|
Thursday, January 25, 2007 Bush's Dangerous Energy ProposalMoving too quickly on alternative fuels could backfire, says one expert on ethanol fuels. By Kevin Bullis
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.
|


Comments
tkwaugh on 01/25/2007 at 1:25 AM
1
Colin on 01/25/2007 at 3:09 AM
6
Rand on 01/29/2007 at 4:44 AM
4
ydevine on 02/22/2007 at 8:31 AM
1
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.
chempro on 01/25/2007 at 7:05 AM
2
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.
tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 12:32 PM
20
Troop4Guy on 11/28/2007 at 3:09 PM
3
te26504164 on 01/25/2007 at 9:01 AM
3
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.
kearns on 01/25/2007 at 10:04 AM
23
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!
dparker on 01/25/2007 at 10:30 AM
1
kearns on 01/26/2007 at 3:14 PM
23
Cars stopped at lights get ZERO "0" miles/gallon!! It's simple physics.
jegflhs@yahoo.com on 01/25/2007 at 11:28 AM
2
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.
MarkW on 01/26/2007 at 6:31 PM
3
pfarber on 01/25/2007 at 12:12 PM
1
lschuber on 01/25/2007 at 6:02 PM
13
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.
tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 12:41 PM
20
enantiomer2000 on 01/25/2007 at 1:00 PM
25
jegflhs@yahoo.com on 01/25/2007 at 1:37 PM
2
This whole energy thing is a great opportunity looking for a great solution and the world is overdue.
advancednano on 02/22/2007 at 4:58 PM
2
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
Tagamet on 03/17/2007 at 11:11 PM
7
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
akay on 01/25/2007 at 1:41 PM
4
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
GaryB on 01/25/2007 at 1:57 PM
39
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.
fcohen888 on 01/25/2007 at 8:49 PM
1
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.”
tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 1:30 PM
20
gabrielg01 on 01/26/2007 at 7:24 AM
282
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.
MarkW on 01/26/2007 at 6:51 PM
3
gabrielg01 on 01/27/2007 at 12:58 AM
282
Let's not pretend, Bush is no environmentalist.
Tagamet on 03/17/2007 at 11:23 PM
7
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.
chempro on 01/27/2007 at 2:00 PM
2
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.
gabrielg01 on 01/27/2007 at 5:35 PM
282
cgarrels on 02/03/2007 at 4:52 PM
2
tla723 on 01/30/2007 at 1:37 PM
20
shigley on 02/13/2007 at 6:15 PM
2
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.