Insert corny title here: U.S. may not meet 2022 biofuels mandate
Baring a major breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol technology, the US Energy Information Administration doesn't think there's any way that the United States will meet its self-imposed Renewable Fuels Standard. The mandate in its current form would require that 36 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into conventional petroleum-based gasoline in America by 2022. Current estimates indicate that we'll reach about 30 billion gallons, about 17-percent short of the stated goal.
Generating the amount of corn-based ethanol won't be a problem, but alcohol derived from food crops is significantly less attractive a solution than cellulosic ethanol, which can be formed using waste products like switchgrass and wood chips. It is indeed possible to create cellulosic ethanol today, but not cost-effectively and not in the large quantities necessary to meet the looming requirements.
There are options available to meet the deadline. Allowing foreign countries like Brazil, where ethanol is distilled from sugar cane, the right to import larger quantities of fuel into the US would do it. Alternatively, if the United States isn't able to reach its ambitious goal, there are provisions built into the standard to adjust it down accordingly. Not much of a mandate, then, is it?
[Source: Reuters]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
gorr 3:29PM (12/18/2008)
This policy come from big oil and goverments back-up by gm and all the other car compagnies. It will provoke a food crisis and cost a lot to fuel the cars and truck and provoke deforestrations everywhere. The bushs were talking hydrogen in 2003 and doing the contrary behing close doors. All they want is money from terrorists activities and they give you the truths about it but not directly because they confess their crimes as soon as they do it.
they just sell insecurity and people buy that by corruption.
Reply
Carney 5:34PM (12/18/2008)
Just about every sentence in this post is wildly, extremely wrong.
Crop cultivation for etanol fuel has NOT caused food price increases, nor will expanded efforts cause any food problems whatsoever. Despite substantially increased production of corn ethanol, production of corn for both human and animal feed has gone UP in America, not down. Nor have other staple food crops gone down either. Furthermore, even for corn grown for ethanol, a high value animal feed called "distiller's grain", so even that corn is used for food.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
As for hydrogen, it can never work and is a pointless myth. If indeed Bush was secretly hostile to hydrogen, that would be great. Unfortunately, indications are otherwise.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
As for the rest of the craziness, I'll ignore it.
Carney 5:29PM (12/18/2008)
This policy puts the cart before the horse. A much more sensible and easy to implement policy is to simply mandate that all new cars sold in America have flex fuel capability as a standard feature, like seat belts. It's only a $100 per car modification, but it will permit any new car to burn alcohol if it can find an alcohol pump. If not, gasoline as usual.
Within 3 years, we'd have 50 million cars on the road in America that are alcohol capable. That's a sizable enough market to prompt enough gas stations to set aside at least one of their pumps for alcohol.
By contrast, forcing production of unwanted and unusable fuel, without the cars that can run on the fuel is asinine, and futile.
Reply
Carney 6:21PM (12/18/2008)
If current flex fuel cars were methanol compatible, as they were in the 80's when they were first invented by Ford, there wouldn't be any need to spend millions and wait years researching switchgrass. Methanol can be made from any biomass without exception, today - no further research necessary. And since methanol is the simplest alcohol, any engine that can use it can also run on ethanol too. Plus propanol, butanol, etc.
Reply
rob 7:43PM (12/18/2008)
I suspect that the adoption curve for plug-ins will be steep enough that the underlying assumptions leading to the choice of the 36bgpy figure will be wildly optimistic.
In other words: With any luck, peak US oil demand was in 2007, and we've started into the long tail of demand decline now...
Reply
Carney 8:43AM (12/19/2008)
Oil demand has only fallen because of the recession. Population growth and especially economic advancement in formerly miserably poor countries such as China and India, however, will ineveitably force prices higher again. Also, OPEC can cut back production drastically as well.
GenWaylaid 8:25PM (12/18/2008)
To be fair, before the renewable fuels mandate no one could have anticipated that Americans would someday consume over 100 gallons of corn hooch a year, each. Two pints a day and double-up on Sundays. That's the road to victory, America!
Reply
gorr 3:22PM (12/30/2008)
Don't believe ' experts ' like carn&y paid and connected to high-financial groups and tax money collectors and internationnal law makers that know everything from india and china up to here and now. They are paid to maintain high taxation on any activities and have kill and destroyed many many small entreprenors over the years, by the tons.
Reply
Carney 1:58PM (12/31/2008)
Actually, gorr, I favor eliminating tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.
More broadly, I support low taxes overall, which encourages entrepeneurial risk taking activity and economic growth the promotes jobs, development, and improved living standards.
gorr 8:15PM (1/02/2009)
You are a state-related natural ressources traders.
Reply