We need to accelerate the move from corn-based ethanol to more sustainable biofuels. The conversion ratio is twice as good, but the enzyme process is twice as expensive. Many of the corn ethanol plants can be easily modified to produce cellulosic ethanol from the waste of farm crops. We can't continue to raise the price of food and skew production patterns. It seems worth it to have differential tax incentives to do this right.This is part of a speech for the audience, its unlikely, in my opinion, that it would be politically possible to import cheap ethanol to the US from Brazil, even if there was a joint project between the countries in a third Caribbean nation.We should consider doing a joint investment with Brazil, potentially in the Caribbean, which would import sugar cane-based ethanol into the U.S, but it would not be subject to the tax that is placed on the rest of Brazilian ethanol. It might not be politically feasible, Clinton added.
Clinton also sugests
Biofuels are also just a transition to electric and hybrid cars. We have this electric vehicle technology today, and it's made in America. The technology would probably require larger tax credits, but it would be worth it because the prices for electronics would immediately drop -- think the iPhone or a flat screen TVs.
So the interest in Biofuels could only be there for the medium term. This idea is pretty much pie in the sky until battery technology improves and there is an environmentally acceptable carbon free route to electricity generation.
Comments (6)
Bill Clinton is fundamentally wrong on getting away from corn-based ethanol. The U.S. has an abundance of corn and the technology on ethanol is improving everyday. I know it's not perfect, but it's not like we can run our 747's on water tomorrow. Ethanol is the best option we have right now and we need to encourage more of it, not less.
Posted by NDN | August 19, 2008 4:30 PM
Posted on August 19, 2008 16:30
Now that is funny. Clinton is sure ignorant about bio-fuels.
In fact bio-fuels are only a few of thousands of co-products also produced from the various bio-feedstocks. We make thousands of pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, human food, animal feed and other products from those various feedstocks, besides the many fuels.
While we are at it we are beginning to use up and clean up our sewage, garbage, oil spills, chemical spills, old landfills, farm manure, road kill, packing house and cannery wastes, old computers and cell phones; cleaning up America and our streams and oceans while we are at it.
I think we will keep on doing what we have begun. It is working just fine and turning pollution disasters into profit centers.
larry hagedon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericanFlexFuelExperience/
Posted by larry hagedon | August 19, 2008 8:31 PM
Posted on August 19, 2008 20:31
That might be true in very local circumstances if you are making ethanol and delivering it locally. But there are issues of transportation, you don't have an ethanol pipeline network in the US and, don't look like getting one built soon. So you'll have to rely on rail cars and trucks to get the stuff to market in the large population centres where it is needed. Each of which have environmental costs. Ethanol will only substitute a tiny proportion of the gasoline used in the US each year. You'll take a good chunk of the corn crop to do it. If the US brings more land into corn production that will have implications for water resources and fertiliser use. Corn is a pay day loan, it might get you through the week-end but its no long term solution.
Posted by Simon Robinson
|
August 20, 2008 9:24 AM
Posted on August 20, 2008 09:24
If we can make biofuels from a range of wastes economically, that may be good for the environment. But you've got to remember that there will still be waste products from biofuels, even if they are made from waste themselves.
Posted by Simon Robinson
|
August 20, 2008 9:44 AM
Posted on August 20, 2008 09:44
Simon said, "Corn is a pay day loan, it might get you through the week-end but its no long term solution."
Why so pessimistic? Technology will just keep getting better and more efficient as we keep using corn ethanol. In the short term, we need to ease gas prices. In the medium-to-long term, we need to be developing more sources on energy domestically.
I see corn ethanol as a smart solution.
Posted by NDN | August 20, 2008 5:17 PM
Posted on August 20, 2008 17:17
Transportation, moisture absorption, irrigation requirements, fertilizer needs, short term destabilisation to global food markets -- all of these are problems that I think need to be solved for corn ethanol. Additionally, corn ethanol can only meet a tiny amount of the ocean of fuel that the US consumes each year using conventional processes.
That's why I'm not convinced about corn ethanol. Technology will help to solve problems but it is probably not wise to rely on inventing your way out of a problem to a timetable.
Posted by Simon Robinson
|
August 21, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted on August 21, 2008 10:00