HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » NASCAR hits 5 million mil...

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 05:40 PM

NASCAR hits 5 million miles on 15% Ethanol blend, with 20% less emissions...

http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articles/2013/11/12/ups-game-changer-sunoco-green-e15-milestone.html

"Fuel is fundamental to our sport and our teams demand performance without compromise," said Robin Pemberton, NASCAR vice president of competition. "With more than five million miles of hard competitive driving across our three national series, Sunoco’s Green E15 renewable fuel stands up to rigorous racing conditions while significantly reducing our impact on the environment."


[font size="3"]
"...20 percent less emissions from the race cars, and just as importantly, a 9 to 12 horsepower increase."[/font]

51 replies, 3575 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply NASCAR hits 5 million miles on 15% Ethanol blend, with 20% less emissions... (Original post)
Bill USA Feb 2014 OP
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #1
Bill USA Feb 2014 #4
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #6
Bill USA Feb 2014 #10
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #12
Bill USA Feb 2014 #15
Bill USA Feb 2014 #16
Bill USA Feb 2014 #17
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #18
Bill USA Feb 2014 #19
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #23
Bill USA Feb 2014 #26
Bill USA Feb 2014 #11
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #14
Bill USA Feb 2014 #20
Bill USA Feb 2014 #21
Bill USA Feb 2014 #28
Bill USA Feb 2014 #30
Bill USA Feb 2014 #31
Bill USA Feb 2014 #13
kristopher Feb 2014 #22
Bill USA Feb 2014 #27
kristopher Feb 2014 #29
Bill USA Feb 2014 #32
Bill USA Feb 2014 #33
kristopher Feb 2014 #35
Bill USA Feb 2014 #42
Bill USA Mar 2014 #47
Bill USA Feb 2014 #34
kristopher Feb 2014 #36
Bill USA Feb 2014 #37
kristopher Feb 2014 #39
Bill USA Feb 2014 #41
Bill USA Feb 2014 #38
kristopher Feb 2014 #40
Bill USA Feb 2014 #43
Bill USA Feb 2014 #44
Bill USA Mar 2014 #45
kristopher Mar 2014 #46
Bill USA Mar 2014 #49
kristopher Mar 2014 #50
Bill USA Mar 2014 #51
unhappycamper Feb 2014 #2
quadrature Feb 2014 #3
Bill USA Feb 2014 #5
BlueStreak Feb 2014 #7
tinrobot Feb 2014 #8
GliderGuider Feb 2014 #9
hatrack Feb 2014 #24
GliderGuider Feb 2014 #25
Bill USA Mar 2014 #48

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 06:11 PM

1. FWIW, Indycar has run on 100% methanol since 1964

 

and virtually 100% ethanol since 2007. These are not "stock block" engines, but there is no technological reason passenger car engines couldn't run on 100% alcohol if we had a reliable, economical source of the fuel. The problem is that manufacturing of alcohol releases just about as much carbon as burning gas once you add up all the steps in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 03:46 PM

4. Argonne National Laboratory puts ethanol's GHG emissons reduction at 34% vs

gasoline. This of course takes into account all the fossil fuel consumption involved in producing the corn and making ethanol from it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/045905/article


methanol is currently made from natural gas,a fossil fuel, but it can be made from biomass feedstocks making it a renewable fuel.


here's an interesting article about the Indy Car series changing to ethanol in 2007 ..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001595.html
(emphasis my own)

"This shows average Americans what they can do to help meet the energy challenge our country faces, and it makes the point in a way a politician never could," Bayh said in a telephone interview yesterday. "If a racecar going 220 miles an hour can be powered by 100 percent ethanol, the family car can be, too."


The open-wheel Indy cars have run on methanol since the late 1960s. The two fuels share many qualities; both are alcohol-based and have a higher octane rating than unleaded gasoline. But methanol is made from natural gas, a nonrenewable fossil fuel, while ethanol is a renewable fuel made from agricultural products such as corn.

Moreover, there's no performance drop-off with ethanol, according to Simmons, who used the fuel in his racecar last season, as well. Simmons says that his racecar, powered by a Honda V-8 engine, actually accelerates better with ethanol. It also gets better fuel mileage, which has enabled the Indy Racing League to downsize its cars' fuel cells from 30 gallons to 22. (that implies a 27% reduction in fuel consumption or an increase in mpg of 36%_Bill USA) (On a full fuel load, that takes about 50 pounds out of the car's overall weight, which improves performance.
(more)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 04:14 PM

6. This report says the CORN-based ethanol has a net NEGATIVE effect on carbon

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-not-cut-emissions/

That's a pretty big discrepancy between two respected sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 05:05 PM

10. the article, from 2009 refers to a policy being considered by the CARB...

California Air Resources Board which was accepting highly questionable 'research' by one timothy Searchinger, an attorney (not an economist) who used economic models to conclude that growing corn to make ethanol would cause deforestation in rainforests around the world (this is referred to as Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUCs)). There were many qualified people who criticized the 'study' as simplistic and having 'questionable assumptions' as well as questionable use of the economic models.

I'm assuming in referring to this article you know you are therefor referrring to the CARBs reliance on the Searchinger 'study'. The EPA listening to more of the scientific input, while heavily lobbied and influenced by the oil industry, used ILUCs for ethanol that are about one tenth what Searchinger claimed.

YOu therefor when referring to "two respected sources" must be referring to Searchinger as 'respected'.

NOte: He is not respected by those in the scientific community who have done research in the field of agricultural economics or the energetics of various fuels.

One of these individuals is Michael Wang, Ph.D. or the Argonne National Laboratory, Dept of Energy. He is the lead researcher at ANL on the GHG emissions of ethanol fuel and most other fuels. The ANL is the body which makes the determination on GHG emissions for ethanol as well as other basically all fuels of interest to researchers and policymakers. Wang created the GREET model which is used by thousands of researchers in government, private industry, and the academia for research into the energetics and GH emissions of various fuels.



from the article you referred to:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-not-cut-emissions/
(emphasis my own)

More than 100 scientists researching biofuel production agree, having signed a letter to California Gov. Schwarzenegger calling the policy misguided and based on limited scientific models that improperly punish corn-based biofuel.

"Results from the model have not been verified enough to be useful," said Harvey Blanch, a professor of biochemical engineering at University California, Berkeley, and one of the signatories. "There needs to be more studies validating this method before applying it to a legal framework."

This is the first piece of regulation to account for such so-called "indirect land-use effects" of corn-based ethanol. But it is the latest in an ongoing debate about the fuel's effectiveness to reduce greenhouse gases.
(more)



The dept of energy wrote a critique of the Searchinger study. Here's what they had to say:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/obp_science_response_web.pdf
(emphases my own_Bill USA)

The Searchinger study ("Use of US Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change" claims that biofuels production in the US, whether by corn or switchgrass, will trigger harmful land use changes elsewhere, in response to higher agricultural commodity prices, and thereby lead to huge GHG increases initially. The study claims that no greenhouse gas benefits will occur for the first 167 years of corn ethanol production.

The Searchinger study contains some unrealistic assumptions and obsolete data. The key issues are as follows:

[font color="red"]{note: Searchinger used a figure for corn based ethanol that was TWICE the amount the law LIMITS corn ethanol production to._Bill USA}[/font]

The study assumes a corn ethanol production scenario of 30 billion gallons per year by 2015, which is double the amount established by EISA (see Figure 1). To meet the new RFS, after 15 billion gallons, biofuels must come from feedstocks other than grain, and primarily be produced from cellulosic feedstocks, such as agricultural wastes and forest residues.


• The study relies on a worst-case scenario by assuming that land use and deforestation in 2015 will mirror that which occurred in the 1990s. Better land management practices and avoided deforestation credits, if adopted, could reduce deforestation rates. In fact, deforestation rates have slowed down over the past decade.

• The assumption that corn exports will decline by 62 percent is contradicted by historical trends. As Figure 2 shows, U.S. corn exports have remained fairly constant at around 2 billion bushels per year throughout the entire growth phase of the ethanol industry. Specifically, the 2007 exports represent a 14% increase compared to 2006 level, while US corn ethanol production has reached close to six billion gallons that same year.

• The premise that dramatic land use will result from U.S. corn ethanol use production is flawed. US corn production for food and feed has increased by 1 percent per year for the past two decades. Moreover, Figure 3 shows the increase in protein-rich U.S. Distiller Dry Grains (DDGS) exports, which are growing significantly as U.S. corn ethanol production expands. DDGS export growth will be a growing contributor to the global food supply.2

• One scenario analyzed in the study incorrectly assumes the conversion of US corn cropland to switchgrass. No farmer would convert corn acreage to switchgrass as the value of corn will most likely exceed that of a non-food crop. Furthermore, a DOE/Oak Ridge National Laboratory study found that more than 1 billion tons of biomass resources are available in this country (Figure 4) without displacing corn cropland.


Now, how about some fact re Rainforest deforestation??....

NOTE that since 2004 deforestation of Brazilian rainforests has DECLINED BY ABOUT 80%
... while ethanol production, U.S. went UP about FOURFOLD.

there are more criticisms of Searchinger's study but, please pardon me if I don't take time to enumerate all of them here as most informed people know that Searchinger is a fraud and his hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis which as of yet is still to be supported by any empirical evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 05:14 PM

12. By "respected" I was referring to Sientific American, which is a respected journal

 

That doesn't mean everything they print has unanimous agreement. It seems to me the Argonne report does not account for the fact that by taking farmland out of the food stock, this may drive up the cost of food for hundreds of millions and that can have indirect carbon effects, depending on how this food source is replaced (not to mention the starvation and destabilization that may result. We already have plenty of food-driven dislocation with the present effects of climate change. We don't need to add to that destabilization.)

All of these studies have a set of assumptions that may be subject to challenge. My intent is not to debate the precise level of carbon reduction. The point is that even in the most optimistic case, it isn't nearly the reduction that most people assume it would be. There are much better choices for a society to supply its energy needs that will have a far greater reduction in carbon without wasting any of the food the world needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 03:40 PM

15. comparing SciAmer to Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is ludicrous.

I am satisfied that you really think that Scientific American is scientific journal, that is, a journal which accepts for publication, research papers describing scientific studies - IF they pass their peer review process. Such is not the case with SciAmer. Such journals do not do scientific research themselves. When you cite SciAmer as an imprimatur of quality research you are citing the article they published and which you provided a link to.

The article was not, in fact, a research paper, describing a specific study and providing assumptions, methodology, source data and calculations for review by other researchers. It was a magazine article covering the decision by the California Air Resources Board to set GHG emissions for ethanol which would include Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC) as hypothosized by timothy Searchinger (attorney). The article did cite the fact that "more than 100 scientists researching biofuel production ....signed a letter to Gov Scwarzenner calling the policy misguided and based on limited scientific models that improperly punish corn-based biofuel". I included that part of the article in my comnt 10:

(emphasis my own)
More than 100 scientists researching biofuel production agree, having signed a letter to California Gov. Schwarzenegger calling the policy misguided and based on limited scientific models that improperly punish corn-based biofuel.

[font color="red"]"Results from the model have not been verified enough to be useful," said Harvey Blanch, a professor of biochemical engineering at University California, Berkeley, and one of the signatories. "There needs to be more studies validating this method before applying it to a legal framework."[/font]


Earlier 'research' that purported to show corn based ethanol required more energy in the production than it delivered in the fuel, were consistently shown to include very questionable assumptions, data and unexplained computations. Since, efforts to convince people that corn ethanol fuel was an energy losing proposition had clearly failed, it became necessary to bring into use the ILUC hypothesis. This enabled Searchinger to add carbon emissions for ethanol that were purely hypothetical based upon missuse of certain economic priciing models.

As I pointed out in cmt 10, the actual real world data coming in show that Brazilian rainforest deforestation has gone DOWN 80% since 2004 (after increaseing for about 20-30 years) during a time when corn based ethanol production went UP FOURFOLD. Hypothoses are supposed to be validated with actual data. Apparently not so in this case.

in cmt 10 I noted that the Dept of Energy criticism of Searchinger 'study' computed GHG emissions - including the all important ILUC - using a quantity of corn ethanol that was TWICE THAT SET BY LAW. Some would call this a 'questionable' assumption. Since this figure was rather easily obtainable by checking the law, I consider this evidence of fraudulent argumentation.

more later... re your statements re farmland usage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 04:59 PM

16. ANL researchers have closely examined the effects of direct land use.



as well as Indirect land use.


there is much of the widely held myths in your comment, don't know if i have time to get to all of it, but it has been covered before and I'll try here.

"It seems to me the Argonne report does not account for the fact that by taking farmland out of the food stock, this may drive up the cost of food .."


It needs to be said that much as many would wish this issue could be simple, it is not. they have looked at the impact of growing corn for ethanol. I guess not many people realize this but, the largest portion of the corn crop, by far, is grown to feed cattle and pigs (about 60% of the crop is for animal feed). Cattle evolved eating grass. They are healthier raised on grass and they make healthier meat when raised on grass (more Omega 3s, less Omega 6 fats - which contribute to inflamation - contributor to heart disease and cancer). Cattle have been fed corn to enable us to have cheaper steaks and hamburgers. Over a period of time to provide cheaper beef cattle gradually have been fed more and more on corn. THis is an economic decision not a necessity. It adds FAR MORE DEMAND FOR CORN THAN ETHANOL DOES.

[font size="+1"]Now, the biggest change in farmland use for quite some time - is the conversion of farmland to urban development - homes, streets, parking lots, malls. [/font] NOT the increased production of corn which has been handled with increases in productivity and farmers changing crop regimes.

here's a link to findings by researchers of the Oak Ridge Laboratory who did an in-depth analysis of direct land use changes: Empirical Data and Decomposition Analysis of U.S. Corn Use for Ethanol Production from 2001-2008
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Analysis_of_US_Corn_Use_for_Ethanol_Production_from_20012008.pdf


Food Price factors

Regarding increased prices for food if you check food price increases they have not been all that far out of line with the inflation in general. Also, note that farm commodities add about 11% to the retail price of food. The other 89% is marketing and processing costs which are added on AFTER THE FOOD LEAVES THE FARM. Of farm commodities total market value, corn represents about 15%. So then, corn would be about 1.6% of the retail price of all food. PEtroleum products (e.g. fuel, chemicals, insecticides) represent about 5% to 6% of the retail price of food. While demand for corn to make ethanol impacts the price of corn ethanol supplying 11% of the fuel supply impacts the priceof oil/gasoline. Estimates vary but seem to land around concluding that ethanol reduces the price of gas about 20% to 30%. When you take into account ethanols reduction of the price of oil, that reduced retail food prices about -1% to -1.8%. As you can see the reduction to the retail price of food due to ethanol's impact on lowering oil prices is roughly equal to the entire proportion of the retail price of food of corn (1.6%). (note this is for the cost of entire corn crop.) Ethanol has had an impact on the price of corn but not nearly as much as some have claimed. When they make ethanol they also make Dried Distillers Grains and Solubles - a cattle feed supplement which is substituted (up to a point) for corn. The net effect of ethanol's demand for corn is that it represents 25% of the demand for corn. Cattle feed is about 60% of the total demand for corn.

Another big factor in the rising prices for food is the massive increase in speculation in all commodities including, of course, energy, but also farm commodities. Michael Masters, hedge fund manager provided testimony to an Congressional committee re massive increases in moneys flowing into commodities futures speculative activities:

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf
(emphasis my own)

Assets allocated to commodity index trading strategies have risen from $13 billion at the end of
2003 to $260 billion as of March 2008,5 and the prices of the 25 commodities that
compose these indices have risen by an average of 183% in those five years!


the World Bank while at first putting much of the blame for food price rises on ethanol, reversed itself on the impact of biofuels on world food prices: http://www.groupedebruges.eu/pdf/WorldBank_foodpriceboom.pdf.

worldwide, biofuels account for only about 1.5 percent of the area under grains/oilseeds (Table 3). This raises serious doubts about claims that biofuels account for a big shift in global demand.


Another source of rising food costs, though many people may not like to face this, is the fact that people in developing countries are increasing their standard of living and buying more food and more value added food (meat). The increased demand for meat increases demand for grain fed to cattle.

YOU said:

"All of these studies have a set of assumptions that may be subject to challenge."

the Results of ANL's studies have been closely scrutinized by legions of Oil industry minions. So far, ANL has not had to retract anything. As I said before the GREET model created by ANL (M. Wang) is used by thousands in industry, the academia and Government for the analysis of the energetics and GHG emissions of all biofuels, is the standard everybody goes with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 05:04 PM

17. "better choices for energy needs" I would be glad to hear you site any..

you said:

"even in the most optimistic case, it isn't nearly the reduction that most people assume it would be."

The gains from ethanol in terms of GHG emissions are not assumed they are proven, documented by dept of energy (ANL) and others.


You said;

"There are much better choices for a society to supply its energy needs that will have a far greater reduction in carbon"

I would be glad to hear of any you can mention. Not only that, I would support any that are better. Please site....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 07:40 PM

18. Wind, Solar, and conservation. All are better than converting perfectly good food into carbon

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 08:35 PM

19. we are talking about the GHG emissions from the light transportation sector. Of course I am for all

the technologies you mentioned, including or course, efficiency which can be applied to the light transportation sector.

The Light Transportation sector in particular offers the possibility of the quickest GHG reductions (vs say the electric power sector).

What I am asking you for is the better ways of achieving GHG reductions for the light transportation sector, than ethanol fuel, that you said existed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 09:54 PM

23. Efficiency.

 

There are numerous efforts underway to that have the realistic possibility of reducing the carbon footprint far more than anything we would achieve with ethanol. But this is largely being forced upon entrepreneurs and venture firms with minimal help from government grants and incentives. To me, it is outrageous to be giving huge subsidies to Exxon and ADM while offering little more than lip service to the companies that really can make an impact.

I would call your attention to these players:

Clean Energy
Westport Innovations
Capstone Turbine
Wrightspeed transportation

as examples of people who are doing things that really can be transformational. There are many more. The above players can have an impact in the medium-to-heavy trucking business, which is a very big part of our carbon problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 03:01 PM

26. you have not stated a technology and its GHG reduction numbers. I need estimated or recorded GHG


emissions reduction numbers. As I said I am interested in anything that works.

As I stated above I am all for improving efficiency. This does NOT preclude the use of ethanol. As a matter of fact, because of ethanol's high octane relative to gasoline's you can use high compression - provided by turbo-charging or super-charging - to get much more efficient combustion with ethanol leading to better fuel efficiency as miles per gallon, than with gasoline.

Please name a viable technology that can produce GHG emissions reductions better than ethanol achieves right now. I need more specifics. So far you haven't produced any.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 05:09 PM

11. who is the Chairman of the Calif Air Resources Board? Mary Nichols

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/appointments-and-resignations/air_resources_board_chair_who_is_mary_nichols?news=641542

Governor Schwarzenegger appointed her chairman of the Air Resources Board in 2007 and Governor Brown re-appointed her on January 5, 2011, but in the interim Nichols received heavy criticism for her stock holdings. Her investments included shares in Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, BP PLC, a Bermuda shipping company that transports crude oil and the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp, according to the Associated Press.


NIchols also happens to be married to one of the attorney's who helped limit Exxon Mobil's penalties in the EXXON Valdez disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 06:37 PM

14. That's all beside the point, I think

 

It seems to me you agree that corn-based ethanol does not produce anything like a an order of magnitude reduction in net carbon. Let me grant you your 34% reduction -- that's not worth arguing about IMHO. That is not nearly enough to make it a good public policy decision to take all that food out of the supply. That makes very little sense to me when we have proven economical alternatives that eliminate 100% of the carbon from the generation cycle.

Granted we can't mix our solar&wind based electron into a tank of gasoline. But we most certainly can move more aggressively toward sustainable energy for the vast majority of our energy needs INCLUDING personal transportation.

I am not any happier about effectively subsidizing "big corn" than I am about subsidizing "big oil". That is all part of the carbon-based economy that we need to be leaving behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 08:52 PM

20. you haven't established that food has been taken out of the supply chain. Our farmers are producing


more than we can eat. Prove to me that food that ethanol is keeping food commodities from being grown and sold that otherwise would be. I have pointed out to you that by feeding corn to cattle we are taking 60% of the corn being grown and feeding it to cattle when they would be better off eating grass. This would free up 60% of the corn supply.

Please prove your claim that food that would have been grown and sold (farmers aren't going to grow food to give it away - it costs them money to grow it you know) is not being grown and sold because of ethanol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 08:54 PM

21. No it's not beside the point, unless you don't mind full blown AGW accelerating until we can't rein


it in. and unless you don't mind exxon-mobil et al making your decisions for you.


Big Oil's big stall on Ethanol - bloomberg business-week
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-09-30/big-oils-big-stall-on-ethanol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 03:30 PM

28. crop support payments to corporate farms is as abominable as tax breaks for huge oil companies..but

that doesn't change the fact that ethanol is producing GHG reductions as we speak.

CSP were intended to help family farms survive in tough times. They were never meant for corporate farms who can arrange financing themselves. I would be happy to see CSP to Corporate farms and tax bennies to Oil companies both go away.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 04:07 PM

30. "not nearly enough"?: 29 million Priuses needed to achieve Ethanol’s current GHG emissions reduction

Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2014, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size="3"]Using 34% GHG reduction (as per ANL), since ethanol currently provides about 11% of the current fuel supply for cars and light trucks

.... that comes to a GHG emissions reduction of 3.83% FOR THE ENTIRE FLEET of cars and light trucks. 3.83% of 250 million vehicles comes to about 9.6 million cars. The Prius achieves a reduction in gas consumption of 32.6% compared to a a car of comparable weight and payload (Toyota Corolla). So dividing 9.6 million by .326 gives you a little over 29 million Priuses to achieve the same aggregate GHG emissions reductions currently achieved by ethanol.

now how long do you think it will take to sell 29 million hybrids? A Prius costs about $8,000 more than a corolla. Let's say hybrids in general cost $5,000 to $8,000 more than a compaarable weight and payload car. Now, consider how World competition is going to impact our economy's ability to grow and to keep the unemployment rate below 6%. These things are important because when people have less job security they are much less prone to paying several thousand extra dollars for a car - those who can afford to buy a new car, that is.

So, estimates would vary but let's just say it will take 20 years to get to 29 million hybrids (that would take 13% growth in annual sales for 13 yrs, followed by 7 yrs of annual sales growth of 49% to 70% (because of hybrids falling out of service) - so 20 years is a pretty optimistc number, requiring very strong sales growth. It could easily take longer. During that time ethanol would be racking up GHG emissions reductions every year and if we were to take steps to optimize cars for ethanol use, the GHG emissions reductions would be climbing, per unit of ethanol, while the amount of ethanol replacing gas would have been growing..


[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 04:23 PM

31. How about a 67% GHG emissions reduction for ethanol. The ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine ..

This engine designed by three MIT scientists, achieves 30% better fuel economy, while using 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. If these engines were put in FFVs that would give ethanol a 67% GHG emissions reduction.


http://www.ethanolboost.com/


The there was the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge of 1998. 14 teams of college engineering students were given Chevy Malibus and their challenge was to optimize their vehicles to run as efficiently as possible on ethanol. ALL the teams produced cars that achieved fuel economies equal to the stock Malibu using gasoline in the city driving test. The three best teams produced cars that achieved 13% to 15% BETTER fuel economy thanthe stock Malibu on gasoline - for overall driving (city and highway). If our FFVs were equipped with engine that were this efficient they would give ethanol a GHG emissions reduction factor of 62%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 05:20 PM

13. California's love affair with Big Oil - letters from a Corporate Feudalist State.

(this was posted by DU member JohnWxy quite a while back. I copied it and saved it as it as it was important information.)


Who is John Daum?

... John Daum was one of the lawyers who represented Exxon Mobil in the Exxon Valdez case filed against Exxon-Mobil for damages resulting from the "worst oil spill in environmental history". Mr. Daum "was able to lower the punitive damages that were to be paid to fisherman, landowners and others to one-tenth of the original damages."

..and who is Mr. Daum's wife? ... that would be Mary Nichols, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board. ..now you can begin to understand why the CARB instituted carbon emissions numbers for ethanol that had nothing to do with scientific empirically validated research.


California's Love Affair with Big Oil - DomesticFuel.com.


Last week, the Southern California Association of Governments turned down $11 million in stimulus money for Pearson Fuels to install 55 E85 stations. Huh? And this shortly after the expanded rules were announced for the Renewable Fuels Standard, not to mention the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that went into effect on January 1.

What would cause the most notorious state, hailed around the world for its progressive environmental policies, to shun a lower carbon fuel? Hmmm…could it maybe, just possibly be that it is blinded by it’s Big Love for Big Oil?

~~
~~

Last year California Lawyer Magazine Awarded its Clay Awards which are given to lawyers who show extraordinary achievements. Lawyers John Daum and Mary Nichols both won a Clay Award for two very different achievements. Daum won for his co-counsel regarding the worst oil spill in environmental history – the Exxon Valdez. But he didn’t win for his work to hold Exxon accountable for its actions – he won the award because he was able to lower the punitive damages that were to be paid to fisherman, landowners and others to one-tenth of the original damages. The magazine writes, “This was truly a signature punitive damages case, and it could have major implications for environmental and other torts in the future.”

While Daum was given an award for his work in defending Big Oil’s environmental offenses, Mary Nichols, who is the chairman of the California Air Resources Board and Daum’s wife, was given an award for her role in passing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This piece of legislation is intended to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While the final rules are just now coming through the pipeline, the policy could potentially regulate all areas of energy use including land use and will be enforced through a “cap-and-trade” program. It is important to note that through this program, Big Oil doesn’t have to reduce its CO2 emissions solely through alternative fuels. If they bring to market technology that reduces CO2 but still uses fossil fuels, the technology will still meet policy requirements.
(more)


.. and check out the hundred million dollar grants made by Big Oil (EXXON-Mobil, BP) to California Universities)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 09:31 PM

22. You aren't going to get past 12-15% efficiency for internal combustion engines.

And Wang's figures don't look at fuel used vs fuel production they look at fuel used vs total caloric output including the use of waste products as feedstock for cattle.

Very few people think ethanol has a future in light duty transport. Heavy duty including aviation and marine - maaaaybe.

You can bet better transportation performance by burning biomass for electricity to power EVs.

You'll note that is the journal "Science" not "SciAm" and that the comparison is with cellulosic ethanol - a point favoring the distillery industry.

Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol
J. E. Campbell, et al.
Science 324, 1055 (2009);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1168885

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5930/1055

Abstract
The quantity of land available to grow biofuel crops without affecting food prices or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land conversion is limited. Therefore, bioenergy should maximize land-use efficiency when addressing transportation and climate change goals. Biomass could power either internal combustion or electric vehicles, but the relative land-use efficiency of these two energy pathways is not well quantified. Here, we show that bioelectricity outperforms ethanol across a range of feedstocks, conversion technologies, and vehicle classes. Bioelectricity produces an average of 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area of cropland than does cellulosic ethanol. These results suggest that alternative bioenergy pathways have large differences in how efficiently they use the available land to achieve transportation and climate goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 03:27 PM

27. Pleasegive timeframe for achieving this bioelectric transportation. You're running out of time.


According to research by Matthew Brusstar for the EPA Brake Thermal Efficiencies of 40% to 42% were possible with alcohol fuels (neat) which compares to mid 30's for gasoline. Alcohol - gasoline blends also achieved higher thermal effiiencies than gasoline although not as high as 100% alcohol. But this is not special info, all engne designers know alcohol, with higher octane numbers than gasoline, can under high compression achieve higher thermal efficiencie than gasoline.

http://www.nord-com.net/stoni/docs/SuTCAF.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 03:41 PM

29. The tank to wheels of ICE isn't going to get above about 18% and avg will be lower.

Don't you just hate ethanol haters?

Seriously, dude. It isn't a matter of innate bias, shilling for fossil fuels or lack of knowledge - ethanol is a dead end that is sucking up too much funding. We need to invest in transformative technologies, not technologies that reserve the status quo.

Ignoring that imperative and the reasons for it with "we're running out of time" smacks of pure hucksterism. If you can make ethanol work without mandates or more funding then great, go for it. Every little bit helps. But I'd suggest anyone with as strong of an incentive to promote ethanol as you obviously have should be looking to alternative end use applications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 04:34 PM

32. James Hansen a huckster? Give timeframe for achieving bioelectric light transportation..# of years..


Estimates of how much time we have vary,but most agree we don't have very much time left.

HOW MANY YEARS TO ACHIEVE BIOELECTRIC LIGHT TRANSPORTATION.. oh, and also number of years to replace coal and natural gas with renewable electric.

the time frame is a reality that cannot be ignored.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 04:43 PM

33. Earth Warming Faster than Predicted

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/03/earth-warming-faster-expected
(emphasis my own)

By 2050, global average temperature could be between 1.4°C and 3°C warmer than it was just a couple of decades ago, according to a new study that seeks to address the largest sources of uncertainty in current climate models. That's substantially higher than estimates produced by other climate analyses, suggesting that Earth's climate could warm much more quickly than previously thought.

~~
~~

Daniel Rowlands, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, and his colleagues took a stab at addressing the largest sources of short-term climate uncertainty by modifying a version of one climate model used by the United Kingdom's meteorological agency. In their study, the researchers tweaked the parameters that influence three factors in the model: the sensitivity of climate to changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the rate at which oceans absorb heat from the atmosphere, and the amount of cooling from light-scattering aerosols in the atmosphere.

Then the team analyzed the results of thousands of climate simulations—each of which had a slightly different combination of parameters—that covered the years between 1920 and 2080, Rowlands says. All of the simulations assumed that future concentrations of greenhouse gases would rise from today's 392 parts per million to 520 ppm by 2050. Each of the runs also allowed for variations in solar activity (which would affect how much the sun's radiation warms Earth) and rates of volcanic activity (which would influence the concentrations of planet-cooling sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere).

The team discarded results of simulations that didn't match observations of regional climate in more than 20 land areas and ocean basins from 1960 to today. Of those that passed this test, those considered statistically most likely—the two-thirds of those that best matched previous climate observations—suggest that global average temperature in 2050 will be between 1.4°C and 3°C warmer than the global average measured between 1961 and 1990. All of the simulations that matched recent climate patterns suggested warming would be at least 1°C, the researchers report online today in Nature Geoscience.
(more)


[font size="3"]
Give estimate of number of years to achieve renewable electric power fueled transportation.[/font]


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 05:14 PM

35. Give the number of years investing in dead end technologies that preserve fossil fuels...

...will delay the climate apocalypse.

Balance that against how much the resources you want will accelerate the pace of change away from fossil fuels and you have the value to the effort in time.

As far as money...

92 Int. J. Biotechnology, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2, 2009
State and federal subsidies to biofuels: magnitude
and options for redirection

Doug Koplow
Earth Track, Inc.,
2067 Massachusetts Ave., 4th Floor, Cambridge 02140, MA, USA E-mail: dkoplow@earthtrack.net

Abstract: Hundreds of government subsidies have fuelled the growth of ethanol and biodiesel in the USA, worth half or more their retail price. Cumulative costs under some mandate proposals exceed $1 trillion by 2030. Even using favourable assumptions, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels are far more expensive than other options: more than $100/mt CO2e even for cellulosic ethanol and nearly $300/mt CO2e for corn-based fuel. Despite rising concerns, environmental screens in existing subsidy policies remain weak or non-existent. A platform- and fuel-neutral policy structure forcing all alternatives to conventional fuels to compete for market share should be deployed instead.

http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/IJBT%20Ethanol%20Subsidies.pdf

Koplow is a top shelf expert on analyzing subsidies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:35 PM

42. compared to hybrids and PHEVS? I computed 20 years for Priuses (i.e. hybrids) to equal Ethanol's GHG

reductions right now. So Ethanol would be 20 years ahead of hybrids and phevs.

And as far as "preserving fossil fuels" ethanol has been replacing fossil fuels for several years now. Right now it replaces about 11% of gasoline we use. It will take about 20 - 30 years for hybrids to get that point.


you highlighted in the article you linked to the statement: "Cumulative costs under some mandate proposals..."

Notice the words "under [font size="3"]some[/font] mandate [font size="3"]proposals[/font].." So you think hypotheticals are the same as actual events? Somehow I'm not surprised.

they were giving tax credits up to $3,400 a few years ago. Don't know if they are still around.

I am for the expansion of hybrid vehicles as they will help reduce GHG emissions. I am however, realistic enough to see that hybrids by themselves will not save us from GW. If we don't use renewable fuels to get GHG emissions down sooner than 20 years from now, it won't matter what GHG emissions reductions hybrids (and PHEVs) achieve in 20 to 30 years. By then GW will be moving so fast we won't be able to rein it in --- although, we will may be able to slow it down a bit. But it would be better not to wait 20 to 30 years for GHG emissions reductions we can (and in fact are) achieving right now with ethanol.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 03:56 PM

47. you're out of your mind: "preserve fossil fuels"? the Oil industry is fanatically fighting ethanol..

They know ethanol represents a real threat to their business model of oligarchic price control and protected excessive profits. Over the past several years that ethanol has been supplying additional fuel, it has forced oil/gasoline prices down, costing Big Oil profits.


[font size="4"] Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol[/font]
(emphases my own)

Those who criticize the industry's stance see it as reminiscent of its attempts to discredit the theory that human use of fossil fuels has caused global warming. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in refining and gasoline marketing."

~~
~~

One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."

Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP (BP), Chevron USA, (CVX) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS) among its funders. A widely cited 2005 paper by Patzek and Cornell University professor David Pimentel concluded that ethanol takes 29% more energy to produce than it supplies—the most severe indictment of the biofuel. Michael Wang, vehicle and fuel-systems analyst at the Energy Dept.'s Argonne National Laboratory, says among several flaws in the study is the use of old data and the overestimation of corn farm energy use by 34%. Pimentel defends the study. In a recent update, he and Patzek hiked the estimate of ethanol's energy deficit to 43%.


more on Pimentel and Patzek's "study" in Farrell et al's meta analysis of several ethanol studies, published in the Journal Science, Jan 2006:

Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals - Science Jan 2006
http://fire.pppl.gov/ethanol_science_012706.pdf
(emphases my own)


To better understand the energy and environmental
implications of ethanol, we surveyed the
published and gray literature and present a
comparison of six studies illustrating the range
of assumptions and data found for the case
of corn-based (Zea mays, or maize) ethanol
(11–16). To permit a direct and meaningful
comparison of the data and assumptions across
the studies, we developed the Energy and
Resources Group (ERG) Biofuel Analysis Meta-
Model (EBAMM) (10). For each study, we
compared data sources and methods and parameterized
EBAMM to replicate the published
net energy results to within half a percent. In
addition to net energy, we also calculated
metrics for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and primary energy inputs (table S1 and Fig. 1).<p>

Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs
([font color="red"]11, 12[/font]). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by [font color="red"]incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy[/font] and
[font color="red"]by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes
, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated
(tables S2 and S3).

[div name="Farrellmeta" id="Farrellmeta" class="excerpt"]

References and notes:

[font color="red"]11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).[/font}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 05:02 PM

34. alcohol fuel with turbocharging/supercharging has been shown to achieve 40% Brake thermal efficiency

vs gasoline's in the mid 30s.


http://www.nord-com.net/stoni/docs/SuTCAF.pdf


But we still need AN ESTIMATE OF HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ACHIEVE RENEWABLE ELECTRIC POWERED LIGHT TRANSPORTATION..

LET'S HEAR YOUR ESTIMATE.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 05:18 PM

36. You aren't going to get normal driving above 18% in an ICE

And the average will be substantially lower.
Money spent on ethanol is a bad choice for carbon reduction efforts.

"Cumulative costs under some mandate proposals exceed $1 trillion by 2030.

Even using favourable assumptions, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels are far more expensive than other options: more than $100/mt CO2e even for cellulosic ethanol and nearly $300/mt CO2e for corn-based fuel.

Despite rising concerns, environmental screens in existing subsidy policies remain weak or non-existent."




Int. J. Biotechnology, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2, 2009
State and federal subsidies to biofuels: magnitude
and options for redirection

Doug Koplow
Earth Track, Inc.,
2067 Massachusetts Ave., 4th Floor, Cambridge 02140, MA, USA E-mail: dkoplow@earthtrack.net
Abstract: Hundreds of government subsidies have fuelled the growth of ethanol and biodiesel in the USA, worth half or more their retail price. Cumulative costs under some mandate proposals exceed $1 trillion by 2030. Even using favourable assumptions, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels are far more expensive than other options: more than $100/mt CO2e even for cellulosic ethanol and nearly $300/mt CO2e for corn-based fuel. Despite rising concerns, environmental screens in existing subsidy policies remain weak or non-existent. A platform- and fuel-neutral policy structure forcing all alternatives to conventional fuels to compete for market share should be deployed instead.

http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/IJBT%20Ethanol%20Subsidies.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 08:36 PM

37. What subsidy? The VEETC ended in 2011. You've drifted off again into your own private world of


screw-ball talk. The article is from 2009. This is 2014. Tiime to wake up.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 08:48 PM

39. What are you here advocating for if not subsidies and mandates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:07 PM

41. What subsidy? The VEETC ended in 2011. THis is 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 08:40 PM

38. 29 million Priuses needed to achieve Ethanol’s current GHG reduction. Cost: $232 Billion


[font size="3"]Using 34% GHG reduction (as per ANL), since ethanol currently provides about 11% of the current fuel supply for cars and light trucks

.... that comes to a GHG emissions reduction of 3.83% FOR THE ENTIRE FLEET of cars and light trucks. 3.83% of 250 million vehicles comes to about 9.6 million cars. The Prius achieves a reduction in gas consumption of 32.6% compared to a a car of comparable weight and payload (Toyota Corolla). So dividing 9.6 million by .326 gives you a little over 29 million Priuses to achieve the same aggregate GHG emissions reductions currently achieved by ethanol.

now how long do you think it will take to sell 9 million hybrids? A Prius costs about $8,000 more than a corolla. Let's say hybrids in general cost $5,000 to $8,000 more than a compaarable weight and payload car. Now, consider how World competition is going to impact our economy's ability to grow and to keep the unemployment rate below 6%. These things are important because when people have less job security they are much less prone to paying several thousand extra dollars for a car - those who can afford to buy a new car, that is.

So, estimates would vary but let's just say it will take 20 years to get to 29 million hybrids (that would take 13% growth in annual sales for 13 yrs, followed by 7 yrs of annual sales growth of 49% to 70% (because of hybrids falling out of service) - so 20 years is a pretty optimistc number, requiring very strong sales growth. It could easily take longer. During that time ethanol would be racking up GHG emissions reductions every year and if we were to take steps to optimize cars for ethanol use, the GHG emissions reductions would be climbing, per unit of ethanol, while the amount of ethanol replacing gas would have been growing..


Prius marginal cost $8,000, multiplied by 29 million equals[font size="4"] $232 Billion[/font].

[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 08:49 PM

40. I'll take Koplow's word for what the ethanol GHG reductions have cost us.

You want more.

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:53 PM

43. You are really in your own little world aren't you. Subsidies are not needed by ethanol. It's been

getting along without them since 2011. As comfortable as your delusional world is, it's really better, more practical in the long run, to come out into the world the rest of us occupy. IT's what's known as REALITY.

misrepresenting the position of another is the first step in the dark arts of disinformation.


You certainly are dedicated to it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:53 PM

44. I'm pointing out GHG reductions now it will take 29 million hybrids to achieve maybe in 20 yrs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 03:23 PM

45. Koplow talks about hypotheticals "under some ....proposals" whose possibilities evaporated in 2011

you highlighted a statement from the article you refer to: "Cumulative costs under some mandate proposals..."

Notice the words "under [font size="3"]some[/font] mandate[font size="3"] proposals[/font].."

So you think hypotheticals are the same as actual events? Somehow I'm not surprised. The article is from 2009.. this is 2014.. the Excise Tax Credit for ethanol ended in 2011. The hypotheticals you think are significant never came to be realized. the VEETC died in 2011. The article you are referring to is no longer relevant.


[font size="3"] Regarding mandates, they saved us money because the extra supply of fuel reduced gasoline prices for everybody who buys gasoline.[/font]


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #45)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 03:33 PM

46. What polices are you advocating for - spell it out and quit playing silly games.

Your nitpicking isn't helping your presentation a bit because you are advocating for as much spending as possible by government and as high a mandate as possible by government, don't deny it.

I'm pretty sure that makes you one of the "some".


ETA:
Existing biofuel policies make little sense. Tax credits, tariffs and mandates alone are expected to provide roughly $420 billion in federal subsidies to the biofuels sector between 2008 and 2022. Because they scale linearly with production levels, the cumulative subsidy will top $1 trillion between 2008 and 2030, if existing subsidies are be renewed and the Obama administration moves forward with a 60 bgy mandate as proposed during his campaign (Koplow, 2009).
Koplow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #46)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:20 PM

49. again quoting from a 2009 article. the ethanol mandate does not 'cost' us anything,as oil ind says,

it saves us money by increasing the supply of fuel for light transportation. Saying mandates cost us money is nonsense generated by the oil industry who do not want competition. They prefer their comfortable oligarchy, with programmed profits. YOur repeating of this Oil industry disinformation is more than 'silly', it's repugnant to anyone concerned about fighting GW.

You continue to lace your comments with put-downs and attempts to denigrate my posts (and me), e.g. the remark "silly games'. This kind of talk is characteristic of anybody who is lacking in a legitimate position. Obviously, talking this way does something for you. But you are showing yourself to be the one engaging in gamesmanship. This is obvious to everybody but, I guess, you. Frankly I prefer conversing with adults, rather than refractory children. But sometimes we have to do what we have to do.

[font size="3"] I have stated this before, and given your inability to comprehend even the most simple and straight-forward of statements and penchant for 'misinterpreting' & misrepresenting my positions, this I'm sure, as far as you are concerned, is a waste of time [font size="4"]... but for other readers[/font], let it be noted..[/font]

as for the light transportation sector:

___ We should keep the current mandate for ethanol (limits corn based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons by 2022 (we currently are producing about 13+ billion gals) - readily achieveable with continuation of the historical gains in farm yields with no additional land used.)

___ I have hopes for hybrids (incl PHEVs) to grow in numbers and they should help out in GHG emissions reductions in the future as their numbers gradually grow. It will take about 20 years for appreciable GHG emissions reductions to be realized in tis way, but it will continue to grow beyond 20 years and this we need to happen. We need to use every technique and technology that will help in reducing GHG emissions.

__ We should begin producing biomass based methanol to increase the displacement of gasoline with biofuels. THis would add to biofuels supply in addition to the increased supply of ethanol. But the ethanol production growth is not fast enough. We need to supply more biofuel than the increase in ethanol can accomplish. Adding biomass methanol would greatly improve our carbon footprint in the light transportation sector.

__ We should be supporting mass transit. THis reduces consumption of gasoline.

__ We should commit to increased efficiency of automobile and truck engines. Again, ethanol can help here as with turbo-charging or super-charging ethanol's higher octane than gasoline enables greater thermal efficiency which translates into greater miles per gallon.


Outside the transportation sector I have always advocated (not only on DU but in the analog World too) more aggressive investment in Wind Power and Solar power (esp. research, solar power has more growth to be seen with technical innovations born of research).


___ Another very important area (this goes for transportation as well as every other sector) is Efficiency improvements in electric appliances, automobile engines, industrial processes, electric power generation, commercial and residential construction. Efficiency improvements offer the biggest 'bang for the buck' of any GHG reduction approaches. Efficiency improvements, I have read, could reduce our energy consumption by 25%.

__ We need to stop or retard the conversion of good farm land to urban sprawl. turing fertile farm land into buildings, parking lots and malls further and further apart is, franky, insane given our situation with advancing GW. Less sprawl will help reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

Any viable means of obtaining renewable energy and putting it to use we should commit to.

THe thing which it seems few people realize is we do not have 20 to 30 years to wait for more GHG emissions reductions. We need more reductions realized as quickly as possible.

... lastly, I doubt very much that much of the above will be done -- in time. I think eventually people will realize more needs to be done. But I'm pretty sure, by the time people realize this - by that time it will be too late. GW will be moving ahead at a pace that we cannot rein in. I won't be here to experience the catastrophe the World is headed for. That is of small comfort though.

Nevertheless, knowing what I know, I still must speak out, even if it won't be listened to.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #49)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:35 PM

50. Koplow is an independent specialist.

Trying to paint anyone producing analysis that is critical of ethanol subsidies as working for the oil industry is funny. You see, most people in the environmental movement (as opposed to agribusinesses) see ethanol as being a way for the petroleum industry to greenwash the continued support for internal combustion engine. A proven unworkable scheme that has zero chance of moving oil out of the transportation sector.

Koplow's analysis is valid. The claims you string together on the other hand, not so much. You are promoting mandates, right?

Because they scale linearly with production levels, the cumulative subsidy will top $1 trillion between 2008 and 2030, if existing subsidies are be renewed and the Obama administration moves forward with a 60 bgy mandate as proposed during his campaign (Koplow, 2009).


I assert that we will remove far more carbon from the picture if we redirect that $1T cash flow into other areas that deliver more bang for the buck by making permanent structural changes instead of putting a cosmetic band-aid on the internal combustion engine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 6, 2014, 04:58 PM

51. your linked article calculates subsidies for 2008 - 2022. Subsidies for corn ethanol ended 1/1/2012

more from the article you referenced:

D. Koplow (2009)

"subsidy costs between 2008 and 2022 (the end of the formal EISA mandate period) are $420 billion"


In 2009, when the article was written, the author could be forgiven for not foreseeing the future. But in your case, you keep repeating cost figures you know were computed using 11 years for which the subsidy does not and will not apply.

[font size="3"] The Excise Tax Credit for Ethanol ended in January 1, 2012. So your use of the computed subsidy cost beyond 2012 is fraudulent.

.... Really, most people would be embarrassed to try to push such flagrantly fraudulent arguments.[/font]


All of this of course, ignores the main point which is that ethanol is NOW yielding GHG emissions reductions which it may very well take 20 years for us to achieve with hybrids and PHEVs - if then.

..... THIS IS THE SIGNAL ISSUE HERE. WE NEED GHG REDUCTIONS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. GW IS PROCEEDING AS PEOPLE DITHER. BY OPTIMIZING VEHICLES FOR ETHANOL USE WE COULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION WE ARE CURRENTLY ENJOYING FROM ETHANOL.

...... BY IGNORING THIS FACT (THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELINESS OF GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS) AND JUST WAITING ON HYBRIDS AND PHEVS TO ACHIEVE THE GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS WE NEED, WE ARE MOST LIKELY SIGNING OUR FATE.

...... WE CAN'T HOPE TO REIN IN GW (JUST SPEAKING WITH REGARD TO LIGHT TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS, OTHER SECTORS MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED BUT THAT INVOLVES OTHER TECHNOLOGIES OTHER IRRATIONAL STUMBLING BLOCKS) BY JUST WAITING ON HYBRIDS AND PHEVS TO PROVIDE GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS WE NEED. This will allow GW to get so far ahead of us, we won't be able to rein it in.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 06:52 AM

2. I've been noticing a bunch of empty seats at NASAR tracks over the last few years.

Back in the early 2000s it was difficult to get good seats at a NASCAR race. Not so much anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 11:24 AM

3. NASCAR safety trend , is going in the wrong direction.

 

not enough wrecks.
.
in addition, did they fix? to rules to get rid of
(not sure how to put this)
'drafting tag teams',

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 03:53 PM

5. you could always go back to the figure 8 races, there's lots of crashes there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 04:19 PM

7. Was it my imagination or did the back of the pack create a wreck

 

on the final lap at Daytona just for fun?

Nascar "racing" has become so boring that the only break from the monotony is the wrecks. They almost seem intentional, and welcomed by the promoters.

I forced myself to watch 45 minutes of the Daytona race. That is 45 minutes of my life I will never get back. I really don't see anything interesting about a clump of 20 cars going around in circles with virtually no passing.

Indycar really has improved their product in recent years. Most of their races the past 2 years have been really interesting with lots of passing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 04:40 PM

8. 5 million miles too many...

Complete waste of fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 05:04 PM

9. Greenwashing.

 

Sorry, but that's what this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 10:29 PM

24. Wonder what the ratio of NASCAR VMT to NASCAR fan VMT is . . . .

100 to 1? 1,000 to 1?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 05:36 AM

25. You know, I'd never thought about that aspect of it.

 

Good thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 04:04 PM

48. and buys a lot of pseudo-scientific 'research' publicity (Big Oil's Big Stall on Ethanol see link)

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:25 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112764663#post47



and: California's Love Affair with Big Oil (or how to win friends and influence universities with half a billion dollars - see Big Oil U - Mother Jones)

http://domesticfuel.com/2010/02/08/californias-love-affair-with-oil/

Last week, the Southern California Association of Governments turned down $11 million in stimulus money for Pearson Fuels to install 55 E85 stations. Huh. And this shortly after the expanded rules were announced for the Renewable Fuels Standard not to mention the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that went into effect on January 1.

What would cause the most notorious state, hailed around the world for its progressive environmental policies, to shun a lower carbon fuel? Hmmm…could it maybe, just possibly be that it is blinded by it’s Big Love for Big Oil?

Let us for a moment, take some time to reflect on California’s torrid affair with oil.

Last year California Lawyer Magazine Awarded its Clay Awards which are given to lawyers who show extraordinary achievements. Lawyers John Daum and Mary Nichols both won a Clay Award for two very different achievements. Daum won for his co-counsel regarding the worst oil spill in environmental history – the Exxon Valdez. But he didn’t win for his work to hold Exxon accountable for its actions – he won the award because he was able to lower the punitive damages that were to be paid to fisherman, landowners and others to one-tenth of the original damages.
(more)


note: Mary Nichols, who has investments in the Oil Industry, is married to John Daum. When gov Schwarzenneger appointed Nichols to be chairman of the California Air Resources Board, Nichols assured those questioning her impartiality that she would put her investments in oil into a trust. I guess, when you put investments in a trust makes you forget you own them. LOL

[div id="BOU" name="BOU" class="excerpt"]

Big Oil U - Mother Jones

It's no secret that Big Oil weilds a lot of power in Washington. But oil giants are also spending big on campus, too—to the tune of $880 million. The liberal think-tank Center for American Progress released a new report on Thursday looking at the funding oil companies are lobbing at universities. In the past decade, oil companies gave millions to support energy research at ten of the top American universities—producing "potentially compromised" research, the group argues.


~~
~~
Big Oil disregarded peer review. None of the 10 research alliance agreements required impartial, scientific peer review procedures for the evaluation of research proposals or awarding of funding.


Big Oil assumed control of academic governing bodies. Most universities surrendered control of the governing bodies charged with directing the academic research alliance, leaving academic self-governance insecure. Several of the contracts allowed for full governing control by oil industry sponsors.


Big Oil managed research proposal selection. In these contracts, most of the universities allowed oil industry sponsors to control the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals. Failure to address conflicts of interest: Not one of the 10 Big Oil agreements called for regulation of financial conflicts of interest on university research selection committees and governing boards.
(more)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread