« India to Prepare Action Plan for Coal-to-Liquids Industry | Main | Senators Re-Introduce Coal-to-Liquids Legislation »
New US Legislation Proposes 60 Billion Gallon Renewable Fuel Standard
5 January 2007
On the first day of the new Congress, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced legislation that proposes a new federal renewable fuels standard (RFS) of 60 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2030.
The current RFS specifies 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. (Earlier post.) Based on forecasts of fuel consumption of approximately 198 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent in 2030, the 60 billion RFS would work out to approximately 30% of the fuel required.
The Department of Energy, when it outlined its Billion-Ton Vision for biofuels in 2005, projected that fuels from biomass could supply 20% of transportation needs in 2030. (Earlier post.)
The new legislation—the BioFuels Security Act of 2007—calls for boosting ethanol and biodiesel production to 30 billion gallons annually by 2020, and then doubling that quantity over the following ten years to meet the 60 billion gallon target by 2030.
The bill also calls for increasing the number of gasoline stations that carry blends of 85% ethanol (E85). The bill would require large oil companies to install E85 pumps at their stations, increasing by five percentage points annually over the next 10 years, resulting in approximately 50% percent of all major brand gasoline stations nationwide having E85 pumps available within a decade.
The bill directs automakers to gradually increase flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) production, increasing in ten percentage-point increments annually, until nearly all vehicles sold in the US are FFVs within 10 years. Currently, flex-fuel vehicles make up only about two percent of vehicles on the road.
January 5, 2007 in Biodiesel, Ethanol, Policy | Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7391951
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New US Legislation Proposes 60 Billion Gallon Renewable Fuel Standard:
Comments
A good Idea, I hope it goes forward. It will probably fall apart just like all the plans in the 70's did.
Posted by: fstvette78 | Jan 5, 2007 11:52:31 AM
Increase FFVs by mandating them and getting rid of the CAFE loophole.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 5, 2007 11:56:09 AM
Oh, let's talk about 10-fold increases and worry about the input details later. Sorry to see Obama still has a pipe (dream). Drop the CAFE loophole and raise the CAFE penalties for oversized/overpowered consumption below 26 mpg.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Jan 5, 2007 12:15:04 PM
Minnesota ALREADY has mandated 20% ethanol in fuel by 2013. Currently, though, only 2% biodiesel, which leaves, oh, 98% room for improvement!
Posted by: Bike Commuter Dude | Jan 5, 2007 12:22:37 PM
This and similarly targeted plans are scams. If the goal is to reduce petroleum use the simple effective way to do it is to tax petroleum.
But the scam artist in congress know that higher petroleum price will cost them votes and so the scam. We do not even know if e85 is an effective way to reduce petroleum use and the more tax money or mandates that go into e85 production the less likely it is to be effective, simply because if 1 gallon of $2.00/gallon diesel fuel can be turned into a nine tenths of a gallon of $3.00/gallon ethanol people will do it every time.
If the goal is to reduce petroleum import a tariff is the way to go.
If the goal is to reduce co2 emissions a co2 emissions tax teamed with a payout to those who remove co2 from the atmosphere is the ways to achieve that.
Simple, straight forward and politically unachievable. Congress is such a bunch of *%#$#%! The fact is that the politicians are not interested in any of the goals I stated, they are just interested in placating the people.
Posted by: jwogdn | Jan 5, 2007 12:28:17 PM
We can not get much above E5 nationwide with corn ethanol. So, that leaves cellulose, which is still to be proven on a large scale. I think they have to see if and how we could do this before they mandate. I know this is just a proposal, but I would rather see FFVs mandated and eliminate the E85 loophole for CAFE. That is possible and more progressive.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 5, 2007 12:33:25 PM
Each gallon of ethanol lets a driver only go 2/3 the distance of a gallon of gas. And up to now the amount of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol is almost the energy equivalent that the ethanol will produce.
This is a real pork barrel scam!
Posted by: JROJAI | Jan 5, 2007 12:44:53 PM
We all know the limitation of ethanol. This does include bio-diesel which can be made from algae which makes the target a little less rediculous. I'd like to see all gas at E10 (cellulosic) and all diesel replaced by bio-diesel. The best way to get there is carbon taxes. Now we just need to convince the greedy,spoiled and ignorant to accept them.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 5, 2007 1:10:12 PM
This kind of legislation is just grand-standing! It's the Democrats version of Bush's Freedom Fuel program: all show and no substance.
As stated by many above, reducing petroleum use is easy: increase CAFE, get rid of the SUV loophole in CAFE.
Posted by: DS | Jan 5, 2007 1:36:07 PM
Did they forget about our water supply? From what I've read, there isn't enough fresh water in the whole of the United States to sustain such levels of crop-to-fuel production. I'd rather they focus on conservation of fuel rather than wasting our water to let us continue to waste fuel too.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Jan 5, 2007 1:39:10 PM
As noted in today's New York Times, we may already be running short on the necessary corn to supply all the new ethanol plants. Considering that in 2005, we used about 14% of the corn harvest to produce enough ethanol to replace ~1% of our oil use, using 100% of the corn harvest maxes out our oil replacement at 7%. So 30% is pure pie in the sky.
It is obvious what is happening here: the powerful agricultural lobby is getting subsidies for making corn more expensive, while the rest of us is getting spanked.
Posted by: An Engineer | Jan 5, 2007 1:53:59 PM
These politicians are narrow minded. C2H5OH and methyl/ethyl esters are fine now, but in the next 10-20 yrs, 2nd and 3rd Gen renewable biofuels will arrive on the market. They might have:
a) superior EROEI
b) yield per area
c) energy density (volumetric and mass)
d) physical, and combustion properties.
Thay may also be cheaper, and more sustainable.
__The current dominant biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) are suitable as fuel additives. However, limiting ourselves to biodiesel and ethanol, will crowd out better products and processes.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 5, 2007 1:56:36 PM
By 2030 what a joke. Technology will change so much by then any figures they make today will be garbage . Bush does not care about the envoirment so getting anything Done will be next to impossible. So they will make bold stuipid statements like this one to make it seem like there doing something.
Posted by: kevin | Jan 5, 2007 2:07:15 PM
Politics as usual. There is no political downside for these guys in advocating something decades away.
These are just Senators trying to lock in ethanol and biofuel subsidies and giveaways for contributors. Biden from Maryland favors anything that seems green.
It is five years until 2012 even begins. But the 2012 goal is already not good enough? No, we have to set a goal for 2030.
Posted by: K | Jan 5, 2007 2:19:59 PM
As second and third gen bio fuels come along couldnt these plants be upgraded and or converted?Could subsidies be offset by cuts in farm subsidies?Couldnt that help world trade talks?Continued use of farm products could be continued on a limited scale in the future to support necessary agriculture and balance food prices and price support for farmers.Can we look for solutions?Dang Im encouraged by dem initiatives.The perfect path to alternatives will never be agreed to.If the dems move this ball I may vote dem next time.
Posted by: earl | Jan 5, 2007 3:09:20 PM
I would hope that RFS means that they specify a percentage of transportation fuels that are renewable, define renewable and let things happen. Mandating a certain percentage of a certain fuel could be "fuelish":)
Posted by: SJC | Jan 5, 2007 3:09:26 PM
Obama has just answered my question. Should I support Obama in 2008? No. He is a fresh new face who is totally in bed with the old "solutions", those that increase supply without touching demand. Does he have a clue as to what we are going to be eating in 2030? Apparently not. There is no free lunch folks, and lunch is going to get a helluva lot more expensive when all the corn goes to ethanol.
What politician will have the intelligence and courage to tell the American people the truth about fuel? I'm still waiting.
Posted by: t | Jan 5, 2007 3:59:12 PM
t: LOL
Bush (a man without either courage or intelligence) has already told Americans they're addicted to oil. Doubt you'll vote for him though.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 5, 2007 4:47:59 PM
I would tend to say that a form of C02 taxation would be the most effective method of altering the fuel playing field. IMHO, taxing the fuels in different ways would be the most effective course of action. For example:
1. Don't tax biodiesel or ethanol due to the fact that they are CO2 neutral (in theory).
2.Tax traditional oil products so that their renewable alternatives are price competitive.
At least you could logically justify ^that^ scheme...
Posted by: John | Jan 5, 2007 5:58:05 PM
From what you all are saying, it seems we are doomed. Ethanol won't help us. Biodiesel won't help much either. Along with that, solar doesn't have the efficiency to provide the energy we need. Many people don't like nuclear. We're out of options. What I am gathering from this thread is that nothing can stop our demise. I have visited GCC over the last several months to learn of solutions to our oil. I am often encouraged by what is said. But this one is a real downer.
Posted by: TheGiant | Jan 5, 2007 6:21:41 PM
It takes all the things we can think of and more to slow the problem. 150 billion gallons per year of fuel is a large problem to tackle. That is why we need an all encompassing approach to the problem and not just someones favorite pet project. We need a real energy policy that works together as a system and not just give aways to old rich friends.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 5, 2007 6:38:29 PM
Does appear like grandstanding from the usual suspects. But Congress at least is thinking about homegrown fuel along with imports. The conversion to flex fuels MUST be accompanied by better CAFE standards. 2030 is a long way off. Don't think we have seen good numbers on 25 year projections, e.g.
What about the reduction in fuel consumption based on adoption of diesel, smaller ICE, hybrid, PHEV vehicles?
What about the increase $$ in petro/barrel due to lower demand, instability, production costs? Four dollar gas from market or tax is strong medicine for guzzlers.
What happens when in ten years there is a 250 mile per charge mass produced BEV selling for $20k?
If these mandates help push biodiesel investment in algal oil from bioreactors and other sources - great!! But alt energy sales come from solutions lowering consumption as well as controlling emissions, increased efficiency and better security.
Posted by: gr | Jan 5, 2007 6:41:35 PM
If the "flex" doesn't include "elecs", it's a dead end. I'm astounded that this is being given such short shrift.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 5, 2007 7:42:24 PM
This kind of planning is clearly unrealistic. In last 25 years corn production in US increased from about 7 to close to 11 billion bushels per year. Assuming better cultivation, highly GM corn with lower water and fertilizer demand and better yield, increased acreage(which is a big question), lets hope US can sustain same growth for another 25 years. It will yield 16 B bushels. Increased population and increased export demand will not allow to allocate all surplus to fuel ethanol. Let us assume that half of increased production will be allocated for corn ethanol, it will be 4 B bushels versus current 1.5 B used for ethanol, or about 2.7 times of current production, or 13 B gallons of ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not ready for mass production, and any way will not yield anything comparable to corn ethanol. Biodiesel production does not even come close. Where the hell politicians hope to get another 40 B gallons?
An Engineer:
As I know, in 2006 ethanol substituted about 3% of gasoline demand in US – on energy basis. It puts ethanol as substitute for close to 2% of US oil demand, not 1%.
TheGiant:
There is no silver bullet for such a big problem as transportation fuels. Couple per cent here and there: biofuels, CTL, NG, HEV, PHEV, clean diesel, other fuel efficient technologies, plus increased domestic drilling offshore, oil sands and shale, ultimately methane hydrates – all together will do the trick. Hopefully.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 5, 2007 8:29:40 PM
We just have to accept that most Americans are going to have to give up the "right" to drive SUV's and other fuel consuming transport someday.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't humanity use eco friendly and carbon neutral built wind powered shipping for about the last 9,000 years known. Also methane polluting animal transport, and not to mention our feet?
As always transport will be a right reserved only for the rich. Weather it be a carriage or 4 slaves carrying you on a chair. Or some hydrogen powered technological wonder we have not come up with yet. not everyone in the future is going to have a car...as it is today. Resources, including renewable ones, are in short supply. It will boil down to who controls them, and who can afford them. Just like it always has through out history!
Posted by: fstvette78 | Jan 5, 2007 11:43:59 PM
Didn't a researcher from Minnesota present findings recently that mixed prairie grasses provided the highest bio yield by a large margin? Wouldn't it be cheaper to go the BTL route than enzymes with a mixed crop input?
Posted by: Andy | Jan 5, 2007 11:46:44 PM
Let's rename this the whiners blog - most of you do not even sound like americans here. Our Rovers have been transmitting from all over Mars waaay past their expiration dates - and we can't make homebrew back here on Earth???????? We can produce all the ethanol we want, if we are willing to pay for it.
Okay I'm going to take a break. The poets and engineers and other petty complainers, can now moan and groan and complain.
At five dollars a gallon, Dyadic and Novozymes will be rich and we will have all the cellulosic ethanol we need. Ditto Startech and Dynamotive and Petrosun and Abengoa. However you would rather whine on about your birthright to ridiculously cheap personal transportation. The corn ethanol is a building block for the future, not more, not less - the distilleries can and will be flipped for cellulosic, since the anaerobic conversion is the last two thirds of the process.
K - you are on the right track - biofuels are necessary to put life back into the rural economy, which has been destroyed by petroleum and all the attendant devastation of the urban petro economy.
Ok, class is over - it's allright to drool and sputter and wring our hands again.
Posted by: calvino | Jan 6, 2007 1:04:46 AM
Fstvette78:
Give me an example when humankind gave up on something plentiful they have achieved (aside from even poorest citizen having at least three slaves).
We will manage somehow. Always did.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 6, 2007 1:58:32 AM
Andy,
The U.S. has about 30 million acres in prarie grass to preserve the soil. We pay farmers to keep it that way. We could harvest the grass, because we want it mostly for its root system. If you can get 100 gallons per ton and 5 tons per acre, that makes a lot of fuel. You can use enzymes and/or gasification. With gasification you can make SNG, methanol, ethanol, gasoline, kerosene or diesel.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 6, 2007 3:00:40 AM
Calvino:
Beat it.
All of the blogs on energy/oil/transportation/environment subjects are dominated by dooms-dayers, in most cases terribly illiterate and delusional. This news web site and consequent discussion at least provides you (and fast!) with current news and plenty of information. Just disregard posts which carry only personal opinions not supported by references, and you will find it very helpful and informative.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 6, 2007 3:08:18 AM
SJC: That's still only 15 billion gallons (equivalent to about 10 billion gallons of gasoline). The US burns over 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
Calvino: I want to see you justify the claim "all the ethanol we want". I want enough of whatever to replace:
- 100% of gasoline.
- 100% of diesel fuel.
- 100% of coal for electric generation.
- 100% of natural gas for electric generation.
- Industrial feedstocks.
Please, go on. Tell me how much ethanol this would take and how you would get it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 6, 2007 5:48:05 AM
A geat idea from a 'tall skinny kid with a wierd name', as he put it! To the nay sayers it's a great start. If it's worth doing it's worth doing till we get it right Generations 2 and 3.
Posted by: Andy | Jan 6, 2007 5:56:17 AM
I think James Woolsey has it right about what will work in the short term. Combine increased production of ethanol from existing technology with cellulosic ethanol from a broadened array of feedstocks using emerging technologies. Couple that with plug-in hybrid vehicles (100+MPG) running on E85 (for an effective 400+MPG per gallon of gasoline). More supply, less demand - gradually shifting from liquid fuels to electricity.
That approach gives us the maximum flexibility for solving the next problem - where all the extra non-fossil fuel produced electricity will come from. But we have alot of untapped capacity at night already so we have time to develop cleaner technologies to solve that problem.
Posted by: CSMiller | Jan 6, 2007 7:56:39 AM
I would agree, do both supply and demand at the same time. Up CAFE by 10%, get to E10 with cellulose and promote PHEVs. It will play on the margins, but with a problem as large as this, it is a start.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 6, 2007 8:42:41 AM
Congress needs to legislate based on reality issues that simply are not being addressed:
1. Problem: E85 -> Ethanol = 2/3 energy content of gasoline = 2/3 fuel mileage.
Solution: Ethanol = approx. 106 octane. Higher compression engines will boost efficiency of E85 engines from approximately 70% of gasoline engines to around 80-85%. We could almost live with this loss of efficiency. Pass legislation that all "FFV" engines have ability to run at 15:1 compression ratio when running E85. Variable compression engines?
2. Biodiesel has a 3.2:1 energy out vs. energy in to produce. Gasoline is about .89:1. Ethanol is about 1:1. Algae to Biodiesel is really the only viable option to produce the volume of fuel this nation consumes given the acreage necessary to grow. Restart the NREL Aquatic Species Program and pour money into the research until we get it right (growing, processing, etc.). Make technology developed through this program available to anyone who will use it to be part of the solution.
3. Congress needs to pass legislation to require automobile companies to make diesel engines be readily available. I have B20 supplier in my area and have very few alternatives for diesel powered vehicles. It would be nice to buy an American made car that runs an American made fuel!
4. NREL funding to figure out the cellulosic ethanol issues (what type of plant works best, how to harvest, enzymes to produce ethanol efficiently, etc.). Again, make the technology available to those who wish to be part of the solution.
Posted by: JimF | Jan 6, 2007 9:33:06 AM
NREL's budget has been cut every year for 5 years in a row, while Clean Coal at the DOE has been well funded. This shows where the priorities have been.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 6, 2007 10:01:15 AM
Good ideas JimF. Let's remember though that the NREL ASP run by DOE took various short-sighted, uninspired views of microalgal resource production. Yes, give it another chance, but provide grants for private sector research simultaneously. Algal resource grants can stipulate that findings/patents be licensable to all comers.
The DOE programs must be challenged by the entrepreneur who often do the same work, smarter, faster and cheaper (check out Virgin Galactic and Burt Rutan's swingtail re-entry vehicle, ahem NASA). Government needs to compete in the new alt fuel economy the way independents must. Throwing more taxpayer dollars at the same players won't solve the problems.
Posted by: gr | Jan 6, 2007 10:06:56 AM
And it would be encouraging to see this legislation include as many tax incentives, credits and loan gurantees for biofuel production as offered to the CTL industry.
Obama's work on both these bills does suggest a heavy bias toward plain old carbon consumption instead of transition to renewable fuels.
Posted by: gr | Jan 6, 2007 10:17:05 AM
Dont assume Obama wont address the demand side.In the last year dozens of energy bills were piling up.Nobody wanted to pass them until after the elections where they hoped to get the credit.Obama is in the majority and can pass his bills and get the credit that he will use to run for president.He has put two bills out now.The dems have decided to run them out one at a time rather than wait for an omnibus energy bill.I say say put em out there and lets see something get done rather than dem and repub internecine warfare while Rome burns.
Posted by: earl | Jan 6, 2007 11:02:12 AM
An Engineer,
Yeah, I saw that on Bloomberg. The traders on CBOT (and elsewhere), farmers, livestock operations, and the processed foods industry will repond to this report.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 6, 2007 11:08:39 AM
Much of the corn used for ethanol is non-irrigated. That will change as demand will force them to reach for irrigated corn. Irrigation will have a negative impact on the EROEI, dropping it down to 1:1, or perhaps even negative. Demand for water goes up, and you may see Great Plains aquifers levels drop even faster.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 6, 2007 11:20:49 AM
Obama did have a bill last year that called for helping car companies with retiree health care in exchange for more hybrids. This is a bit of a demand side play.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 6, 2007 1:50:41 PM
Consider that eliminating CAFE would have an effect similar to a fuel tax (not that this is possible). Consumption would rise, prices also, and consumers respond. This would be more painful to consumers and less efficient than higher CAFE, which is itself more painful to automakers and less efficient than consumers buying more efficient vehicles in the first place. Currently KPMG and other survey groups claim US consumers and auto execs believe efficiency concerns are here to stay. We'll see it in the yearly purchased fleet mileage averages...
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Jan 6, 2007 3:21:30 PM
SJC, aren't enzymes plant specific? Also you don't have to limit the mixed prairie grass crop to what is now used for soil preservation. My point was that picking alcohols as biofuel outputs after those findings appears to be a really bad idea.
Even if we have to import biofuels to meet a target like this, it would tend to greatly improve energy security. The countries who could supply these type of inputs are much more diverse than the petroleum producers.
Since there appears to be another Andy, I'll change my name.
Posted by: Andy | Jan 6, 2007 3:23:19 PM
Don't these Congressmen EVER keep up with technology?
Why are they pushing to continue an expensive, and soon to be redundent energy distribution system that is vastly more inefficient than our electrical system powering electric cars? Maybe they hate the idea of putting all those folks and all that equipment we all have to support for creating out liquid fuels, transporting it and storing it and selling it. We don't really want to continue paying for all that soon to be useless rigamaroll. I guess it was just a matter ot time before the new Congress began proving that it was composed of morons, as per usual. Doesn't anyone in Washington ever think things thru before they rush to
do something to prove to the public that they're doing
something?
Posted by: kent beuchert | Jan 6, 2007 4:53:07 PM
Enzymes for cellulosic aren't plant-specific AFAIK, but they are not very efficient compared to those which hydrolize starches to sugars. Two big problems are the poor processing of both hemicellulose (made of C5 sugars) and lignin; the former is fermented by only a few tailored yeasts, and the latter not at all.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 6, 2007 5:40:44 PM
Corn based Bio-Fuel will be around only tell we run short of food to eat and then Congress will drop corn based ethanol mandates. It’s going to be a huge task to replace the 200 billion or so gals we currently use in this country. Bio-Fuels will only be part of the solution here. Import oil/fuel dependence: USA 60%, Europe 80%, and Japan 100%. PHEV and BEV based vehicles are really the only way we are going to get off our oil dependence without having to switch over to mass transit for most people (New York City). Our electrical power will come from Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro, and Nuclear based power plants for decades to come. Congress only listens to people and businesses that give them money! They will get around to increasing MPG requirements no of these days, but they will never increase gas taxes by any huge amount ($3 to $5) per gallon because they would be toast in the election cycle. Anyway, the only way we are going to cut GHG by some big amount (25% to 50%) will be going big time Nuke power.
Posted by: JD | Jan 6, 2007 5:41:28 PM
Toyota and some battery companies etc. Are solving the fuel problems in response to a minority of informed people. On the other hand the politicians will not help because whatever they do must be seen as benefiting in the short term or least not costing much too more than 50% pf the voters (mostly uninformed). When Toyota et al have solved the problem to the point where more than 50% of the people already have the solution congress will act and claim that they made it happen, taking credit. (Same as with cigarette smoking. Smoking rates fell and fell for a long time before the levels of smoking got low enough for the politicians to safely act. )
Posted by: jwogdn | Jan 6, 2007 6:46:20 PM
If we can get to E10 by gasifiying prairie grass, great. If we can promote hybrids and PHEV all the better. CAFE tends to put the burden on auto makers and must by why they fight it so hard. Maybe we can help the car makers do the right thing and all come out ahead.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 6, 2007 8:24:03 PM
Engineer - i was sitting outside the municipal dump with my buddy who was writing out the thermo dynamics for the good old Fischer-Troepsch on the back of a milk carton. We like to drink milk outside dumps. He concluded the milk carton would be good to get us home if only we could convert it to ethanol. However where, oh where are we going to get the feedstock for all the fuel we need?? - as three more long trailers carted off leaves to the incinerator. hmmm - where would we get the grass clipping, the rotting wood, the fallen leaves to convert to biofuel. I am coming to understand that you must live in arizona to miss these obvious things, however here, in the northeast, and the rest of the deciduous USA, which is most of it, we have all kinds of feedstock, year after year, and it just appears all on its own. The prairie grass - well sure we can cut that, however we already have several hundred million tons of high carbon feestock lovingly collected by suburbanites, all on their own account. Now think about the total biomass available as you peer over your shoulder on the highway, anywhere except in your home state of the Sonora desert.
I do not know why you think I want to derive all our all energy from biofuel. I said we can have all the biofuel we need, which we use for transport, which is different.
Posted by: calvino | Jan 7, 2007 12:20:14 AM
10 percent from here, 20 percent from there and before you know it...
Posted by: APosterFormerlyKnownAsAndy | Jan 7, 2007 8:30:58 AM
More hand-waving non-answers from Calvino. Asked for quantitative answers, he mutters about sitting outside dumps (oddly appropriate).
Since you're innumerate, Calvino, I'll name a couple of quantities of things and let you tell me where we'd get the ethanol to replace them:
- 140 billion gallons/year of gasoline (~210 billion gal/yr ethanol equivalent).
- 60 billion gallons/year of "distillate" (~110 billion gal/yr ethanol equivalent).
The Billion-Ton Vision summed up all your waste streams and came up between 2 and 3 billion tons short of even your partial solution. So tell me this time, where would you get it?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 7, 2007 11:35:10 AM
I think plasma conversion of waste to Ethanol,Butanol,Syndiesel is ideal. NYC produces about 50,000 Ton/Day of Municipal Solid Waste. Plasma conversion realeses the about 25-30% by weight hydrogen as H2. Startech is building a tire to ethanol facility at Tom's River,NJ. It will produce about 1,000,000 Gallons/Week of ethanol from tires. Treating MSW with plasma could displace 100% of our U.S. oil imports. Landfill Plasma to electricity could power the nation for 30 years and you get your Metals and Silica back. There's you answer!
www.startech.net
Posted by: Andy | Jan 7, 2007 12:13:15 PM
Engineer - I'm waiving my hands in a sweeping gesture to encompass the forest, where you only see trees. The link is an interesting proposal, which skips the larger point I made about harvesting our decidous forests. Although it is essential to eliminate waste by recycling culled wood and sawdust from mills, the enormous biomass that I described to you falls upon us all on its own perennially in the months of October, November and December from oaks, maples, poplars, elms, birches and the like. Somehow the site you cite ignores the almost boundless potential of this harvest. Quantifying the available quantity of this biomass would be an exercise in whimsy - your three billion tons of biomass are there several hundred times over. Interestingly, just like Brazil beat us with commercial application of biofuel, they seem to be also pioneering non-destructive commercial harvest of wild forest. The obstacles are mostly institutional inertia - read politicians and financiers living fat off concentrated energy producers. Your determined opposition to discrete distribution of the means of energy production is convinvcing me that you are a stand in for the big energy interests.
Posted by: calvino | Jan 7, 2007 9:11:08 PM
Uh, isn't the news here that Barak is onboard and this has a ever so slight prayer of passing.
Otherwise, its essentially the same bill as last year that got two hearings before spending the rest of its life in committe-land.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 8, 2007 6:22:27 PM
In other words, Calvino has no idea if his resource is adequate, or even if it can be harvested at a positive EROEI. And no hint about the effects on the decomposers which feed off the leaf litter in natural forests...
Until you have numbers, you've got nothing.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 9, 2007 6:17:48 AM
I don't think I would get enough fuel from the leaves in my yard to get down to the corner store and I have a lot of leaves in my yard.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 9, 2007 9:23:25 AM
I don't have numbers, but I have words.. such as.. shilling for big oil.. wherever I see your hairsplitting,
Shell answer man, nicotine is not a harmful chemical and Exxon does not believe in global warming pseudo-science, I will flag you for what you are.
Posted by: calvino | Jan 10, 2007 12:13:42 AM
