Touch here for mobile friendly version

Friday, March 20, 2009

Governors of West Coast States Nominated for Nobel Prize

Photo:Great Beyond via Flickr

I'm kidding! There is no Nobel Prize for ineptitude (although maybe there should be). Governors Rocket scientists, Gregoire, Kulongoski, and Swartzenegger are supporting a brilliant idea to grab some of the stimulus funds. From a Seattle Times article that garnered 140 comments :

The three governors envision a series of alternative fueling stations stretching from the Canadian border to Mexico, creating what has been dubbed a "green freeway." They also would be able to charge, or swap out, their electric-vehicle batteries or fill their tanks with biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen or compressed natural gas.


Here's what supporters are saying:

... the plan would fit with the nationwide push for green jobs and alternative-energy development, and put the states in line for some of the $15 billion in federal stimulus money dedicated to energy-related programs.


Somebody please send these people a copy of the following three lay press articles published last year by Time, the New York Times, and Newsweek:

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

The Clean Energy Scam

Doing it wrong

And since you can't trust anything in the lay press, also send them a copy of this link which collects the actual studies that show today's agriculture-based biofuels are exacerbating global warming.

Include a link to this graphic showing that a third of global warming is caused by the direct destruction of carbon based lifeforms (exacerbated by biofuels) and a copy of this easy-to-comprehend graphic showing why tax payer money should not be spent propping up hydrogen for transport (300 percent more expensive than other options). Alright, so much for the ethanol, biodiesel, and hydrogen pumps.

That leaves natural gas and electric. I'm a big proponent of further electrification of transport. But I have to say that building charging stations along an interstate is the ultimate case of putting the cart before the horse (and one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard).

Jeff Miller, who works in global development at Better Place, said that if the company were hired it would build charging stations in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and battery switch-out stations at rest areas about every 40 miles along the I-5 corridor. Electric vehicles, he said, have a battery life of about 100 miles.


So, assuming you were leasing one of their electric cars, you would have to stop and swap batteries roughly every hour (because the 100-mile claim is almost certainly BS at highway speeds). Electric cars are a long way from being used for long distance interstate travel. That is what plug-in hybrids are all about. You use electric power for shorter, lower speed missions, and use the engine for rarer long distance trips.

The natural gas pumps suffer a similar problem as electric in that your range is very limited, not to mention there are almost no cars running on it.

God save us from our politicians and the lobbyists advising them.

Click here to see a list of my articles and to subscribe to future posts.

6 comments:

  1. Here is another, slightly harder to understand graphic:

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img12.gif

    The height of the bar indicates expense to implement, the width indicates how much the idea would help. Note where biodiesel is, and note that corn ethanol is not even listed as a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. More mass delusion in action. Just say fuel farming is carbon neutral and saves oil enough times and cash loving politicians will pretend to believe it.

    Will plugin hybrids get the same hype? Nope, because they would actually reduce oil use and GHG.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actual tweeting on plugin hybrids,check the trend..the kids love it? well maybe it will pickup soon? hehey.

    Velomobile fever? Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I received an email about this post from a guy, let's call him Bob. There are two types of biofuel enthusiasts. Those who make a living off of them and those who have been misinformed or are poorly informed. I don't know which category Bob falls into:

    "....I wonder if your anger on the subject is maybe a little out of proportion......"

    I'm not angry.

    "....I mean, hydrogen: there we have a problem … This is a bad idea deserving of a bit more venom, but you seem less concerned about it in your last post than with the other ideas. ....."

    Hydrogen enthusiasts are in every way analogous to biofuel enthusiasts. There is nothing you can say that will dissuade them from their opinion that hydrogen will be the fuel of the future and therefore deserves all the government support it can get.



    "....Biofuels, on the other hand, have limitations that have more to do with engineering, scale, transport, efficiency, and agriculture than any fundamental barriers. ....."

    I disagree. Along with all of their other problems, the fundamental barrier is that they require the usurpation of vast amounts of the biosphere to produce. They are a very diffuse energy source.

    "....But are you so completely, overwhelmingly confident that all future efforts will also fail? The idea of refining municipal waste into ethanol (or methanol) seems to me a good one. As others have said, finding a use for a product that people pay to get rid of, that already has an aggregation system in place, that is in essence renewable, and that is already emitting greenhouse gases as it decomposes anyway, is worth pursuing. So are the (to use a White House talking point) "next generation biofuels." ....."

    That is a strawman. I have never insinuated that all future efforts to find viable sources of biofuels will fail. I am usually very clear about which biofuels I'm critiquing. There are solid, gaseous, and liquid biofuels. I'm a big proponent of biofuel research, which has nothing to do with the government spending billions to prop up production of today's agrofuels.

    "....They may not be an ultimate solution to transportation energy supply, but even if the only thing we can achieve is a net equal carbon imprint with petroleum fuels, biofuels would be more than worth it. They produce fewer carcinogens and pollutants than gasoline, present lower safety hazards (they aren't as volatile), fewer environmental risks (if the Exxon Valdez had been carrying methanol, 3 days afterward you wouldn't have been able to tell there was a spill at all), ....."

    Which biofuels are you talking about? You have to be very clear or we will be talking past each other. Whatever fuel you are talking about will have to be less environmentally destructive than its fossil equivalent. Today's agrofuels are not less environmentally destructive. We cannot destroy the biosphere in an attempt to save it. The Valdez spill was an ecological disaster, but gallon for gallon, it pales in comparison to what biofuels are doing to biodiversity and carbon sinks. A crop is just one species away from being as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot.


    "....and most importantly would keep the global price of oil low. ....."

    Biofuels would have to be produced in gargantuan quantities to appreciably impact oil prices, and doing that with today's crop based fuels would be worse than just burning the last of the oil.

    "....plug-in hybrids (Obama's ambitious goal is to put a measly 1 million of these on the road by 2015...which he thinks will require active government aid), or other futuristic ultra-clean transport may satisfy environmental purists, but it would create a dangerous situation in the world at large....."

    Toyota has already sold over million Priuses, each doubling America's average gas mileage. They required no government help. They met a consumer demand for high mileage cars.

    "....Russia, Iran, and Venezuela behave themselves much better when oil costs are low...this isn't just a political talking point, it's simple reality… The consequences of $100+/barrel oil are far-reaching and severe; maybe not quite as horrible as global warming, but nearly so. ....."

    I read that book also. Reality is never simple. The reality is that oil prices have nowhere to go but up and the commercially produced biofuels of today can't fix that. Future fuels are the subject of future discussion and don't belong here. If you swap your 24 mpg Outback for a 48 mpg Prius, gas prices can double and it won't cost you more.

    "....I support the Fuel Choice Act, which circulates Congress every so often but hasn't gotten through yet. It would require every car sold in America to be flex-fueled. This technology already exists, and--unlike every single other form of alternative fuel automobile--could have tens of millions of cars on the road within a few years. It can do this with virtually no taxpayer cost, and without the complex government intervention that tends to slow things up. ....."

    You are trying to tell me that it would not cost more to add ethanol resistance to car fuels systems and that this cost would not be passed on to consumers? Clearly, you are now talking about corn ethanol, which is the only form of ethanol sold in commercial quantities here.

    "....And if biofuels fail to pan out, very little has been risked or lost. Once these cars start to hit the road, there will be a market that entrepeneurs can cash in on: starting an ethanol plant at a local municipal waste dump, for example, and then selling the product to local gas stations. ....."

    This local thing you keep talking about did not pan out for biodiesel and it won't pan out with ethanol. Also, flex fuel cars don't create a market for ethanol. Did you read consumer reports test of a flex fuel car?

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

    "....Since, by then, carbon pricing will likely be in effect (or close to it), and the EPA will have been requiring all CO2 emitters to track and report their emissions for a few years, the market will tend to favor any biofuel production that leaves a smaller carbon imprint. ....."

    What fuels are you talking about? Corn ethanol and canola based biodiesel are 50% and 70% worse than their respective fossil fuels from nitrous oxide release alone, never mind land displacement, Gulf of Mexico dead zones.


    "....Cleaner air, fewer problems with oil producing nations, safer roads...and at least the hope of long-term improvements that would greatly reduce emissions below the petroleum threshold. As a short term solution, I think we could do worse. Please, tell me how I'm wrong here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. ....."

    You left out "and a magical pony for every child." Safer roads? Fewer problems with oil producing nations? Won't we just attack Brazil when they cut us off from cane ethanol and palm biodiesel? Have you not read the studies showing ethanol would create more air pollution? Biodiesel produces about the same at the tail pipe as regular diesel for the new 2009 models thanks to low sulfur fuel which has allowed better air pollution controls. The answer is high mileage cars and energy efficiency, not replacing the fuel in the tanks of our technological dinosaurs. My family effortlessly reduced oil for transport use 80% without extra expense, loss of stature, and without driving any fewer miles. Not one carbon sink was destroyed doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Russ,

    Thanks for responding to my email. I appreciate the information, and I learned something from it, which is the whole point of a debate. However, I'm not sure that you're as objective on this issue as you think. It was a bit nettling to be told that as a "biofuels enthusiast" (I'm not sure where I got that title) I must be either employed by the industry or misinformed. This is exactly the dichotomy used by, say, Bart Sibrel, the current torch-bearer for the "NASA faked the Moon landings" crowd: anyone who believes we actually went to the Moon is either working for NASA, or else doesn't know what Bart knows. Assuming that anyone who comes to a different conclusion from you either a) is an active conspirator/industry shill or b) doesn't know that much is not a good way to open a rational argument.

    Let me start my own counterargument by pointing out that in my email, I bent over backwards to say that I feel the current developed biofuels are not good solutions. I especially feel this way about biodiesel, which I don't like, didn't mention in my message, and have never endorsed. That is one fuel that *does* fail all the tests: it directly causes deforestation in the Amazon, has a much higher greenhouse footprint, doesn't work in cold weather, etc. I hate it, and bringing it up repeatedly to counter my arguments, despite the fact that I never mentioned it, is a far worse straw man than any that I may have inadvertently used. And if I really am as bad as "hydrogen enthusiasts," and cannot be convinced by any argument that I'm wrong (dangerously close to ad hominem here, by the way), why was I so easily soured on corn ethanol and biodiesel?

    Second, the issue of emissions. Of course I’ve read the reports indicating that corn ethanol and biodiesel (among others) have a higher greenhouse footprint than gasoline. Even if I hadn't read them a year ago, you refer to them so frequently I could hardly have missed them. But first of all, I think you misunderstood me: in terms of non-greenhouse emissions, biofuels are much better for the atmosphere. The Consumer Reports article you invited me to read, for example, says:

    "...we found a significant decrease in smog-forming oxides of nitrogen when using E85. Ethanol, however, emits acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen....But that might be a relatively minor evil. “Acetaldehyde is bad,” says James Cannon, president of Energy Futures, an alternative-transportation publication, “but not nearly as bad as some of the emissions from gasoline.”"

    This is what I meant when I said, in my initial message, that even if biofuel generation can only ever achieve a net equal carbon imprint with petroleum, it would be worth pursuing. You countered this by referring to the N20 released in consequence of fertilizing corn ethanol and biodiesel crops, which is a bit of a non sequitor. Also, scientific research didn’t stop after February 2008. Here's a study that came out earlier this year: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802681k Yes, it's by MSU, and they have some interest in the industry. But it's a scientific study nonetheless...here's a bit from the abstract:

    "Our analysis shows that cropping management is a key factor in estimating greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use change. Sustainable cropping management practices (no-till and no-till plus cover crops) reduce the payback period to 3 years for the grassland conversion case and to 14 years for the forest conversion case."

    Once again, unlike hydrogen, whose limits as a fuel are defined by the laws of physics, there is no reason to believe that biofuels are fundamentally incapable of being equal to or slightly better than petroleum in terms of overall environmental impact. This is particularly true of future biofuels, but even sugarcane ethanol *might* be mass produced without the catastrophic damage you’re rightly worried about. Remember, Brazil only uses 3% of its arable sugarcane-prone land for its ethanol program. And also remember, I only ever proposed biofuels as a short-term solution.

    Which brings us to the issue of other transportation solutions. I'll repeat: I love hybrids. And plug-in hybrids. I read Tesla's company updates with excitement. I'm sure that EV’s of all sorts offer a much better long-term solution than biofuels, and I want the internal combustion engine to die a horrible death. I just worry if electrics of any kind will be mass-produced in sufficient numbers, with sufficient infrastructure, soon enough that we can afford to dismiss biofuels altogether.

    Yes, Toyota sold 1 million Priuses, and it only took ten years; but you are first of all incorrect to say that they did so without government aid. Where do you think the $3000 tax credit you got when you bought yours came from? That's a government subsidy, and it's contributed to the car's success. Even when gas goes back to $4/gallon, without the tax credit it would take over 6 years for gas savings to make up for the increased price of the vehicle (relative to a Toyota Camry, a similar class/performance vehicle). And I'm sure the Volt will sell just fine, if it lives up to any of its hype...the "1 million on the road by 2015" goal is limited more by production than anything else: its first production run in 2010-11 will only be 40,000 vehicles. Tesla optimistically plans to be manufacturing 10,000 Model S sedans per year by 2012 or so. Assuming optimistic sales, how many EV's, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids will be on the road by 2020? What fraction of the 251 million petroleum engines currently in this country do you think they’ll represent?

    Every year that mass-produced, affordable plug-in hybrids or pure EV's are *almost* here is a year in which we sell a modest number of hybrids (170,000 Priuses in 2008), and about 7,000,000 cars capable of burning nothing but oil. These cars will stay on the roads for 10-15 years. If you‘re “an enthusiastic supporter of biofuels research,” why are you complacent about this? I don't generally pay attention to peak oil predictions, but when the IEA, for crying out loud, starts saying that oil production will peak by about 2020 (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/15/international-energy-agency-iea-peak-oil-2020/), doesn’t that worry you a bit? The peak oil cult is right about one thing: if oil production were to peak next year (it won’t, just a thought experiment), civilization would be hit so hard it might take centuries to recover. Every year, we’re signing a long-term contract between Saudi Arabia and 7 million US drivers, prolonging and increasing a dependence on a limited resource so severe that we literally can’t live without it (at this time). Increase production on hybrids, I agree! The more, the better. But if oil prices stand a good chance of spiking all the way to Hell over the next 10 years, and if increased oil profits also mean more money for bin Laden, we ought to do more. There are other options, like replacing most long-range cargo trucks with electrified freight rail. But even that may not work enough, or quickly enough.

    Which is why I continue to support the Open Fuel Standards Act. Whatever you may say, adding a sensor and better pipes to a fuel train only costs $100-200 per vehicle; auto manufacturers are not at all opposed to this—and if the government wanted to fund it, it would cost less than the hybrid/electric tax credits and incentives that already exist. And it can be done en masse, starting now. By 2020, most cars on the road could be at least capable of using something in addition to gas. I think that mandating on the demand side is more effective than the “everyone must put E10 in their pumps” supply side nonsense that the government has done thus far. Hopefully, by the time these cars gain a significant road share, switchgrass etc. will be ready to go. But even if they’re not, what about slow-burning urban waste? You didn’t really respond to this in your reply. Here’s the article: http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/03/05/the-slow-burn-a-biofuels-digest-special-report-on-waste-to-energy-systems/ There may be problems with this that exceed those of fossil fuels. I’d love to hear about them, if there are. But I haven’t found them yet, and it seems like this could be a significant stopgap measure with few negatives and a lot of positives.

    So those are my positions: corn ethanol, biodiesel, and a lot of other current ethanol crops are no good. Sugarcane ethanol is not so great either, but compared to the potential damage of another oil embargo, increased terrorist funding, or a permanent “embargo” brought on by short global supply, is worth considering as a stopgap measure. Switchgrass and other cellulosic approaches have significant potential and fewer environmental downsides, and waste-to-ethanol programs are worth pursuing. All of these can be helped to market by mandating that all cars sold in the US (including plug-in hybrids) are flex-fueled, which would be relatively inexpensive and could be done on massive scales immediately. As you no doubt expected, you did little to change my stance on these positions. Sorry.

    But thanks for listening,
    Jared

    ReplyDelete
  6. Debate is what it's all about, Jared and I really appreciate a reasonable and informed debate partner like yourself.

    You say that you feel the current developed biofuels are not good solutions and that you are soured on corn ethanol and biodiesel, you like hybrids and plug-in hybrids. We don't really seem to disagree on much. Reading through your argument it seems to me that it boils down to this:

    You think car manufacturers should be forced to make all car engine systems ethanol tolerant on the bet that ethanol wins the fuel of the future competition.

    I've never really given that idea much thought but let me take look at it.

    What are the odds that ethanol would win out over biodiesel? Biodiesel has some advantages over ethanol. Ethanol drops gas mileage 30% in a conventional gasoline engine whereas conventional diesel engines get 30% better mileage than a gasoline one. That's a 60% difference in efficiency. I can't predict that cellulosic or cane ethanol will win out over palm or algae based biodiesel, or any other fuel that may come along. The government could mandate diesel engines just in case biodiesel wins.

    Corn ethanol refiners are quickly approaching the blending wall maximum on gas. Flex fuel cars would allow more ethanol to be blended in which would allow politicians to mandate even more corn ethanol forced down consumer's throats. Corn ethanol is, after all, the only ethanol we have and corn ethanol helped to get Obama elected. Corn ethanol refiners do not want cellulosic to drive them out of business, should it ever arrive.


    What exactly are we debating? I'm all for research into finding alternative fuels "that are not worse than existing ones." You whole argument seems to hinge around some unnamed biofuel that already meets that criteria. Where is it? I don't waste a lot of time on debate about future fuels, fuels that may or may never reach commercial viability.

    "….I'm not sure that you're as objective on this issue as you think…."

    I'm not trying to be objective. I'm not pretending to present a balanced view of the pros and cons of food-based biofuels. AGM and Cargil and the entire biofuel industry along with politicians from the Corn Belt have been telling you how wonderful those fuels are for years now. I'm just filling in what they left out.

    You should not have gotten nettled over my use of the phrase biofuel enthusiast. That term does not have a precise definition but to me it applies to anyone who thinks food-based biofuels are superior to existing fossil fuels overall. I did not specifically call you one, but if you fit that definition, I guess you are one, but then again, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    "…Assuming that anyone who comes to a different conclusion from you either a) is an active conspirator/industry shill or b) doesn't know that much…."

    I point strawmen arguments out (like the one above) whenever I see them, so if you are going to put words in my mouth (conspirator/industry shill) expect to see them regurgitated ; )

    I take it that you are not employed by the industry so you fall into the misinformed group in my opinion. Misinformed or possibly not as well informed as you might be. For example,

    "…..But first of all, I think you misunderstood me: in terms of non-greenhouse emissions, biofuels are much better for the atmosphere…"

    First, what biofuel are you talking about? You have to clearly define which biofuel you are talking about. Is it solid, gaseous, or liquid? Is alcohol or vegetable oil based? Is it made from corn, cane, wheat, canola, soy, palm or any number of other stocks and on and on. You say you don't care for biodiesel. Biodiesel made from what? Pick one of off this list:

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img11.gif

    Source: http://www.rsc.org/images/biofuels_tcm18-99586.pdf

    Note also that this list of biofuels have all been ranked by how much of an environmental health hazard their production and combustion present. Note that most of them are worse than the fossil fuels they replace.

    Also, you don't seem to be aware of the following study showing that ethanol use may lead to worse smog formation and a higher cancer death rate:

    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf

    "…it was found that E85 (85% ethanol fuel, 15% gasoline) may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles and 4% in the U.S. as a whole relative to 100% gasoline. Ozone increases in Los Angeles and the northeast were partially offset by decreases in the southeast. E85 also increased PAN in the U.S. but was estimated to cause little change in cancer risk. Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline. However, because of the uncertainty in future emission regulations, it can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles…"

    The MSU study you link to is simply pointing out that if you could convince farmers around to world to adhere to strict practices you could lessen the GHG impact of converting grasslands and forests into biological wastelands of monocrops for biofuels. Converting a grassland simply drives cattle into the adjacent forest. And taking 3 to 15 years to recoup losses is still pretty poor.

    "…I just worry if electrics of any kind will be mass-produced in sufficient numbers, with sufficient infrastructure, soon enough that we can afford to dismiss biofuels altogether…."

    I don't dismiss biofuels altogether. I'm pointing out all that is wrong with the ones we use. Find one that isn't worse than oil overall and I'll support it. E-85 gas pumps just enable the car companies to do business as usual, assuming you can produce it without making things worse. That is the key.

    "….Yes, Toyota sold 1 million Priuses, and it only took ten years; but you are first of all incorrect to say that they did so without government aid. Where do you think the $3000 tax credit you got when you bought yours came from?…."

    That argument above is an example I have used over and over again for why the government needs to stop meddling in this market. That tax credit was totally unneeded. It simply redistributed taxpayer money to people like me who did not need or deserve it. We waited two months for our Prius (because consumer demand was still outstripping supply before the tax credit) and happily accepted the tax break but the tax break had nothing to do with our decision to buy it. We would have bought it anyway. The only thing that tax break is good for is its use in debates like this to say that hybrid cars are not a consumer driven solution but just another solution picked for us by our government. Sales of the Honda Insight are three times higher than expected in Japan.

    You spent a lot of time talking about the Volt and Tesla. I suspect that both of those cars will quickly go the way of the Delorian. I'm betting on cars like the Honda Insight, Yaris hybrid, and cars like the Bluecar.

    The fatal flaw in peak oil arguments is that biofuels will never be cheaper than oil. Note that biofuels went up in price faster than oil last summer and remain more expensive now that oil prices have tanked. High prices for liquid fuels are an unavoidable fact of the future. That is why the only way out is vastly more efficient transport technology.

    "….about 7,000,000 cars capable of burning nothing but oil. These cars will stay on the roads for 10-15 years. If you‘re “an enthusiastic supporter of biofuels research,” why are you complacent about this?…. What fraction of the 251 million petroleum engines currently in this country do you think they’ll represent?….

    Which is why I continue to support the Open Fuel Standards Act. Whatever you may say, adding a sensor and better pipes to a fuel train only costs $100-200 per vehicle; auto manufacturers are not at all opposed to this—and if the government wanted to fund it, it would cost less than the hybrid/electric tax credits and incentives that already exist. And it can be done en masse, starting now…."

    Has it never dawned on you that we could retrofit existing cars to be more ethanol tolerant as a thriving after market business, allowing higher blends in gas? There may even be a thriving after market for converting older cars into electrics if an affordable battery finally arrives. The future is notoriously hard to predict. The argument is moot if we can't find a source of ethanol that is better than oil environmentally.

    "….But if oil prices stand a good chance of spiking all the way to Hell over the next 10 years, and if increased oil profits also mean more money for bin Laden, we ought to do more…."

    You know oil is fungible. If we don't buy it someone else will. If Bin Laden is being funded by oil profits, biofuels won't stop that.

    "….what about slow-burning urban waste? You didn’t really respond to this in your reply…"

    I don't debate fuels that don't exist. Get back to me when the actual costs are known.

    "….Sugarcane ethanol is not so great either, but compared to the potential damage of another oil embargo, increased terrorist funding, or a permanent “embargo” brought on by short global supply, is worth considering as a stopgap measure…"

    If we become dependent on imported cane ethanol we have simply become vulnerable to ethanol embargoes, increased South American terrorist funding, or a permanent embargo brought on by short global supply, with the added problem of weather induced shortages.

    "….Switchgrass and other cellulosic approaches have significant potential and fewer environmental downsides, and waste-to-ethanol programs are worth pursuing. All of these can be helped to market by mandating that all cars sold in the US (including plug-in hybrids) are flex-fueled, which would be relatively inexpensive and could be done on massive scales immediately. As you no doubt expected, you did little to change my stance on these positions. Sorry…."

    I never assumed I would change your mind. Debate is for the audience. Your argument that a flex fuel mandate would help bring viable ethanol onto the market has no substance behind it. It is more likely to entrench and expand the production of existing biofuels. The Amazon is vast, land is cheap. Odds are high that cane and palm are going to win this competition.

    ReplyDelete

Comments that are not respectful of other participants will be deleted, so don't waste your time on a post that will be canned. Feel free to post links to pertinent sources and to your own website as part of your comment. Spam disguised as a comment will also be deleted as will comments that consist primarily of copied and pasted words from other authors (plagiarized content).