Re: Comments from Bruce Barnes, Steveo, and Domite….

First, Barnes’ enthusiasm for ethanol is way out of proportion given its limited potential and the scientific FACTS.

First as Steveo points out there is a net energy loss for ethanol produced from MOST crops (especially corn). Steveo’s sources do not mention ethanol produced from sugar cane which is 10 (TEN) times more efficient than corn. Brazilians producers claim that there is a small net energy gain in sugar cane sourced ethanol.

Secondly, there simply is not enough land for ethanol to make a large contribution to reducing gasoline consumption outside of the cane producing countries.

Steveo’s point that the ethanol subsidy is a scam is absolutely true. The subsidy goes to agribusiness and not to farmers (needy or not). Moreover, production of corn for ethanol competes with food production artificially raising food prices and could lead to shortages.

SUGGESTION 1: THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IMMEDIATELY!!!

The other side of this scam is the HUGE protective tariff on imported ethanol.

SUGGESTION 2: THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY SHOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE INTERNAL TAX IN THE MAJOR PRODUCING COUNTRY (BRAZIL). This would avoid dumping.

Domite has some mis-information on ethanol use in Brazil; Ethanol produced from sugar cane was introduced in the 70’s to reduce use of gasoline during the Arab boycott. It was never hidden. In fact it was(is) mandated by the government with the current proportion mixed with gasoline around 20% . Perhaps Domite is referring to the practice of some dishonest gas station owners adding used industrial solvents to gasoline and water to the alcohol to cheat the user. This also happens in the US.

For the past 4 years or so Brazilian car factories produce cars with so-called “Flex” engines which operate on and proportion of gasoline/ethanol. My Brazilian car is a Chevrolet Astra 2 ½ years old and runs just fine on any mix of gasoline or ethanol. I even have a little chart showing which fuel is more economical based on the pump prices.

As stated above the potential for reduction of gasoline by use of sugar cane ethanol is small due to the land limitation but it should not be ignored. We should import as much as the producing countries wish to export without protective tariffs. If the energy equation is negative they (producing countries) not the US will be taking the economic loss.

Much larger economies of gasoline use can be immediately achieved by all of YOU simply junking YOUR SUV’s (Note: I don’t have an SUV)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEX1YFXYTdI

As Editor of The Energy Roadmap (.com) I certainly appreciate your efforts in starting this conversation about the future of energy. In particular, the Energy IQ Test is a wonderful tool to figure out our baseline of energy literacy. I think that could go a step further in looking deeper than pure ‘inputs’ — our energy crisis is not purely about energy production. The public’s energy literacy- both as science and business markets is poor. And we could certainly use a primer on how to think about the future.

One area that I believe could use more attention deals with distributed power systems. Energy storage is particularly important area – both for expansion of electricity from renewables and in reinforcing our aging grid infrastructure. (I wonder if it is oil or our electricity grid that is a greater liability) Yet few people talk about our vulnerabilities in the context of now energy storage. Look at the aftermath of Ike– Houston (my former home) and Energy Capital of the World was crippled. Why b/c we have not viable sysetms for energy storage (e.g. batteries, hydrogen fuel cells). Nanoscale science and engineering should bring us much closer to commercial solutions, but where are the leaders talking about science? (Instead we focus on the geopolitics of production)

Charts are certainly helpful in understanding a snapshot of present conditions.

I also think a strategic conversation about the future should explore what disruptive changes are likely to emerge within the energy sector. My personal belief is that any efforts to incrementally improve our situation will fall short of the great challenges ahead- both in expanding our own regional/domestic production of energy as well as meeting global demand (doubling in only a few decades). We need to tap the power of creative disruptive science, technology and business models that deal with:

* Role of carbon pricing schemes
* Impact of nanoscale materials science and engineering
* Role of biology in energy production and carbon utilization
* Energy storage and distributed power generation
* Role of software and power management systems for Smart Grids
* Evolution of the hydrocarbon industry (coal, petroleum and natural gas)
* Next generation renewables, nuclear, wave, geothermal, and beyond
* Reducing energy intensity of industrial processes (e.g. chemicals, agriculture, materials manufacturing)
* Innovation by Energy Entrepreneurs

I look forward to following the conversations on this site- and seeing a renewed effort to put energy back on the top of our priorities list!

Garry Golden
Editor, The Energy Roadmap.com
http://www.theenergyroadmap.com/

I wonder what the implications would be if most or all office workers were to “telecommute” to work? This would greatly apply to those that work at computer terminals. In my opinion this would greatly reduce the demand on our infrastructure, road wise, and reduce the demand for gasoline and thus oil.

Although I do not prescribe to the currently popular global warming theory, it would also prevent the air pollution associated with those worker’s commute.

It would not greatly increase our electrical consumption, as we are not adding new appliances to the grid, but basically distributing them (to the home office). In other words, the same amount of computers would be in use, just at home instead of at work. Any increase would be negligible, and easily absorbed by the grid.

We would also benefit from a more distributed infrastructure. Terrorist attacks such as 9/11 would be less effective as office workers would be more distributed. Not only would a building such as the The World Trade Center not be needed, offices could contain minimal facilities for the occasional face to face meeting, etc.

Perhaps, the government could establish a standard in SOHO (Small Office Home Office), that the IT industry could adopt (or vice versa), and offer a tax incentive to those workers/companies that comply, and adopt these practices.

As it stands with, current IT trends in “Virtualization”, the described model could very easily be adopted, and it would be very secure.

Perhaps its just my perspective, but the majority of the traffic I see on our roads (Houston) that travel into the “beltway”, and back out, are office workers. There seems to be 2 peak traffic periods; the morning commute, to work and the afternoon commute back home. If we could eliminate these commutes, and their associated gridlock, we could save a lot of gas. This would give the commuting Americans back a large part of their day, they could be more fit, more productive, and would have more time to spend with their family. Their absence from the roads would also give time back to other commuters.

Of course it would require an investment in faster Internet infrastructure, perhaps fiber all the way to the home, but if any country can to it, America can. It seems to me that the more I think about it, the more benefits I find! More local jobs installing/operating/upgrading the needed new high speed Internet infrastructure. These jobs cannot be outsourced as they would be hands on……..

What are your thoughts? Could schools benefit from the same distributed infrastructure?

Thanks for the opportunity to put my 2¢ worth. (adjusted for inflation, I may actually owe you money).

Ethanol is made from biomass. It is a natural non-pollutant that comes from the plant – animal cycle not fossil fuels.

It has taken nature two thousand million years to sequester enough carbon dioxide and release enough oxygen to make this planet livable and in the last 100 years we have burned enough fossil fuels to increase the carbon dioxide level by 36 percent. Carbon dioxide increases global warming. Carbon dioxide concentrations in ice-core samples closely mimic average temperature variations of the planet. Many naysayers point to the fact that if the North Pole sea ice melts, it will not raise the sea level. What they do not tell you is it takes 64 times as much energy to melt ice than it does to raise the temperature of water 1-degree. That the open sea absorbs 90 percent of the solar energy and ice reflects 90 percent. So when the ice is gone the North Pole will heat up much faster. Also as the land heats up and melts the permafrost and bogs, methane is released. Methane is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas as is carbon dioxide. Scientists are saying that a global warming “tipping point” in the Arctic seems to be happening before their eyes: Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is at its second lowest level in about 30 years. It will not take 50 years for global warming to change our way of life. For the last million years the average temperature of the planet has not varied over 10 degrees C. However the local seasonal variations is very wide. A planet wide 1-degree average increase could mean a 10 to 20 degree summertime increase. Many places around the world are reaching 120 degrees this year. This could force people to live underground or a migration to cooler climates. Can you imagine 100 million Central American people migrating to Canada?

Burning biomass returns the carbon dioxide back into the plant – animal cycle with no net increase in carbon dioxide. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and increases the greenhouse effects.

We buy more oil from Canada than any other country. Much of that oil comes from tar sands, bitumen, which takes the gas equivalent of one barrel of oil for every two barrels of oil delivered. Add the cost in oil to dig up (mine) the tar sands and transport the oil to the refinery and mining tar sands is not very efficient. Shale oil is even less efficient.