Senator Barak Obama, of Illinois has ventured on to the world of myspace with his own podcast and transcript to talk about the President (generally pretty shoddy effort, must do better) and more interestingly about biofuels (a good thing).
Here's a taster
Take a look at the record. President Bush's funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His latest budget funds less than half of the energy bill that he himself signed into law, leaving hundreds of million dollars in under funded energy proposals. And while he can't seem to find the funding for any of these alternative fuel proposals, he has no problem allowing the oil companies to stiff tax payers 7 billion dollars in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. These are the same oil companies that are currently enjoying the highest profits on records.
It is nice to see a poltico use the word stiff like that. It's nice to see a poltico talk about fuel economy. Having cleared his chest of a load and got his audience warmed up a little, the Sen says
Let me suggest what could be a serious energy policy. Brazil, in the span of 3 years has gone from 3 percent of its cars being flexible fuel vehicles that can use ethanol and other bio-fuels, to 71 percent of the cars on the road being flexible fuel vehicles that can use ethanol and other bio-diesel fuels in their cars.
Not certain about your time line there, but I like the thrust of this...
As a consequence, Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80 percent of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years, thanks to the investment that it's made in bio-fuels. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. China now has higher fuel-efficiency standards than we do.
Surely, a nation that turns out as many PhD students as China does, will understand the importance of fuel efficiency standards, even if it has trouble reaching them in other areas. Back to the Senator...
So why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great American projects of the 21st century? I think we can; here are a couple of elements to it. Number one: let's go to the auto-makers, and say, 'here's the deal, in exchange for you guys increasing your fuel efficiency standards, and increasing your fleet of flexible-fuel vehicles in the way that Japan has done, what we're going to do, is we're going to give you some relief on those high health care costs that are making you uncompetitive.'
An interesting idea. He sounds almost European in outlook. Good idea to try trading something genuinely useful for health care. Is the Senator thinking about the cradle to grave in the way that the Atlee government did in the UK in 1945? I wonder.
Number two: let's make sure that US fleets, meaning cars that the US government buys, we buy thousands of cars for various agencies and departments, lets make sure that all those are fuel-efficient, that they're hybrids, that they can take ethanol, or other bio-fuels that would be a lot more efficient.
Hear hear (biofuels lobby starts chant of Obama Obama Obama)
Number three: let's build on the success that we already have with something called E-85, an 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend, let's build on that success, by making sure that once you have a flexible-fuel vehicle, you can actually fill it up with E-85 at a regular gas station. It doesn't need a lot of fancy technology; it costs a relatively small amount for gas stations to install them. Let's expand the tax credit that we already passed last year, a bill that I sponsored, to make sure that every gas station in America has an E-85 pump, so you can fill up your tank, save money, help the environment, and help wean ourselves off foreign oil.
Surely that's 85% gas and 15% ethanol. Nevermind, we love this stuff
Bottom line is this, this is not a problem that is technical, it is a problem of political will. If we are serious about our environment, if we're serious about our economy, and if we are serious about our national security, we are going to make this the new Manhattan Project; we're going to make this the new priority for the 21st century.
That's what I call a speech. It is a problem of political will, but he'd do well to remember that there could be unforeseen environmental consequences of the huge increase in ethanol production from first generation fuels.I hate to go on about water, but....
Comments (6)
If we are to use grasses as bio-fuels then we need to use the best .Arundo is the very best all around .I ask that you visit our site and see why Arundo is the king of grasses for bio-fuels and beyond.
You only plant it one in our life times .
We can get two cuttings a year in USA southren states at 20 plus tons an acre TWICE A YEAR!
Once cut and made into pellets it can make many items
It makes the cleanest paper it needs no chemicals to bleach it for whiteness
Leafs alone can be used for cattle and deer feed !
You can produce bio plastics as well
Dry wall can be made from it have you priced drywall today ?
As a co-fire product when charred into a cake becomes the cleanest buring fuel at ovar 8000 kelvin
www.IPEnergy.net
Posted by Barry Ayres | January 24, 2007 6:28 PM
Posted on January 24, 2007 18:28
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are almost totally ignorant as to the science of biofuel production, and how disastrous our current biofuel policies really are. The Journal SCIENCE has exposed the biofuel hoax. The problem is growing land crops to make biofuels. Switchgrass will be almost as bad as corn or rapeseed! General Motor's unproven idea of making ethanol from garbage is great if it really works. There is some future hope for biodiesel made from algae, but that is still in the science fiction stage.
"Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products." - Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change (SCIENCE)
story at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
As making biodiesel out of rapeseed or soybean oil costs the same as making regular diesel fuel out of crude oil that costs between $209 (rapeseed) and $232 (soybean oil) a barrel, the idea that we are achieving "energy independence through biofuels is ridiculous. Politicians have jumped on the biofuel bandwagon because they want the farm vote, and biofuels sound wholesome superficially, even though biofuels are creating global food price hyperinflation, up 40% in 2007 alone, causing water shortages due to water lost to irrigation, and unleashing many times more greenhouse gases than using Alaskan or Saudi crude oil.
Please see - "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Posted by Christopher Calder | February 10, 2008 9:50 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 21:50
note: e85 is 85% ethanol
Posted by erik aronesty | March 12, 2008 10:07 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 10:07
It's good to hear BP & GM talk about alternative fuels, but 50 years to implement is too long.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/companies/bigoil_hydrogen/index.htm
Perhaps this link will spark more attention:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
It is GM's electric concept car the Chevy Volt. If more people begin to demand alternative fuel cars, we should be able to speed the rate at which the technology is developed.
We have started an Investor Forum where Investors can meet and discuss topics like this:
http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/
Posted by TheSUBWAY.com | April 16, 2008 7:55 PM
Posted on April 16, 2008 19:55
The MOST important issue IMO concerning ethanol and other biofuels that require land for production is deforestation. High demand for biofuel/ethanol is the leading cause of deforestation and destruction of rain forests. Deforestation is the leading cause of increasing CO2.
Use of ethanol in autos also tends to emit formaldehyde into the air while absorbing water from the air. More on that
here
Ethanol is becoming a success because it’s profitable. Economies drive availability of energy sources and we need to find ways or offer incentives for waste products to be profitable instead. I don’t have an answer here, but biofuel/biodiesel that causes deforestation is defeating the purpose 100%. Biofuel/biodiesel that has little to no environmental impact, such as high oil algae from ponds or animal/vegetable byproducts from restaurants/farms is where we need to be focusing our energies at this time.
Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are another direction that is better than farmed biofuels (in particular those that cause deforestation). With better solar technology coming out recently, partially or fully solar powered homes that you plug your car into is the cleanest, most efficient solution to reduce your carbon footprint and reliance on oil and is available today.
Biodiesel from waste products is currently a do it yourself option at this point, and unfortunately when and if it becomes mainstream and available at pumps (efficient diesel engines that can run biodiesel are currently available and produced by some automakers) you won’t know if that fuel is a result of deforestation or not. Chances are it will be, which will be way worse for the environment than driving a standard gas car.
The bottom line: If you support ethanol product through investment, business, or use, you are indirectly supporting deforestation and massive increase in CO2.
Here are some more links you should read:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37035
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/06/transportintheuk.comment
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=37e104044bb11d19d566ac8f3621c63f
Posted by mbuddha | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
Posted on April 21, 2008 21:09
It is becoming increasingly apparent in resent days and weeks that support for biofuels by our political leaders has been either short-sighted, to put it kindly, and in more pessimistic terms, criminal. Biofuels are not an efficient use of land and the cost to the poor in decreased food supplies and to the environment in the energy used to produce ethanol has been catastrophic. Third-world countries now face food shortages that could destabalize governments and lead to widespread violence and bloodshed.
I am an environmentally conscious person, but kneejerk reactions and quick fixes are not the answer.
Posted by Rob Gill | May 7, 2008 6:16 PM
Posted on May 7, 2008 18:16