« smart à la Chinoise | Main | American Petroleum Institute Argues for More Pervasive Ethanol Use at Lower Blend Ratios Instead of E85 »
Bush Pushes Plug-In Hybrids, Cellulosic Ethanol and Hydrogen
13 October 2006
In a speech to the Renewable Energy Conference co-sponsored by the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, President Bush said that Americans have to change their energy habits “if we want to remain the economic leader of the world.”
He repeated arguments he has made in the past for the development of robust battery technology and plug-in hybrids, the use of ethanol, and the eventual transition to hydrogen, but said he worried that the current drop in gasoline prices would blunt the desire for alternatives.
My worry is, however, that a low price of gasoline will make it complacent—make us complacent about our future when it comes to energy, because I fully understand that energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world.
Energy is...look, let me just put it bluntly: We’re too dependent on oil....And see, low gasoline prices may mask that concern. So, first, I want to tell you that I welcome the low gasoline prices, however it’s not going to dim my enthusiasm for making sure we diversify away from oil.
The President said that the fastest way to begin to change consumer habits is the promotion of hybrid vehicles, and noted the role of tax credits.
Secondly, we’re spending money on new battery technologies. See, we envision a day in which light and powerful batteries will become available in the marketplace so that you can drive the first 40 miles on electricity, on batteries, and your car won’t have to look like a golf cart. In other words, it will be a technology that will meet consumer demand and at the same time meet a national need, which is less consumption of gasoline. These are called plug-in hybrid vehicles.
That’s not going to help rural Missouri or rural Texas, but it’s certainly going to help those who live in the cities. Most folks in the cities don’t drive more than 40 miles, so you can envision consumer habits beginning to change: You drive to work; you go home; you plug in your automobile. And you go...ride to work and go home the next—and you’re still on electricity. It’s going to change the consumption patterns. This new technology will change the consumption patterns on gasoline, which in turn will make us less dependent on crude oil, which meets a national security concern, an economic security concern, and helps us deal with an environmental concern.
The President then characterized ethanol as another technology that will change driving habits.
And in my judgment, the thing that’s preventing ethanol from becoming more widespread across the country is the lack of other types of feedstocks that are required to make ethanol—sugar works, corn works, and it seems like it makes sense to spend money, your money, on researching cellulosic ethanol, so that we could use wood chips, or switch grass, or other natural materials.
The President then characterized hydrogen as “one of the great options that’s coming down the road” but noted that its is “a longer-term project.”
For the short term, he swung his focus back to exploring for oil and gas “in our own hemisphere,” and touched briefly on the need for more liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, clean coal, nuclear, wind and solar technologies for power generation.
October 13, 2006 in Cellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6413897
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Pushes Plug-In Hybrids, Cellulosic Ethanol and Hydrogen:
Comments
However, why research into better battery and then go to cellulosic ethanol, and then go back to hydrogen? Why go a loooooong way just to return to the same spot?
Secondly, if USA want to control the gasoline price so people will focus on better alternatives, by all mean, just tax the fuel!
See, if we cut the hydrogen out from the equation, things could balance up easier. Now just because Mister President is saying that hydrogen is a long term project, the auto makers will always waste their resource in hydrogen research.
Posted by: rexis | Oct 13, 2006 3:54:48 AM
Rexis
I agree with your comments. The government could implement a tax on fossil fuels to encourage (research & application of ) alternative energies.
I am glad Mr. Bush is promoting the benefits of PHEVs. I just hope something comes of it. If I had a vehicle that operated on DC power for the first 40 miles, my gasoline expense would virtually disappear.
Posted by: cs1992 | Oct 13, 2006 4:13:38 AM
Actions speak louder than words.
The words I hear sound half way decent. The actions by this president are just the opposite.
To encourage clean energy we should have a polluter pays system as in a carbon tax. We could start with a penny a pound and see how many alternatives appear overnight.
Wind and Solar power would flourish. Coal would be used less and less every year. People would start looking looking for cleaner vehicles. Battery vehicle combined with solar panels on the parking garage is something that we could do TODAY not 20 years from now.
Kyle Dansie
Posted by: kjd | Oct 13, 2006 6:29:15 AM
I agree as well. Just start taxing the hell out of gasoline. That will a)procide the funding needed for the advancement of technologies, and b)will bring the price of petroleum high enough to compete with other form of biofuels. Look, Mr. President, just do it! OH, can you push EV's as well?
Posted by: Richard | Oct 13, 2006 6:57:27 AM
Hydrogen, ethanol, etc. -- they're all based on the continued use of an internal combustion engine. ICE's have served us well, but they only are terribly inefficient, regardless of the fuel that powers them.
No matter how you generate the fuel--through renewable means or fossil fuels--when you burn liquid fuel in an ICE only 25-30% of the energy actually makes it to powering the vehicle. The other 75% or so is lost in heat from combustion, friction, and other areas. Basically, any technology that depends upon an ICE at the end will suffer this 25% efficiency penalty.
I think that electric vehicles are the only solution that makes sense, both short- and long-term. Electric motors and batteries often have efficiencies in the 90-95% range, and there are huge opportunities out there for increased charge and power density in batteries, and even supercapacitor research that could lead to power packs we can recharge in minutes with almost perfect efficiency.
The ICE is basically pushed to its limits, so no matter how we get the power to it, we're going to run into the same problems.
Posted by: guest | Oct 13, 2006 7:51:44 AM
Preaching to the choir (Renewable Energy Conference). You think he would give this subject lip service if the US controlled the oil fields in democratic Iraq? If this topic is so important to W, he should take it to primetime and put it in the public's face.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Oct 13, 2006 8:03:16 AM
Um the reason they dont raise gas taxes is because the min wage and low wage and even mid level wage earners of america need thier fuel to be cheaper then it is right now.
As for why bio and plug in and then h2. Becuse in the end if we can make h2 work well directly from non polluting sources then we REALY want to swap to it and car makers realy want it in the meantime as a market segment fuel for wealthy people who want cars without emmissions issues or battery drawbacks.
Its not that we will go bio then drop bio and go h2.. we will use both.
Posted by: wintermane | Oct 13, 2006 8:39:17 AM
Just before elections, or when his ratings drop, Bush has a talent for claiming support for technologies that are in the news (leading from behind).
When the Mars rover was finally successful and everyone was excited, he declared we would send a man to Mars. When hydrogen vehicles were front-page on the news magazines because the auto companies were in trouble, he seized on hydrogen as his plan -- never mind that there is 30 years of reseach already in it. Then when oil prices started to skyrocket and his ratings plunge, he finally decides we are "addicted to oil." (A phrase I heard the other night when I rented a B movie made in 1997 -- borrowed?)
Now that his military advisors are pushing for energy security and websites like this are trumpeting the merits of alternative fuels and plug-ins, he has jumped on the bandwagon to pretending to be the driver. This guy is a joke. Industry (mostly non US), technology, and the markets are decades ahead of him.
Posted by: JMartin | Oct 13, 2006 9:00:22 AM
I'm thrilled that the President is supporting a plan that deals with a long term problem for the country and the world. The more encouragement we give him and other political leaders who support green technologies the sooner they will happen.
Each consumer and voter can move toward the solution without waiting for the Federal or State government to do it for them. I've noticed that there are lots of local governments and organizations that are making decisions to use hybrid buses, biofuel trucks, and electric vehicles for use in their communities. Thousands of those local decisions will add up to big changes in the energy picture.
I haven't purchased a hybrid but I keep my Honda parked more than I used to. I am using telecommuniting and trip consolidations to reduce gasoline consumption without the additional capital expenses of a new car (I'm waiting for a biofuel PHEV...).
Posted by: Ed | Oct 13, 2006 9:19:54 AM
Good news for those calling for a gasoline tax. We already have one.
Average U.S. gasoline tax is 22 cents per gallon. This is equivalent to $80 per ton of carbon (four cents a pound), higher than many proposals for a carbon tax and higher than most estimates of the negative impact of carbon on global warming.
So we're already enjoying the benefits of a substantial carbon tax in our gasoline consumption. It sure has solved the problem, hasn't it?
Posted by: Hal | Oct 13, 2006 9:30:11 AM
Ed,
Glad you mentioned the consumer in this disscussion. It is a good point.
For electricity I buy 100% wind generated power from the grid. It only costs a couple of dollars more per kwh, so my bill increased 20 dollars a month. A very good buy to know that my dollars do not go to garbage spewing coal fired power plants.
I also own 4 solar panels that I use to charge my battery electric vehicle. It is an e-max scooter. It works geat for the 8 mile ride to my office. The range is enough to do the round trip and then recharge every other day.
On days the scooter is charging I ride the mountain bike to work. When I need to travel a longer distance, I use my Toyota Prius.
The Prius replaced my 30 year old mercedes that I ran B100 biodiesel in.
There are EV's listed on ebay and austinev.org all the time. Now Ed tell me again what are you waiting for?
Kyle Dansie
Posted by: KJD | Oct 13, 2006 9:44:34 AM
So we're already enjoying the benefits of a substantial carbon tax in our gasoline consumption.
22 cents is "substantial"?
It sure has solved the problem, hasn't it?
No, because the bulk of gas taxes are used to pay for the highways that people drive down. Or were you thinking that magic fairy dust paid for roads?
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 13, 2006 10:01:03 AM
KJD: I am thinking of getting a solar panel for my motorino electric motorcycle/scooter. Why do you only ride the scooter every other day? Can you not push the solar into the grid during the day and then charge at night?
Posted by: Neil | Oct 13, 2006 10:04:46 AM
We are a convinced few. I'm sure we have all taken steps to reduce energy consumption by 20% to 50% in the last 5 years.
How can we convince the other 99%.
The vast majority will not move a finger until the price of fossil derived energy goes up. How can politicians impose the required carbon tax without loosing votes.
Politicians would have to demonstrate that for every new carbon tax dollar collected something like $1.10 is re-distributed to voters who need it most. That should NOT be to dificult to do, especially if it is returned as higher income tax exemption for low income earners and subsidies for the purchase of PHEVs inversely proportional to your earnings.
Don't know why the opposition party does not come up with more vote appealing solutions.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Oct 13, 2006 10:09:53 AM
I agree that 22 cents is NOT substantial and yes the 22 cents will be spent on keeping the existing roads useable.
A new tax of a penny per pound used for alternatives to the oil system would generate some positive change. Each gallon of gas burned generates about 19 pounds of carbon by the way.
Here in Utah we have a light rail system that run on domestic produced electricity. It is a great system and many people use it every day.
The only problem with the light rail system here is that it is only 17 miles long. We have thousands of miles of roads in this county and only 17 miles of decent mass transit.
That is the problem now lets fix it.
Kyle Dansie
Posted by: KJD | Oct 13, 2006 10:10:14 AM
yeeee hoo!
Finally the president acknowledges hydrogen is a "longer-term project"!!
I think hydrogen will never be a fuel for our cars. Its too wasteful when our primary forms of energy will be electricity from the sun & from wind.
Perhaps hydrogen for stationary energy storage from windfarms / solar farms? Of course V2G can provide some of that energy storage buffer.
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Oct 13, 2006 10:26:39 AM
The problem with additional taxation as a motivator to bio fuels is petroleum itself. Everytime gasoline goes to $3.00 big oil panics (and reaps shortterm windfall profits.) They panic because the alternatives suddenly start selling very very well.
Higher gas taxes mean faster conversion to biofuels, which means long term profit erosion for big oil. Thus the seesaw of pricing we see around political influences - stretching the window for petroleum.
Bottom line is biofuel pricing MUST compete with $2.00 gasoline OR the cost of PHEV, HEV, BEV hardware must compete with 35 mpg petro vehicles.
Oil expects to retain 90 percent of the transport fuel market in 2030 (API statements today) - expectation built upon ability to control gasoline pricing to limit alternative growth. Lower cost biofuels will successfully compete with petro growing the demand for alternative resources.
Posted by: gr | Oct 13, 2006 10:28:54 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if energy policy were the topic of a rational debate between the political parties in the run-up for the midterm elections? While I am still sceptical about the discrepancy between Pres. Bush's fine words and GOP largesse toward the oil industry, the tone at least is quite constructive. Unfortunately, the political debate has once again degenerated into a shouting match about which party harbors more degenerates.
Fwiw, I've long argued for slowly, predictably but permanently raising US fuel taxes and, for disbursing the extra revenue equally to all income tax filers (x2 if filing jointly) by way of a credit. The objective is to incent consumers to largely wean themselves off gas guzzling vehicles over the course of the next decade or so, without getting the Treasury hooked on fuel tax receipts.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 13, 2006 10:33:30 AM
Bush makes a lot of sense here. It's important to give him credit for what he does right, otherwise why should he even try?
By developing parallel research paths into hydrogen, battery technology, biofuels, nuclear technologies, etc. you are more likely to optimize your final balance of technologies.
All of this hostility my fellow environmentalists shower on moderates and conservatives doesn't do our cause any good in the political back rooms. Win them over, don't alienate them further.
Posted by: Jimmy Clanton | Oct 13, 2006 10:56:16 AM
What does all this matter?Didnt Bill Clinton cure the environmental problems and put us on the road to{insert your favorite solution here}.
The president and the congress as well as the debate in general moves your way and all you can do is carp.You guys remind me of glum in the old gulliver cartoon.We'll never make it flirtatia.
Posted by: earl | Oct 13, 2006 11:36:58 AM
Yep I'll give him encouragement! Encourgement of a Democratic House and Senate!
Posted by: LochDhu | Oct 13, 2006 11:38:54 AM
Congress said that 2006 would be a "year of transition"...well, we may just see if that was right real soon.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 13, 2006 12:11:27 PM
was said
"Bush makes a lot of sense here. It's important to give him credit for what he does right, otherwise why should he even try? "
The problem with Bush is that he says one thing and does something else.
He says that he supports plugin hybrids, but does the he mandate the feds purchase PHEV or even mandate they purchase hybrids. No of cource not. The least he could do is mandate all fed vehicle purchases be high mileage vehicles. Instead he gives tax breaks to Oil companies. Go figure.
As for Bill Clinton, he was in office for 8 years and NEVER raised the CAFE standard once. Dubya still has not done this either. Bush senior never raised the CAFE standard and how about Reagan? What did he do? Reagan removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter installed on the White House. How smart was that?
Yes I give Bush credit for supporting big oil and credit for NOT finding Bin Laden and I give credit for wasting 2 billion dollars a week on IRAQ.
How many miles of light rail mass transit could we buy with 2 billion dollars a week?
Kyle Dansie
Posted by: KJD | Oct 13, 2006 12:49:52 PM
Back to the subject.
How many plug in hybrids could we buy for 2 billion dollars a week?
Posted by: KJD | Oct 13, 2006 12:53:08 PM
You Go George!!
Pug-In-Vehicles are the only way the USA and B.R.I.C. countries are going to get off our oil habit. End of story!!! Then we’ll just need to clean up the GHG emissions at a few thousand power plants. So the U.S. Gov’t and private businesses need to spend more money on battery research and low cost battery production. H2 fuel cell vehicles are a joke and bio-fuel production high enough to replace oil imports will just take way to long. So look for a car company from Japan, which is totally dependent on oil imports, to produce the first mass car volume P.I.V. within five years.
Posted by: JD | Oct 13, 2006 1:06:22 PM
Don't write off H2 completely. While it may not be feasible at present for our motor vehicles, it could replace kerosene and avgas for our aircraft.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Oct 13, 2006 5:04:15 PM
Normally gas taxes are expressed per ton of carbon.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
Gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds per gallon and is 87% carbon. This means that burning a gallon of gas emits 6.3*0.87 or 5.5 pounds of carbon. A tax of a penny a pound of carbon, equivalent to $20/ton of carbon (aka $20/tC) would be 5.5 cents per gallon.
This kind of tax is insignificant and will have no meaningful impact on gasoline usage. I pointed out above that average U.S. tax is 22 cents per gallon already. Making it 5 cents more would mean nothing.
Yet this is a typical range for carbon taxes being proposed. Look at this article by Greenpeace, not exactly a mouthpiece for the global industrial complex:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html
"Tremendous attention has focused on efficient mechanisms to reduce the impact of climate change. Taxes on carbon are an oft-suggested tool to 'get the prices right' (i.e., to internalize environmental externalities) in energy markets. A number of economists have estimated economically efficient carbon tax levels that would begin the transition to lower-carbon fuels. Their results suggest median values of between $9 and $14 per ton."
That's even less than the $20/tC we were just talking about. It means a tax of 2 to 3 cents per gallon! That is the economically optimal tax to take care of the impact of climate change. That is going to change the world and put us on the path to a glorious, carbon free future. 3 cents per gallon, an amount lost in the noise.
This should make it clear that a carbon tax does not make sense as a solution to carbon externalities. For it to have any bite, you have to raise it to the level where it has no rational connection to the costs and impact of increased carbon levels. Then it just becomes arbitrary and is essentially a function of the proponent's distaste for the modern world and for private vehicles.
Posted by: Hal | Oct 13, 2006 11:09:14 PM
Just as a calibration point: I was speaking with a visitor from London. When remarking on our gasoline at $2/gal, she said fuel at home was $8/gal. That is a fuel tax!
In addition to the high cost fuel, her automotive registration is approximately $400/year.
She also said that after the London congestion fee was imposed her public bus commute went from 50 minutes to under 10 minutes.
Posted by: Bill Young | Oct 14, 2006 4:49:05 AM
The 22 cents/gal USA Federal gas tax is no where near the industrial countries average of between $3 and $4/gal. This is the main reason why Americans drive most of the gas guzzlers on the planet.
This trend started to change went gas was above $3/gal.for more than 2 months but quickly reversed as soon as gas went down to $2.50/gal.
The only way, to convince our fellow Americans, is to announce and apply a progressive gas tax increase, from 22 cents/gal. to at least $2.22/gal. over a +/- 50 months period at an average rate of +/- 4 cents per month/gal.
For 50%+ to accept this new tax, people (voters) must see and receive immediate benefits. The new revenues (100% + ) collected must be re-distributed fairly, starting with low income earners, PHEV and BEV buyers and clean electricity (higher price) buyers.
The extra gas tax does not cost a single penny to collect. Re-distribution is not costly.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Oct 14, 2006 8:11:00 AM
From what I heard, even with the gas taxes in the U.K. the number of Prius sold in London was a very small fraction of those sold in L.A. If the gas tax was an incentive to conserve, I would expect Prius to be very popular in London.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 14, 2006 9:10:04 AM
"...Americans have to change their energy habits..."
What a crock of crap. The biggest energy habit we have is transportation and as consumers we have so little choice on the energy we use in this regard. This hardly seems.
I mean great, choose from an absurd Hum Vee all the way through to a Prius. It's still just degrees of dirty. The vehicle companies are holding all the cards and the options consumers given for moving around on 4 wheels are still lame as hell.
I find it hard to believe that we can put a man on the moon decades ago yet the best we can do is burn fossil fuels to get around.
"...Americans have to change their energy habits..."
Wrong sir. Regarding transportation, the change needs to come from the top down, not the other way around.
Our hands are largely tied while you and your buddies make token gestures for energy progress and you count your vast amounts of coin by keeping us dependent on your oil. All when the sun and the ocean and the winds can provide all the relatively clean power we need.
Yes it's more expensive to set up clean power plants and convert to electric cars but look at the TRUE cost of drilling for oil, refining it to gasoline and burning it.
Screw you and your empty rhetoric and token gestures Bush. I want my grandkids to grow up in a world where there are still bears and eagles and where you can actually still eat fish from the sea without the heavy metal payload.
You greedy old men are wrecking this joint.
Nature gets to bat last and she might just bat hard in the last innings to bring everything back into balance. We treat our fragile planet much like a virus consuming it's host and whatever cometh, we asked for it by keeping guys like this in power.
Posted by: Danno | Oct 14, 2006 2:18:13 PM
Those who can't do, criticize and whine like babies. Those who can do are busy changing things, leaving the whining to others. Excuse me, I've gotta get back to actually doing something.
Posted by: Banno | Oct 14, 2006 3:51:49 PM
Well said, but the "we" may have more to do with Florida, Ohio and the Supreme Court than "us".
Posted by: SJC | Oct 14, 2006 3:54:52 PM
Looks like neither Japan nor Europe (who depend on foreign oil way more then US) will not lead the push for less oil dependency. US crack program with really massive spending to reduce oil use is long overdue. Probably it is too late for President Bush to do something dramatic, but hopefully next President will recognize that only drastic measures are effective in critical situation. First of all I am talking about massive push for PHEV.
Posted by: Andrey | Oct 14, 2006 9:29:16 PM
SJC:
The British don't have to buy Toyota Prius to get more mpg. A London cab already gets about twice as many pmg than a N.Y. cab. The average British light vehicle also gets about twice the mpg than the American counterpart. The same could be said about Italian, French vehicles etc.
The land of oversized 10 mpg 3+ Ton 4 x 4 and Hummers is on this side of the ocean.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Oct 15, 2006 7:16:36 PM
The biggest energy habit we have is transportation
Industrial energy use is higher.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0201a.html
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 15, 2006 8:55:07 PM
as consumers we have so little choice on the energy we use in this regard
Huh? Walking, biking, transit, carsharing are some mode alternatives. Demand substitution through proximity etc are other alternatives. There's also fuel substitutes for personal vehicles.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 15, 2006 8:57:36 PM
Just a note to Hal above...
Your calculations of price of a carbon tax are off by a factor of three.
It is Carbon Dioxide we are weighing - not just the carbon atom, so multiply by three. 5.5 cents times 3 is 16.5 cents per gallon for a $20 per ton. I haven't checked the rest of your calculation, so that could be off a bit.
My opinion is that our government may want to step in & offer big time incentives to encourage battery manufacturing in this country. Then encourage Americans to buy GM or Ford cars powered by batteries.
If we don't do this.. probably Toyota / Nissan / Honda will run circles around us. They already manufacture all the lithium ion batteries. They already make a better hybrid system.
Why is the US slow to do this things? My take is that the govt. and car company execs simply have their heads in the sand. And they are being paid splendidly for keeping them there.
Cheers
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Oct 15, 2006 11:44:57 PM
This should make it clear that a carbon tax does not make sense as a solution to carbon externalities.
Aside from the correction given above about C vs. CO2 mass, what it really points out is that transportation is not the 'low hanging fruit' of CO2 reduction. Coal burning powerplants would be much more seriously affected by carbon taxes. It would be economically much more efficient -- by an order of magnitude -- to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing coal plants with nukes (or by adding sequestration) than to achieve efficiency improvements in vehicles.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 16, 2006 5:43:45 AM
Bush finally gets it! At least he is verbalizing it. Yes, PHEV, Biofuel but not necessarily ethanol, and Hydrogen can all co-exist. Bio-methane and Bio-hydrogen are much more efficient and a lot cheaper to produce than ethanol. I hope he got good energy policy advisers beside those provided by Big Oil!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 16, 2006 11:55:27 AM
Actauly bush always got that its the sillies arund here that never figured it out.
Right from the start bush was pointing out that we needed alot of different fuels to replace oil because to be blunt there is no one fuel that can.
Biofuels may seem fine by co2 concerns but it does pollute and as bush himself said unless the work on better biofuels pans out we are talking about a huge amount of ag land and resources to produce the fuel. With luck tho both the new second gen biofuel .. fuel from grass and other leftovers and fuel from algae pan out.
As for batteries.. EVEN if you go pell mell rose tinted glasses ev cars cant handle even 5% of all our needs within 50 years. Yes hybrids and plug in hybrids will help expand that greatly but pure ev is very limited and will remain so.
And h2. We dont know what the weather will be like in 50 years we dont know where the wind will blow in 50 years and we cant count on the sunshining bright in the same areas in 50 years... But we can count EXACTLY on how much a given nuke plant or coal deposit or whatever can turn out h2. And even if it doesnt take over everywhere it is important NOW. And will likely be even more important in 50 years even if it never becomes a main fuel source.
Posted by: wintermane | Oct 16, 2006 5:02:23 PM
Actauly bush always got that its the sillies arund here that never figured it out.
Yes, he's a real genius.
Posted by: plz | Oct 16, 2006 7:47:07 PM
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out. DME has a potential of feedstock for chemicals. DME to olefins is under development in Japan.
If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:
DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia
Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.
Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe
Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation
For more information: www.iceorganiser.com
Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 23, 2007 10:19:07 PM
