Obama responds to governors' biofuels concerns
Presidents and biofuels. Seems to be a theme today. Back in February, the Governors' Biofuels Coalition sent a letter to President Obama asking for a stronger ethanol position, specifically asking that the national blend be increased to E13 and that the government consider promoting the sustainability of biofuel feedstocks and making sure there is a market for the finished product (it's something they've called for before). Obama has now responded, saying that the administartion's pro-biofuel stance takend in early May was made with the coalition's letter in mind. In a speech given at that time, Obama talked about a new Presidential Biofuels Directive, the establishment of a Biofuels Interagency Working Group, and how more Recovery Act funds could be used for renewable fuel projects. In the letter to the coalition Obama did not address the E13 suggestion, but did write:
Advanced renewable transportation fuels will be one of the nation's most important industries in the 21st Century. As you well know, the nation's biofuels industry today uses the starch portion of feedgrains as its primary feedstock, which has focused debate on how to accurately measure the greenhouse gas effect of corn-based ethanol. What is often underappreciated in this debate is that the industry is moving toward the utilization of a wide variety of non-grain feedstocks for biofuels.Does anyone else think he sounds a bit like a condescending science teacher here? I'm sure it sounded better in person.
[Source: Ethanol Producer]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 7:11PM (6/04/2009)
Hasen't the biofuels industry been trying to move towards non-grain feedstocks for biofuels for about 100 years now?
After all, processes for making cellulosic ethanol have been around for over 100 years (the oldest being acid hydrolysis); yet none have yet to be cost effective.
At what point will we consider the very real possibility that cost effective biofuels may never of been meant to be?
Reply
jpm 8:29PM (6/04/2009)
Well this how it probably went down:
The biofuel (ethanol) companies lobbied/convinced/persuaded their governors to write this letter to the pres on their behalf. Obama forwarded the email to Chu, who intern hit reply all, and had to be a little condescending-- "...the industry is moving toward the utilization of a wide variety of non-grain feedstocks for biofuels", because he has earned a nobel prize in physics and the governors and biofuels co.'s only care about getting money in their state and pockets.
Reply
cwalkerjr 12:18AM (6/05/2009)
In other words..."this ethanol stuff is driving up food prices and our asses are on so many lines right now it looks like we sat on a hot grill. Try biodiesel. This is currently about #50 on our economic crises list...so fight any urge to hit 'reply',".
Reply
jim 8:10AM (6/05/2009)
Another bio-fuel article. Now we're going suffer innumerable comments from the industries PR department cloaked opinion.
Reply
Yikes 9:56AM (6/05/2009)
Wow, you totally called it!
I wonder what their pay is for their viral marketing campaign on blogs?
Orng Crush 11:56AM (6/05/2009)
I love people who try to pre-empt legitimate arguments by making character assumptions and generalizing any ethanol proponents as "PR" hacks.
That's know as Ad Hominem, "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
An example:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Except in your case, Jim, you take the fallacy a step further because you don't even know that ethanol supporters are truly PR people.
Hopefully you've learned something here.
Mojo Mars 9:53AM (6/05/2009)
jim, dude.
I think you need to read a book called "Alcohol can be a gas" by David Blume, promoting how alcohol, even in it's primitive form, can be a sustainable environmentally safe industry, localizing production and utilization. It cannot be a sole source of transportation energy but can impact our oil improts and help the environmet at the same time. And can be made conventionally (not cellulosic) from many energy crops other than corn. Jim, we happen to use corn because there is a huge surplus of it, or there was a sthe industry evolved. We NEEDED to find a use for all that corn and we did! That's ingenuity!
And with cellulosic biofuels (Including bio gasoline, not just ethanol) are on the verge here, with countless potential feedstocks, can HELP us stop importing oil. These biofuel objections are very scientifically unsound and short sighted.
All you biofuel basher/battery obsessed people need to realize that if you are over 40 you ain't ever gonna drive one that can go 350 miles on a charge, and even it you will, do you want to get cancer from the massive electromagnetic fields generated in the cabin of the car?
I am all for electric and fuel cells, but if we all think there is only a single replacement for oil, it is a foolish mistake. Biofuels are a great piece.
Most importantle I do not work for or give a crap about the ethanol industry, any more than you work for exxon or some battery company.
Reply
3PeaceSweet 2:00PM (6/05/2009)
There is lots of potential for growing aquatic biomass on 'grey' water sources. Duckweed, Water hyacinth and various reeds are all fast growing and would be ideal for making biomethane in digesters.
The main issue is what are all these biofuels going to be put in?
By increasing fuel efficiency you also increase the usefulness of the biofuels
Reply
P1L0T 2:44PM (6/05/2009)
You know, something I find very interesting is that critics of biofuels get all up in arms because ethanol does not work absolutely flawlessly in an engine which was not designed to take advantage of it. Has anybody else thought of the fact that if you put something like diesel fuel in a gas engine, the results are disasterous. Why would we then expect ethanol, which is a different fuel with different properties from gas (as is diesel) to be used in gas engines with absolutely NO penalty whatsoever? The fact that a typical gasoline-only engine can use ethanol in significant quantities, without greatly adversly affecting performance, is a testament to how great ethanol really is.
In the short-term, we can burn relatively small but significant amounts (10-30%) of ethanol in our engines with no harm done, and in some cases, there is amazingly even an INCREASE in gas mileage (depends on the engine). In the long-term, I believe the answer is to design better "flex-fuel" engines, or even E85-only (or higher) engines which take advantage of the increased octane of ethanol. This would allow smaller, higher-compression engines to generate the same or more power than their gasoline counterparts, elminating the argument about ethanol being less fuel-efficient (which is currently true if you burn it in an engine not specifically designed to take advantage of it).
Reply
Ron F 11:05AM (6/06/2009)
Biofuels are great. Only: don't legislate use of them, make it a choice.
Reply