AutoblogGreen

In Italy, future can be "metano":
http://autoinsight.blogosfere.it/2007/04/fiat-bravo-a-metano-perche-no.html

Reply

Everyone but the corn growers and some politicians who they support seem to agree that corn is a poor choice for ethanol. Cellulosic Ethanol (Butanol is much better) is still experimental, but rapid improvements in processing tech will improve yields from all feed stocks.

Algae's which can consume Co2 from fossil fuel power plants, supply biodiesel on the first press, and butanol from the leftover cellulose seems to be the best single bio-source fuel. Yes, I know we will need many and distributed sources for this to work but Algae can also be used to produce “petro” chemical products such as plastics and pharmaceuticals. With Algae, we can let the dead sleep.

Any way you go, PHEV-40s where battery power is used over 80% of the time would be optimal by reducing our dependence on oil relatively quickly. With PHEV-40s, we can start replacing our fleet in about 3 years with no change in infrastructure instead of waiting 20 years and spending $Trillions on an extremely inefficient “hydrogen economy.” Vehicle-to-grid would be icing on the cake! Hopefully soon battery tech and economy of scale will allow a 250-mi range w/10 min recharge at a price that we can ALL afford.

Reply

The are scientific problems with the Jacobson study which were also under reported. Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that the ozone difference that Jacobson finds is so small that it may be in the margin of error of calculation. His statements on GHG reductions from ethanol are way off the results from other studies, as he appears to be perpetuating the junk science from Patzek.

I think a more important news came out of a federally funded Colorado State University which found tremendous greenhouse gas reductions are possible by using biofuels. See
http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?url=news_item_display&news_item_id=11182593

Reply

Ethanol is a dead end. Even if it provides significant GHG benefits we will never be able to make enough to replace significant amounts of gasoline. Not even via cellulose-based processes.

Algal biodiesel is a dead-end. There is a convincing analysis on Oil Drum indicating that a current startup has overstated production far beyond what is physically possible from the energy provided by sunlight, and there's no external sugar input either. Their conclusion was that algal biodiesel starts to compete at $800/bbl oil.

Why is everyone trying to pick winners for us like this? Where is the humility? Tax the problemmatic output of carbon to make it expensive and then every Tom, Dick and Harry will try to come up with a solution on their own. No need to waste decades while the government wanders around trying to "pick a winner" with the oil and auto industries breathing down its neck.

Reply

#4 "every Tom, Dick and Harry will try to come up with a solution on their own"

That sounds very creative, but it is just not practical. Vehicles and their fuels need to undergo all sorts of health and safety testing and are subject to mountains of regulation by both the Feds and the States. The 1990 Clean Air Act has all sorts of testing requirements for alternative fuels.

Right now we have ethanol and biodiesel as clean, renewable and approved vehicle fuels. These biofuels displace petroleum now, but in the future can fairly seamlessly replace petroleum.

Reply

**Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the new group that has set its sights on taking oil companies (and others) down a peg.**

This foundation may be on shaky ground. A foundation based on enthusiasm for something
tends to be on more likely to succed.

Corporations like Exxon and Chevron do what they can to prosper. They are very sensitive to public perceptions so risking a backlash from deceptive science is extremely unlikely.

Ethanol looks bad without any help from big oil. It does have two positives however,

[1] creates additional employment.
[2] offsets a little fossil fuel demand.

Big oil has a natural interest in prolonging the publics' use of the ICE and hybrids. They are not likely to mention the pure Electric vehicle, ever.

As engineer Mr. Wright, [X1 EV], declared; "The EV is the most efficient vehicle. There is no need to look to other technologies."

That statement is probably true, yet Volvo has an entertaining virtual long distance endurance race where you are invited to choose 7 fuels from fifteen or so that you deem to be the most eco-friendly.

Volvocars.com

Sorry. Can*t find the exact page URL. Time constraints. = TG

Reply

I'd say it's largely the people who are cheerleaders for Ethanol who are the ones being deluded.

Every politician loves to point out Brazil as some Eutopian society where they have achieved "energy independence" through ethanol usage.
What they don't mention is
Brazil gets less than 14% of their fuel from Ethanol.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/brazil

Then you hear them champion freedom from "foreign oil"
http://www.greyfalcon.net/dilbert.png

The other thing being ignored is that plants are a "solar" technology.
And at best the theoretical maximum for photosynthesis is 11% (With Algae being around 6-8% solar effecient)

As for hydrogen?
Thats a craptastic technology.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png

The next Prius out in 2008 is supposed to offer 94mpg. (A 45mpg Diesel car can't even begin to compete)
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/11/third-gen-prius-to-flirt-with-100-mpg/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/10/toyota-ceo-confirms-lithium-batteries-for-next-gen-prius/

What we need is electric cars. (And all the shades inbetween)
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png


_

Ethanol is just porkbarrel politics.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/index.php?p=22&js_enabled=1

While Electric is the future.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=25
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers.php

Reply

GreyFlcn,
You are editing the text of a Dilbert cartoon?? That makes your other statements seem far less creditable. Just for the record, the real cartoon can be viewed here:
http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/Dilbert%20on%20oil.jpg

Reply

Well thats because even though the concept of "independance from terrorists" is stupid in general.
But getting more fuel effecient vehicles is actually quite a good idea by it's own right.

BioFuels on the other hand, thats about their only justifications, which is rather silly.

_

But lastly, how does changing the words on a cartoon make scientific raw data invalid?

Reply