California more worried about carbon than gasoline demand
Officials inside Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration are taking a shot at Pres. Bush following the State of the Union Address. They say Bush's efforts to reduce gasoline consumption could add to the greenhouse gas problem, and he didn't address the big issue of environmental reform. Schwarzenegger and company have blasted Bush in the past for not addressing global warming and greenhouse gases.
In a twist of irony, California says increasing the use of ethanol may increase greenhouse gases because the alternative fuel has to be transported by trucks. Also, the methods used to produce alternative fuels could create more greenhouse gases.
"Without a cap or some kind of carbon standard," said California EPA secretary Linda Adams, "we think the Bush plan falls short."
California officials favor cellulosic ethanol as an alternative fuel. The governor also signed an executive order mandating that California refineries reduce the carbon content of passenger vehicle fuels by 10 percent by 2020.
Source: Associated Press via MSNBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1985 Gripen 6:49PM (1/26/2007)
Yes! That's why biobutanol kicks ethanol's butt: it can be transported via pipelines. Biobutanol can be made from the same feedstocks as ethanol and ethanol plants can be easily and affordably converted to produce biobutanol.
Now California is "against" ethanol? Why, just a year ago they were funding it. It took them HOW long to hear the critics' opposition? Though this program has so far brought NO NEW E85 pumps to the state in the year since it was announced. So we're on track to have what, two pumps in the state by 2010!?!?
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=21736
On another note: that picture isn't of a fuel truck in California. Dual-trailer semis are not legal on California roads. :-)
Reply
Tim 7:44PM (1/26/2007)
Remember, "as goes California, so goes the country (eventually)." Politicians are a renewable resource, too.
Reply
Chris 10:26PM (1/26/2007)
I wish we as Californians would stop dreaming and jump into reality. Why not put to use what we have now and let the new technology (cellulosic ethanol) work its way into the market. If it is the superior product, then there will be no problem (except for the grain ethanol investors).
IMO biofuels are an excellent transitionary power source until we finally move to renewable electricity for transportation. We should not say one method of generating ethanol is bad and this one is good. The more ethanol we get to the pump is good, let the market sort out the 'kind' of ethanol that gets there.
Reply
Murc 3:07AM (1/27/2007)
thats the liberals for ya,
damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.
Reply
Tim 3:13PM (1/28/2007)
Cellosic Ethanol from waste or switch grass makes more sense than corn, but Cellosic Butanol is much better! http://www.butanol.com/ Ah, technical evolution….
Here are 10 good reasons why Butanol is superior:
1) Higher energy content than ethanol.
2) Not as corrosive as ethanol.
3) Uses an air/fuel ratio which is close to that of gasoline. Ethanol does not.
4) Can be shipped through existing fuel pipelines where ethanol must be transported via rail, barge or truck.
5) Can replace gasoline any percentage up to 100%. Ethanol can only be used up to 85%.
6) Gives better mileage than ethanol
7) Safer to handle than ethanol.
8) Will also assist in the conversion of vegetable oils into biodiesel.
9) Btu/Gal: 84,000-Ethanol, 105,000-Butanol, 114,000-Gasoline, 120,000-Biodiesel, 130,000-Petrodiesel.
10) The frat boys won’t drink it.
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol
Reply
Doug R 8:34AM (1/31/2007)
Very interesting Tim, especially the first source. I had no idea about butanol. From the bang for the bushel to the reduced evaporation, it sure seems superior to E85. As far as E85 being pushed and butanol ignored, I would have to say the political and social hype is probably to blame. The same reason wind power has not been properly evaluated. There are still some problems however.
Some economists are saying that these types of fuels would be lucky to keep up with increased demand let alone replace gasoline. They are also pointing to the current E85 intiative being responsible for causing a sharp spike in the cost of corn related food products around the world. I know that the final direction would involve scrap but nonetheless, this seems to be the case for now.
Then there is the fact that farmers can only grow so much corn. Wether using the cellulosic fiber or not, corn is very demanding on the soil and responsible stewardship requires a crop rotation of at least one season (2 is the usual) of something that replenishes the soil, like alfalfa. Even though butanol has a 42% production advantage over ethanol, you are talking about a monsterous increase for the demand. This points to the economists most likely being right about their analysis.
Finally would be the cost. $3.70 a gallon! Holy Cow! If it was truly implemented to replace gasoline, then it would probably be much more.
I've been doing some studying of data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. The info is immense! I'm not done yet but it's pointing so far in the direction of very little or no warming whatsoever. Some areas of a state are up, some are down, some states average out a little higher, while others average out a little lower. Many states are showing no change at all (+ or - .25 degrees). So far there is no significant increase in temps., a +1 to +1.4 degrees over the last 150-200 yrs.. Just got through reading a brain pounding, in depth section on how the change in the sophistication of the measurement has net no real change in the accuracy of the data over the years. It also indicates that the current increase began at around 1800 and has shown no significant spike during the time period involving the beginning of the peak to the present of the industrial age.
I have also noticed that the bulk of the data used by some to support the idea of large human induced increases in temp. come from metropolitan areas. Because of their large increases of population over the past one hundred years, they are notoriously warmer (by as much as 3-6 degrees) than the surrounding areas. Due to the amount of concrete, etc., cities are always hotter.
Reply
AZ 12:17AM (2/06/2007)
Politicians are not needed in the energy debate and actions. They are not scientists nor investors. They should give an even incentive to whoever puts up a cleaner process no matter which energy source. That's their job. Any more than that and, ironically, they can only spoil the democratic process.
Reply