Ethanol Optimism
You may have heard the news today about the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA and the federal do have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as per the Clean Air Act. The auto industry spun their reaction as something positive but insisted that they not be the sole bearer of the CO2 clean up burden.
How far will it go? While my rant may make it seem like I'm not on board for improving the environment and getting carbon emissions reduced, as the logic I tried to convey will likely be lost, nothing could be further from the truth. It's the federal government's ability to do anything right this decade that has me colored skeptical. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth, but too much of it, and other naturally occurring greenhouse gases, and the planet cooks. It helps to keep the planet warm from the cold of space. But it's also why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being about twice as far from the sun.
Hopefully any legislation that comes out of this will be specific about which sources of carbon dioxide will be regulated. I'm not optimistic. Creating a category for "greenhouse gases" separate from "pollutants" would be a nice start. You might think that it's semantics, but "the devil's in the details." Leave room for loopholes and the lawyers for the big offenders will exploit them.
The automobile industry "urge(s) consumers to consider buying one of our many fuel-efficient technologies on sale now, because these autos can reduce gasoline use and thereby reduce carbon dioxide." What they're really saying is, "prove to us you want cleaner cars, then we'll make more." While Toyota and Honda have eagerly gambled on this approach, GM has taken the easy route. Ford waffled at first, but they seem to be opting for GM's route.
In case you didn't already know, ethanol is the easy route. Very little needs to be done for the auto industry to produce flex-fuel cars and trucks that will run on ethanol. In fact, they claim that millions of vehicles on the road already are capable of handling ethanol. As I wrote before, I'm not advocating ethanol for various reasons. But there are people who are wildly optimistic about its potential.
Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems, formed Khosla Ventures to invest in environmentally friendly technologies. He wrote an article for Wired magazine explaining why he's so bullish on ethanol. It's definitely worth reading as he tackles most of the arguments against ethanol in detail. He lays out a somewhat rosy picture for ethanol's future and I hope that he's right. My lack of faith in ethanol's viability doesn't mean I wish failure on those who pursue it.
Khosla firmly believes that the technological problems ethanol faces can be overcome. He even advocates genetic engineering to increase crop yields. I can't help but wonder how that will play out in the Greenpeace crowd.
\_/
DED
How far will it go? While my rant may make it seem like I'm not on board for improving the environment and getting carbon emissions reduced, as the logic I tried to convey will likely be lost, nothing could be further from the truth. It's the federal government's ability to do anything right this decade that has me colored skeptical. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth, but too much of it, and other naturally occurring greenhouse gases, and the planet cooks. It helps to keep the planet warm from the cold of space. But it's also why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being about twice as far from the sun.
Hopefully any legislation that comes out of this will be specific about which sources of carbon dioxide will be regulated. I'm not optimistic. Creating a category for "greenhouse gases" separate from "pollutants" would be a nice start. You might think that it's semantics, but "the devil's in the details." Leave room for loopholes and the lawyers for the big offenders will exploit them.
The automobile industry "urge(s) consumers to consider buying one of our many fuel-efficient technologies on sale now, because these autos can reduce gasoline use and thereby reduce carbon dioxide." What they're really saying is, "prove to us you want cleaner cars, then we'll make more." While Toyota and Honda have eagerly gambled on this approach, GM has taken the easy route. Ford waffled at first, but they seem to be opting for GM's route.
In case you didn't already know, ethanol is the easy route. Very little needs to be done for the auto industry to produce flex-fuel cars and trucks that will run on ethanol. In fact, they claim that millions of vehicles on the road already are capable of handling ethanol. As I wrote before, I'm not advocating ethanol for various reasons. But there are people who are wildly optimistic about its potential.
Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems, formed Khosla Ventures to invest in environmentally friendly technologies. He wrote an article for Wired magazine explaining why he's so bullish on ethanol. It's definitely worth reading as he tackles most of the arguments against ethanol in detail. He lays out a somewhat rosy picture for ethanol's future and I hope that he's right. My lack of faith in ethanol's viability doesn't mean I wish failure on those who pursue it.
Khosla firmly believes that the technological problems ethanol faces can be overcome. He even advocates genetic engineering to increase crop yields. I can't help but wonder how that will play out in the Greenpeace crowd.
\_/
DED
Labels: energy, environment, ethanol
posted by DED at 10:07 PM
6 Comments:
A slight deviation from Ethonol, but I came across these on cnn.com not long ago that I thought would be of interest to you.
Honda on Hydrogen:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.honda.popsci/index.html
Honda Prototype:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.hydrogen.popsci/index.html
The auto companies want people to look at the electric companies and so on. Corn ethanol is not the answer. If they can make ethanol with trash and process it with gas from the trash heap I say more power to them. If they want to use petrol to make corn ethanol it is useless, all it does is drive up the price of corn. Same thing with a carbon tax on power plants, it will make electricity more expensive, but won't reduce emissions. The answer is in between. Tax the crap out of gas guzzlers and use the money for renewables. Force people to cut down electrical use by a three stage billing system. The first 500 kWH at 10 cents, the second at twenty, the third at forty, and use that money for wind and solar. Good read ded.
Mort wrote: Corn ethanol is not the answer. If they can make ethanol with trash and process it with gas from the trash heap I say more power to them. If they want to use petrol to make corn ethanol it is useless, all it does is drive up the price of corn.
Right. And Khosla is headed in that direction. Right now he's got a plant running on cow manure (methane). Maybe he should pick up a couple of those solar tractors you featured in your blog.
Jim: Thanks for the links! Two good articles. It looks like a normal car!
I'm with you Ded: giving the federal government power to regulate always scares me. They've always screwed this sort of thing up, and they have every incentive to sell the (corn) farm to the highest bidder.
Khosla on the Energy Blog.
Thanks Mort!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home