alternative to glass. You'd probably get huge fuel savings out of those changes alone.

PS: Boeing-Spectrolab announced solar cells with 40 percent efficiency some time ago.

Besides the ethanol program, there are new methods of pyrrolizing cellulosic waste, switchgrass, garbage etc into high grade diesel oil. If the DOE empahsized that, reducing greenhouse emmissions might be as simple as changing from gasoline to diesel engines. Then to diesel-electric hybrids. Then to all electric.

Hmmmmm...
After reading the above comments, the proposals seem, to me, to amount to:

1) Force the Government to spend lots of taxpayer money chasing energy dreams with no accountability.

2) Force taxpayers to give more of their money to the Government who, if past history is a guide, will squander it chasing dreams other than energy, and with little accountability.

3) Outlaw the use of phenomenally successful personal transportation devices based on the whims of people with no accountability for such a ban.

4) Mandate the use of vehicles that require the use of batteries that do not exist as a significant fraction of the quantity required. Do I even need to mention the lack of accountability inherent in the recycling needs alone for such a proposal?

Now, it seems clear to me that many of you are passionate about getting U.S. consumers to use less gasoline and oil related products. That's good! However, I think the average U.S. consumer is really already quite aware of this need. And frankly, the entire consumer population of the world is well aware also. For example, petrol in Finland is running about US$7.50/gallon right now.

You may be interested to know that this 'stupid' President's idea to use more corn and other products to make ethanol will help US farmers in the same Midwest you dislike so much reduce their dependence on the US Government for subsidies (one or more of you genuises will be able to get the exact numbers for the past few years, but I'm pretty sure it's north of $140,000,000,000 per year right now, and is a major and continuing source of friction in WTO talks and legal actions between the US and the European Union). Granted, it may not cut the total subsidy in half, but it seems likely to be a good start. And, it has some built-in accountability, since the private sector will be picking up a large chunk of the tab for the costs of labor, construction, production and delivery for the final product. As a taxpayer, that looks pretty clever to me. Plus, there's no need for government expenditures for federal oversight of private funds!

If you would like us ordinary taxpayers out here in the hinterlands to think of you folks as geniuses, all you have to do is come up with, and implement, some better ideas, without using any more taxpayer money than, say, one dollar per thousand dollars of taxpayer savings.

Oh, and by the way, some much, much bigger challenges that are looming in the next 3-4 decades, and which you geniuses might want to spend some time on, are:

a) The imminent loss of the Oglalla Acquifer as a source of water for much of the middle section of the US. If your profs haven't been educating you on this, they're asleep at the switch.

b) Water shortages throughout just about every country in the world.

c) Free speech shortages throughout many countries in the world.

Now, it seems to me that, since the oceans are overfull of water, according to those who monitor their levels, we should have all the water we need by just pulling it out of the oceans as needed and piping it to where we want it to go. Wouldn't this also lower the same ocean levels that are such a hot-button environmental issue? For example, how many feet of ocean water would it take to transform the Sahara Desert, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia into fertile farmland over, say, the next 125 years? (Hey, if you can do it in less than 100 years, go for it!)

Also, by transforming the Sahara Desert into farmland, wouldn't that also prevent hurricanes from having the initial surge of dust and heat energy they need to form in the eastern Atlantic off the tip of Africa? And wouldn't this mean that North, South and Latin America would be spared their fury and destruction forever?

I'll let you work out the solutions for the free speech shortages. You seem to enjoy the benefits of a country that has no such shortage quite well, so I'm sure you'll have lots of passion and energy for encouraging citizens of other governments to do likewise.

Gotta go! Nice chatting with you.

Responses show a lot of thought of various issues raised by "going to ethanol." Recent farm magazine articles discussed the economics of the profitability of corn based ethanol and the non-uniformity of soils to support it. Some areas would yield more energy than they consumed in the production of ethanol. Others would be deficit providers.

As users/supporters/consumers and from other perspectives we rarely know or are informed of the "total costs and "life-cycle costs" of various products and commodities. Direct and indirect subsidies to producers, tax abatements, and trade supports add up to the costs the individual or the nation experience. Here we are talking about fuel alternatives for our cars and other transportation.

We, as an aside, could reduce significantly the amount of particulate matter from diesel fuel by reducing the sulfur used in diesel-electric trains. American diesel fueled cars have not been a significant choice in our market because of the permissible levels of sulfur in diesel fuel allowed in our market and places to buy the fuel. European cars are not set to handle the levels of sulfur in our diesel.

In Europe sulfur levels are much lower and some of their diesel autos exceed California air quality requirements.

One needs to know the impact of a cleaner diesel on our overall fuel economy and exposure from foreign sourcing.

Social actions including marketing by car manufacturers has been a key element in the past number of years on overall full consumption and social policy due to tax laws. SUVs have grown in use for a number of reasons. Least likely massive user requirements for frequent four wheel drive. Gas guzzler taxes and luxury-like accoutrements in some SUVs allow avoiding certain luxury car taxes. Why else are so many light trucks being driven?

Political leadership is a vital part of bringing about significant social change in a short period. Lowering fuel consumption in cars is probably one that can get wide acceptance with repeated leadership and programs that use self-interest, as in markets, and consumer desire for lower costs.

The government designating one source such as ethanol is dangerous as it cuts off other more efficient means of fueling/energizing our vehicles and means of transportation.

The major effect of fuels use is not just the cost of the fuel and its source, it is how we have chosen or been provided alternatives on where to live. Suburanization and the crowded supporting road nets have filled our demand.

Many tax and government "chosen" winners do not reflect the best. Special and parochial interests abound.

Competition among technologies that have near term and mid-term and finally longterm success should be tried. Tax dollars or industry wide awards to universities and corporations developing new sources would be better in my mind as time will ususally find new ideas. Picking a winner now and the huge development of infrastructure, laws and markets will make it much more difficult for a more economic idea to enter.

I favor a holistic view. Ethanol is a short term solution of limited
profitability without government supports. When ever we are presented a solution we should be shown all of the costs we will face. Nuclear reactors have been designed to operate much more safely than before and may have lower costs of electricity
production. But, we still have disposal and other costs that add to what we will actually pay at some time for that bit of electricity. Until disposal and other issues are resolved using more nuclear power needs serious sceptical view.

Saving fuel will lower our exposure to foreign pressures if more people, significantly more people, can be convinced to change
their behavior. What they "get" for it is part of political education and the press informing them, as well as other interested parties.

I do not think we will be successful in finding quick solutions.

Ok so if Bush offered up no plan that would be bad as well?  COme on  did you decided before you wrote the article to bash the  guy and then called around until you found someone who would do it?  Even my most liberal friends thing the energy proposal --while needing detail -- were pretty damn good.  Stop playing personal politics in how you gear the articles. Its beneath this great mag.

Regardless of the obstacles or pitfalls associated with President Bush's alternative energy proposal, no one wants to give this guy a break.  I know that many people think he is evil or some other nonsense like that and many people want to discredit him at every move, but... come on!  If anybody from the other side of the isle where talking about these issues at the level he is discussing them they would be lauded as visionaries, forthright and a risk takers.  If Bush is so wrong and everyone else so right why didn’t Clinton and Gore do something about it during the eight years they where in the White House?  Maybe we should all do a little soul searching and take advantage of an opportunity regardless from where it comes.

Remember our economy is based on supply and demand. If we as consumers don't demand it, they don't supply it. Technology evolves out of demand. If we buy it, companies will invest in that technology to improve it. Not necessarily because they want to make the world a better place, but because they want to make more money. Why don't we used their greed to our advantage?

Why not have hybrid vehicles that use an ethanol engine instead of gas? and have solar panels all over the roof of it? Use the breaks to charge the battery. Have a coast mode so when you are driving down hill that momentum can charge the battery. I realize that this will not generate enough power to keep the car going for ever but would alleviate some of it's power demands. Seems like that would give some relief to the ethanol industry, which obviously can not produce enough fuel at this point to ween us off of oil.

We have other alternative means of producing energy, solar, wind, and water. So some of these technologies are not 100% efficient, big deal! They don't pollute and have to potential to alleviate some of the oil demand. Some people use the feeble excuse that they don't produce enough energy. What happens if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow? Well those days the grid will have to deliver just a little bit more. When the sun shines for months on end, the grid has to produce just a little bit less. If you were starving and someone offered you a piece of bread, would you throw it away because it would not fill you up 100%?

We can not fully rid our dependence on fossil fuels, but we can at least reduce the amount we consume. Remember, if we don't demand it, they don't supply it!

Just to let you know that in some European countries you can find small diesel car able to achieve 58/MPG then why should we wait and not just accept the fact that a tactical solution could be to import these cars? Last but not least Europe and some other countries that are not gas rich have for many, many years developed efficient
small engines then again why should USA reinvent the wheel....

I agree with much of what David Victor says, but there are two comments he made I do disagree with.

We may need diversity in where we get our energy... ethanol, coal, solar, wind, etc... but there is only one technology we should use onboard any vehicle-- electricity.

Any source of power can be used to generate electricity, which can be used to power electric vehicles (EVs), and EVs are the only form of transportation that are 100% non-polluting, and have proven themselves to be many times more efficient, far more powerful, and much easier to service.

There are many reasons that internal combustion engines (ICEs)are so inefficient: for instance, in a typical engine, there are several square FEET of contact area between the pistons and the cylinders, rubbing against each other constantly, at hight speed.  And the basic act of converting riciprocating motion to rotary motion to power the wheels is also terribly inefficient.

Electric motors create rotary motion, so there is no conversion needed, and there is no metal-to-metal contact causing massive, high-speed drag and inefficiency.  Electric vehicles such as the Tesla, Phoenix, tZero, Wrightspeed and others have proved to be as much as ten times more efficient that their ICE counterparts, and yet they still have higher performance than BMWs, Porsches, and other exotic sports cars.  With the newest battery technology, a car can receive a charge in ten minutes that can power it for days of normal driving.

Mr Victor thinks cutting our petroleum consumption by 20% is unattainable-- nonsense.  It is far more than attainable if we simply start driving enough EVs... they're simply that much more efficient than ICE cars... besides, the hidden inefficiency people never consider with ICEs is all the tanker trucks that must deliver their fuel to gasoline stations.  That alone would probably represent a 10% reduction in use.

Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, producing palm oil on what was once peat swamp forests may be boosting the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Cars with side step bars will mostly be needing more alternative fuel instead in the near future