“We’re placing a high priority on biofuels right now.” Yeah, right. “Hey guys, how’s that congressional viability plan coming? Shhh. We’re working on biofuels.” The man shilling for last year’s green queen is GM’s vice president of research and development. Lest we forget, Laurence Fishburne—sorry, Larry Burns—was The General’s main eco-warrior a little over a year ago. That’s when GM decided to squander some its precious pre-bailout bucks on buying a big piece of a cellulosic ethanol start-up named Coskata. Hyperbole is a dish best served cold. Looking back . . . USA Today: “General Motors says it is investing in a fledgling company that claims its secret process could be able to make ethanol from waste in large quantity as soon as 2010 for $1 a gallon or less, half the cost of making gasoline.” Just out of curiosity, anyone want to guess how much GM plowed into this turkey?
GM refused to say at the time. [You may also remember a dodgy real estate deal at the same time.] And we still don’t know. But I do remember GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz’ infamous excretory observation. “They put a bunch of bacteria in there that basically just eat and poop, eat and poop.” [The link has some great Luztervations].
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, Mr. Burns’ most recent sop to the ethanol lobby.
“Our auto industry is at a critical juncture,” Burns told the Kansas City Star (or wrote in a press release, I’m not exactly sure which). “But we have to address major societal issues such as energy.”
So we wouldn’t do it if we didn’t have to, or we would do it better if we could, or what? Enough of Larry. I just love the corn grower’s effect on local media. Sometimes, the stuff just parses itself.
Economics remain a key issue in biofuels success.
Cellulosic ethanol was estimated by the study to be competitive with gasoline when oil prices top $90 a barrel. Growth in biofuels would require protection from lower petroleum prices, such as tax credits and loan guarantees, especially while production is ramped up.
What success? Oh, you mean potential success. And since when is economics NOT a key to a product’s success. Oh wait. Never mind. With GM giving biofuels such a high priority, it’s only a matter of time before everyone forgets all about it. Once our fiscally responsible federal government cancels that silly, expensive renewable fuels mandate, we’ll be on to something more sensible, self-sustaining and environmentally-friendly. Oh wait . . . .
I don’t think it is good to use land that could grow food, to make auto fuel. But if it could be stuffed into a small area, like hydroponics or from waste treatment, it would be a good supplemental stop gap for public transport and government use.
On this site, one can find articles panning or denouncing every alternative form of propulsion currently under consideration. So I’m curious, if you don’t like electric, you don’t like hydrogen, and you don’t like biofuels, what do you suggest? You do realize that oil is a finite resource don’t you? Regardless of your stance on climate change, there is an issue to be faced here, there’s only so much oil in the earth. Don’t believe this? Here’s an interesting observation: essentially every major oil company has made significant investments in researching alternative fuel technologies. Why would this be? Do they just love to waste money? Or do they realize that oil is not forever and that they need to look for their next buck? So I ask, in all sincerity, which alternative technology is your favorite? And if you don’t like any of the possibilities, what is your suggestion?
On this site, one can find articles panning or denouncing every alternative form of propulsion currently under consideration.
A lot of it is grounded in the reality of the situation. I’m a super liberal environmentalist, and I can’t wait until we ween off of oil and so many damned cars (I know, blasphemy on this site — I’m not for eradication, just for reduction). Yet, even I understand that a lot of this of way too hyped and it’s people who are blindly optimistic. There’s a million different alternative fuels, but maybe about 1 or 2 scale and exactly 1 has an actual net positive energy result (nuclear power + electric cars + a good battery leasing system).
I do think they’re totally wrong on electric — it’s absolutely where we are headed, like it or not. There’s simply no other solution, and Better Place seems to be a viable business model (at least to hold us over for the next few decades until something better comes along).
essentially every major oil company has made significant investments in researching alternative fuel technologies.
I’d say about 90% of that is PR bullhockey so that Shell can show commercials about how they’re inventing hydrogen, and the rest is legit research.
But if it could be stuffed into a small area, like hydroponics or from waste treatment, it would be a good supplemental stop gap for public transport and government use.
Again, this does NOT scale well, and has catastrophic effects on food production and prices overseas, even if only applied on subsets of the market. Biofuels are only propped up by those ridiculous corn subsidies anyway, and they’re flat out irresponsible.
The reason GM loves ethanol is that ethanol is a big deal in the Midwest corn growing area of the country. Here in Iowa the imports are not as strong and a truck that runs on ethanol is a plus for farmers who buy them. Even if it costs more than gasoline.
Farmers and others do not always buy the cheapest. Just like cars the cheapest one may not be the best choice. If one lives in the Midwest there are side benefits to buying local cars and local fuel to propel them.
Sending money to foreign vehicle and fuel producers is ultimately a losing proposition. It is one of the reasons the economy is in the state it is at the moment.
Ethanol is a complete boondoggle.
I would stop hating on ethanol if they make a couple of minor changes.
No forced use of x% ethanol. Let the market decide.
No multi-billion dollar subsidies from taxpayers.
And the important one that will forever shut GM up about the “wonders” of the boondoggle:
Remove the CAFE loophole for ethanol.
If subsidies are the issue then lump rail passenger transit in there as well. T
GM is just doing what there boss wants them to do.
When the Feds own you, you follow the government enviro plan.
Wow, I’m with you, bytor; I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
In the meanwhile, for those of you who have been keeping track a bit, my 2008 Prius is now running on “real” 100% gasoline with zero ethanol, since recently I once again found a station which sells it.
Last tankful with 10% ethanol netted 33 mpg overall, measured with care and 37.9 mpg on the computer (which lost accuracy compared to real MPG once the car was force fed E10 after I could no longer find real gasoline in the area).
Two tankfuls later, with pure gasoline (ok maybe a 1% to 3% solution of ethanol still swilling around in there) and with similar temperatures and winter conditions, my measured MPG came up to
over 40, and on screen was in the range of 43.
Right now, the car is showing just over 44 mpg on the computer after filling up 75 miles ago, again. This is actually my prior winter norm for real gasoline on both this 2008 and the prior 2005 Prius.
I HATE ethanol and consider it a huge foolishness; prefer the idea of Butanol if we must be foolish enough to start using potential food growing ground to make fuel (and we may not have a choice in the distant future).
Alternately there is always thinking outside the box and actually making “crude oil” out of garbage, sewage and offal. Using an American originated and owned process.
http://www.changingworldtech.com
I know, I know; what a “novel” idea to actually extend the use of the current infrastructure (i.e. “oil”) yet convert it to biofuels from stuff which would otherwise simply be wasted…
It’s called “intelligence and rationality”. Something entirely lacking in our leadership at all levels.
DrX: I sincerely believe that the fuel of the future will be gasoline. The world’s brightest people are working on finding a way to make more of the stuff, before we “run out.” Why change what works, there are still plenty of gains yet to be made with the internal combustion engine. I think the miraculous hydrocarbon chains that we’re all addicted to have nowhere to go but up in popularity. Whether it’s or , heck, I’ve even read about the idea to use ginormous sky-scraper scrubbers to pull carbon back out of the air to be recombined into hydrocarbon chains. Whatever works.
Here’s a quote from Transmetropolitan for you:
“But winter. Winter meant change. Every new winter, things got a bit better…The world got better. And when the world still wasn’t good enough, when things were still fucked, when I got sick of the taste and texture of lizard food and lizard playthings and lizard underpants– there was always next winter to look forward to… You’re probably wondering what the point of all this ugly rambling bullshit is. It’s this: The future is inherently a good thing. And we move into it one winter at a time.” -Spider Jerusalem
I can’t edit my comment; but the object of the exercise is to understand that if we want to eat THEN use waste to fuel our cars, it makes a lot more obvious sense than having our crops being used for both food AND fuel, therefore driving up food costs from the competition over growing land, time, effort, etc.
Okay, can’t edit the comment for some reason, should read “bio-diesel or something akin to regular gasoline” where the link(s) start.
Here: is the bio-diesel link
I think I broke the comments editing function with my horrible unclosed HTML tags, sorry menno.
I don’t think it is good to use land that could grow food, to make auto fuel. But if it could be stuffed into a small area,
Cellulosic ethanol has a chance at this, mostly because you’re looking at making fuel from waste that would give off the stuff anwyays (methane venting from landfills is actually a real problem). It’s not neccessarily food-based, and it’s more likely to be net-energy positive.
The reason GM loves ethanol is that ethanol is a big deal in the Midwest corn growing area of the country.
GM loves ethanol because it’s an cheap. And GM loves cheap.
Let me elaborate: Flexfeul engines are and easy way to get big trucks to meet CAFE: no aggressively modern engine design, no hybrid powertrain, no sacrificing big V8s, just minor changes. It’s a bad choice for small cars because you feel the loss of power and notice the mileage hit, but in a big, brick-shaped vehicle with a V8, who cares?
eh, Brazil has been using ethanol successfully for over 30 years with their mix percentage recently set at ~25%. The difference is that they use sugar cane instead of corn. BTW, corn is not efficient to grow in the US and does much better in other climates, but our subsidies keep it competitive. Things like switch grass or hemp (but thats a whole ‘nother rant) would make much better ethanol feed stocks.
And although it does release CO2 when burned, ethanol from plants would not contribute more carbon to the current carbon cycle because the carbon released is already within the current system. The problem with oil is that its carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years and we’re dumping that extra tonnage into our current carbon cycle. So as long as the ethanol feed stock is grown with a minimum of oil based fertilizers it should be carbon neutral.
Oh, and it means not sending millions of US dollars to petro-terrorists states ala Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezeula, or Canada.
The picture for this post reminds me of one of the great unanswered questions of The Matrix: Reloaded — why, if the Merovignian loves all things French, does he keep a garage full of Cadillacs? Shouldn’t that chase have been between a pair of Citroens or Peugeots?
The big three love Ethanol because its easy and inexpensive to get a car to run on it. Then they get to put a big badge on the back that goads people into thinking they really give a shit!
You got to love those GIANT Yukon size hybreds they came up with. Pay a ton of money (40-50k)& still get crappy MPG.
Why the F*ck does Wagoner still have a job?
How bout CNG?????????????
Who killed The Electric Car!
Oh, and it means not sending millions of US dollars to petro-terrorists states ala Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezeula, or Canada.
Careful, or jihadist Newfoundlanders will be flying hang-gliders into buildings if they even hear that.
I think more than half the corn in the world is grown in the US and the US produces more ethanol than Brazil thanks to the billions in subsidies showered on ethanol.
Then if you build ethanol cars you get a break on the CAFE rules.
The government gets what they want and you better play along if you want to do business.
That “peak oil” talk started in the early eighties, “only 10 years left so get ready for an oiless 21st century!” Much like a paperless office and Y2K “end of days” scenario it didn’t happen and it likely won’t happen for a long time.
The petroleum experts can’t even agree where oil comes from (except that dinosaurs had nothing to do with it).Much less can they say with any certainty how much is left. There are 10 times the known reserves today, than there was in 1980, we are consuming more and it is still the most practical and cost efficient method of fueling our transport needs.
As for electric storage, people have been trying to improve batteries for 100 years, Edison would still recognize our newest batteries. Most of the electric prototypes run on laptop batteries, think about that, how often do they let you down?, would you like to be stuck in traffic when it happens?
Now for a little math, 1 kWh= 3.6 Megajoules = ~10 cents. 1 liter of regular gas = 36 Megajoules = 70 cents or less. Battery chargers are at best 80% efficient. It will cost $1.30 or more to replace a liter of gas and take 6 hour or more per liter equivalent @ 120 volts and 15 amps (household power).
To get the energy in 50 liters of gas it would take nearly a week to charge versus 3 minutes at the pump. Next, we don’t have the excess grid capacity to deal with an electric car wave. For gods sake don’t trust me, check it out and do your own math. See if Al Gore ever suggests checking his math.
Have fun with figures!