Hybrids In, Bio-Fuels Out

Thanks for the info, Gary, but you have no right to copy it and place it here. The copyright is owned by AP.

Please edit the post to give only a couple of paragraphs (fair use) and a link to the full story. I'm sure you don't want to get the AP trying to shut down PriusChat for stealing copyrighted material.

 

Here's the link: Hybrids in, Biofuels out in AZ carpool lanes.

And what Bill said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gary0878 @ Feb 10 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]388193[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't trying to jump on you, Gary. Thanks for fixing your first post. We all just want to see PC stay out of any trouble.

And keep posting!

 

WTG Arizona!

 

I think a bio fueled Hybrid or a diesel fuels one or a bio diesel fuel one will be so good they will shut down the freeways and give them a police escort.

I always thought that you could quote the person directly like I live in AZ and read the release handout personally so i'll just quote her directly and tough on you AP whatever that stands for anyway I think it's, Always Political.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Feb 13 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]389611[/snapback]</div>

WTG Governor Napolitano! It would not have happened without her leadership.

 

Hi All,

I think there is a real problem with Ethanol now. Is it a biofuel, or a biofuel delivery system for Petroleum/coal/Natural Gas ? If the fossil fuel input to make Ethanol is greater than 80 % of the Ethanol content its really not a biofuel, even if its made with a biological process.

Until Ethanol produces more than twice the roadable energy as the fossil fuel energy input, Ethanol is JUST a biofuel delievery system for Petroleum and/or Coal.

And legislation should treat it as such. Specifically the CAFE benefits should be based on the fossil fuel consumption required to make the fuel energy delivered by Ethanol. Right now, I believe that is between 80 and 120 percent. For example, an SUV running on Ethanol should be given a 80 to 120 percent CAFE level. Call this the Ethanol Factor. Yea, if it takes 120 percent of Fossil Fuel energy to make a unit of Ethanol vehicle movement energy, then the CAFE value for the vehicle should be EPA mileage / 1.2 , which is worse than the EPA mileage on gas! Still, I do not know what the actual value is, and that is the subject of some research. So, the SUV manufacter would loose CAFE credit if Ethanol does indeed require 1.2 times the fossil fuel input the energy it delivers. Which is as it should be, not how it is now.

Ethanol from Corn requires planting and harvesting of Corn with petroleum (at this time, biodiesel in the future) powered machines. Then the refining of the Corn into Ethanol requires heat for the fermenters, which can come from a variety of sources, most of which right now are fossil fuel.

The Department of Agriculture or other such government organisation would have to make the national average determination of the Ethanol Factor (or Biobutanol Factor, or Biodiesel Factor ). If Farmers really want to compete, and have the governement exclude more efficient sources of bio-fuels (as is effectively happening now), then they should be made to do it in a way that has an accounted for benefit. Without an Ethanol Factor (say determined bi-anually) to grade their efforts, we the tax payer are just throwing money down a boon doggle hole. This is kinda a non-payment subsidy. We the public are still paying the money, just without delivering it to the government, but to the farmer directly at the behest of governement regulation. In reality this a still the same ol subsidy, just called by another name in my opinion.

The Bio-fuel factor would then be a metric that the market would use to select a bio-fuel that is the most effective.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Feb 18 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]392436[/snapback]</div>

Yes, whether ethanol or bio-diesel, to at least a certain amount there is "smoke and mirrors." There has yet to be a good "accounting" of the feedstock energy sources, net CO2, and even USDA has a few conflicting studies on whether ethanol is net energy positive, neutral, or negative.

Recently a troll commented on how "clean" the new diesels are, even claiming the new diesels were "cleaner" than petrol motors.

Whether run on low sulfur diesel or some mass produced rapeseed with a methyl ether ketone co-solvent, the cleanest passenger car diesel motor in Europe still puts out SIX TIMES the PM that Tier 2 allows. NOx is 3-7 times higher, depending on whether the test is "sea level" or "altitude"

Future Euro diesel emissions, for 2010-2015, still allow 3 times the PM that current Tier 2 Bin 5 allows.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/t...-to-reform.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_...el-dilemma.html

Which is why if you live in California you can't buy a new VW tdi. The EPA rates a 2006 VW Golf tdi in Bin 10, the absolute worst. Bin 5 is "average." The 2006 Prius is rated Bin 3.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Feb 18 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]392436[/snapback]</div>

That's a good point. The current ethanol system is not the final solution. And whether you gain or lose energy on the whole ethanol production seems to be a result of your expectations going into the study. (Do you include the oil needed to make the tractor used in the field, even if the tractor wasn't initially purchased for ethanol production? What about maintaining the roads leading to the farmers? Where do you stop?) More recent studies show there is a net gain, but really, right now the benefit is lost in the statistical noise. A big problem is corn is one of our crops with the most intensive use of petroleum, from fertilizers and herbicides to harvesting. To be an effective solution, it needs to be a clear gain on energy, like you say.

Which we can get with cellulosic ethanol. If this is made cost-effective, this holds great promise. Sawdust & bark, switch grass, fast-growing aspen trees, etc. are all vastly less-intensive users of petroleum, but it needs R&D to get it off the ground. It also holds the benefit of coming closer to meeting our quantity of imported gas. And no restaurant should be throwing out old frying oil, that's practically a freebie.

I used to be a big believer in CAFE rates, but I think a gas tax (if politically feasible) would be a more effective solution. Maybe make it a sliding scale, depending on far below $4/gal it is, so it won't hurt as much at high gas prices, but still prepares us for high oil prices to come. Something like ($4-current price)*20%. That would also reduce the volatility of consumer-paid gas prices.

 

I wish Bush's handlers would clue him in on how dumb corn fuel is . . . except of course and unless you are G.M. ... if you are, then you are able to inflate your fleet gas guzzlers epa ratings, legally.