I just read an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times by Tom Daschle and Vinod Khosla. The editorial is Miles Per Cob, (1) and is one of the dumbest things I have run across in a long, long time. I can’t actually believe such garbage makes it into print, and I have to wonder whether it will actually convince anyone.
Let’s break it down.
Our addiction to oil underlies the greatest threats to our country’s stability and prosperity: we pump billions of dollars into fundamentalist “petrolist” regimes in the Middle East and release into the atmosphere carbon from petroleum products, perpetuating global warming and aggravating natural disasters from the Gulf Coast to the Indian Ocean.
OK, I am with you so far. Billions of dollars sent to the Middle East, and perpetuation of global warming. I have no problems with this argument.
The answer to these threats is research and innovation to commercialize new fuel technologies in partnership with America’s farmers. Our national leadership must promote a market-based shift away from petroleum-based fuels toward renewable fuels produced in America with American technology.
Partially agree. We do need to transition toward renewable fuels. But since none of the alternatives can replace our current fuel demands, and none are completely renewable – they all have fossil fuel inputs – we also need to encourage conservation in a BIG way.
The CAFE standard does nothing to encourage that change. It requires American automakers to build cars and trucks that meet a minimum standard of average mileage traveled per gallon of gasoline. But the current standard for minimum mileage traveled per gallon of gas consumed is both too low and focused on the wrong challenge.
Say what? I thought they said they were worried about global warming. So, here’s a pop quiz, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Khosla: Which option contributes the least toward global warming? A). Conservation; or B). Fueling up with ethanol. If you answered “B”, then you failed today’s quiz. You see, all of the alternatives out there, including the best of the bunch, have fossil fuel inputs. Ethanol, especially grain ethanol, has more fossil fuel inputs than any other alternative. By favoring any alternative over conservation, you show that you are not sincere about the global warming angle. You are promoting propaganda, plain and simple, to further an agenda.
We need to upgrade to a new CAFE: Carbon Alternative Fuel Equivalent. This new CAFE will measure “petroleum mileage” and give automakers incentives and credits for increasing ethanol consumption as a percentage of fuel use of their vehicles, not least by promoting flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on either gasoline or E85 fuel, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. This approach promises several significant benefits.
Given that Khosla has a lot of money invested into ethanol, the motives toward his push for ethanol are suspect. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that can make a bigger impact toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions than conservation. Perhaps Mr. Daschle and Mr. Khosla saw the special last night on 60 Minutes, in which ethanol proponent and Berkeley professor Daniel Kammen stated that the greenhouse gas reduction from using ethanol would be “modest”. Interesting choice of words there. Do you know why he said “modest”, instead of something like “substantial”, or “significant”? Well, it’s quite simple. The reason he said “modest” is that ethanol production consumes a lot of natural gas, resulting in the emission of a lot of greenhouse gases. The byproducts of the process are then fed to cattle, which produce methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.
So, in promoting ethanol you are merely playing a shell game, in which the greenhouse gas emissions are not substantially reduced, but the source of the emissions has been shifted from gasoline to natural gas. Among other things, this will drive up heating costs in the winter, because competition for natural gas will increase as more ethanol is produced. (An alternative, of course, is to use coal to fuel the ethanol plants, but you say you are concerned about global warming. In that case, coal is out).
First, it could set America free from its dependence on foreign oil. As Brazil’s “energy independence miracle” proves, an aggressive strategy of investing in petroleum substitutes like ethanol can end dependence on imported oil.
This kind of nonsense needs to be confronted. Let’s see your calculations, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Khosla. I can show you mine, that demonstrate that if we turned 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, we would displace less than 15% of our annual motor fuel demand. On a “net” basis, though, the displacement is much less because we will have consumed enormous quantities of natural gas in producing the ethanol. Greenhouse gases will increase, but Mr. Khosla will have made a lot of money in the process.
Second thing, I pointed out in my previous essay that there is much more to Brazil’s “energy independence miracle” than “an aggressive strategy of investing in petroleum substitutes”. Brazil can do it because: 1). Producing ethanol from sugarcane is much more efficient, and much less energy intensive; 2). Brazilians use 1/6th of the energy per person that we use here in the U.S., meaning their fuel demand is much lower; 3). Brazilians drive tiny, fuel efficient vehicles; and 4). Gasoline prices in Brazil are even higher than they are in the U.S. (even though gasoline there has less energy content due to the ethanol). So do not pretend that Brazil’s “miracle” is in any way applicable to the U.S., unless you are also willing to implement 1-4 above.
Second, switching from gasoline to ethanol produced from perennial energy crops like switch grass can slash our carbon dioxide emissions.
I agree that producing ethanol from energy crops would probably be an improvement over ethanol from corn. So, why don’t you build a cellulose ethanol plant and demonstrate that instead of encouraging more corn ethanol production? Why is your editorial entitled “Miles Per Cob“?
The rest is mostly “Mom and apple pie”, so I won’t comment on it. Instead of appearing as an editorial, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Khosla should have been forced to pay to have this inserted as an advertisement. I felt dumber for having read it. The cynical side of me really struggles to understand their motives. Are they sincere, but just that misinformed? Do they honestly believe that this is the best solution for our energy woes? Or are they just out to make a buck, and so they don’t care that much about adopting solutions that make more sense (but won’t put money in their pockets)? I just don’t know. But I do know that misleading pieces like this will lull the public into complacency about our energy crisis. Writing things like “ethanol can end dependence on imported oil” is an incredibly irresponsible (and false) claim, given that it took a lot more than that to do it in Brazil.
Reference
Robert,
Well, now we know what Daschle has been up to since being forced to retire from the Senate.
A bit off point, but I wonder how many realize what using E85 does to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)?
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
A bit off point, but I wonder how many realize what using E85 does to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)?
Gary,
I don’t think that’s off point at all. In fact, I suspect this is one reason why they want to get the focus away from CAFE standards.
RR
Are they sincere, but just that misinformed? Do they honestly believe that this is the best solution for our energy woes?
Oh, shocker. Still, this is EXACTLY the reason that I finally called for a unanimous editorial at TOD. I’m either unwilling to believe that these guys just don’t get it, or I’m smashing my head against the wall asking myself how I could have been hoodwinked into voting for these idiots who run the country (not that I voted for Daschle, but Schumer, my own version, is obviously just as bad).
CAFE is a snare and a delusion as well. Forget the political problems like forcing GM and Ford into bankruptcy.
If CAFE were raised to 40 mpg tomorrow, it would take at least 2 to 3 years for production of fuel efficient vehicles to be ramped up to the point where the manufacturers are in compliance.
Because the fleet turnover runs about 7% per year. It would be seven years after that for one half the fleet to meet the new requirements.
That is not a short or even medium term solution. Furthermore, it does not attack one of the main holes in CAFE.
CAFE does nothing to encourage people to drive less, indeed, it might even encourage them to drive more and vitiate whatever good it is doing.
LONGEST COMMUTE
He knows 186-mile way to San Jose — and loves it
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Gary Richards
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS:
… Every weekday, Givens drives 186 miles from his home in Mariposa to his job at Cisco in San Jose.
The cost of his 372-mile commute: $40 a day, $200 a week, $800 a month in gas. …
For his daily round trip, he won the “America’s Longest Commute” contest sponsored by Midas …
For the past two years, with kids grown and a desire to get home to his wife and their 7½-acre ranch, the 46-year-old electrical engineer has commuted every workday, a trip that takes about 3½ hours each way.
He’s not quite in a race car, though. His 2005 Honda Accord gets 30 miles a gallon. …
Givens is out the door about 4:30 each morning. … By 7:45 a.m. or so, he’s in his Cisco cubicle — fresh, believe it or not.
… At 5 p.m. he’s out the door, back in the car and heading home with slightly more than a half a tank of gas. Typically, he arrives home about 8:30 p.m. — often well past sunset.
“I’ve got another five or 10 years in me,” Givens said. “I don’t see any end in sight,” he added, “unless gas prices get too high.”
=============================
We must add $2.50/gal to the gas tax.
Hear, hear!
(I’m beginning to wonder if we’re all fighting the good fight, or just agreeing with each other because we’ve formed an echo chamber.)
Fighting the good fight. I take what I learn on TOD and linked blogs and articles and use it on ‘general’ forums that I post on, for example forums for electronic music, the computer game Civilisation IV etc…
I’m beginning to wonder if we’re all fighting the good fight, or just agreeing with each other because we’ve formed an echo chamber.
Just about every day I check my site meter and see visitors from the U.S. government. I am hopeful that someone in an influential position is listening. I just hope we win the good fight before spending billions more on a dead-end boondoggle, and wasting precious time in the process.
RR
“There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that can make a bigger impact toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions than conservation.”
I certainly agree with the “greenhouse gas emissions” portion of this statement. But I am under the impression that reducing demand significantly through conservation will reduce the price of oil. Which will result in the only oil that can be economically produced being located in the areas from which it can be extracted. And that is not, by and large, domestic oil. Lower oil prices will, if anything, increase our dependence on foreign oil.
I certainly agree with the “greenhouse gas emissions” portion of this statement. But I am under the impression that reducing demand significantly through conservation will reduce the price of oil.
Chris,
I am convinced that we need to significantly raise the gas taxes in this country to permanently encourage conservation. In order to offset the higher taxes on people, there could be an income tax credit or a reduction in rates. But such a move would certainly reduce demand, and would be a step in the right direction. This would certainly have the effect of reducing our demand for oil, and it would delay Peak Oil, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
RR
“This would certainly have the effect of reducing our demand for oil, and it would delay Peak Oil, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
You didn’t really address my concern. Yes, it will reduce the demand for oil, and delay Peak Oil. And reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, at least in the short term, it will increase the percentage of oil we do consume that comes from foreign sources. Which is not to say it is a bad idea, mind you. Just pointing out at least one possibly bad consequence of conservation.
Thanks for the info. Didn’t think 60 min. could get it so slanted. Keep up the good work. Will check back again.
But, at least in the short term, it will increase the percentage of oil we do consume that comes from foreign sources.
Chris,
What difference does it make if the percentage goes up, if the overall number goes down substantially? It is likely the overally foreign imports will decrease, even if their percentage of the total increases.
RR
“What difference does it make if the percentage goes up, if the overall number goes down substantially? It is likely the overally foreign imports will decrease, even if their percentage of the total increases.”
The political leverage that is attached to that. When the vast majority of your oil is coming from OPEC countries, OPEC controls the price. To prevent cartels composed of hostile foreign nations, we want to diversify the sources from which we receive our oil.
Of course my point only makes sense if OPEC countries (and other somewhat hostile, somewhat unstable countries, like Nigeria and Venezuela) really are the lowest hanging fruit. That is if, even with a substantial drop in prices due to decreased demand by way of conservation, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and other comparatively stable and friendly countries can still drill economically, there is no problem. But I am under the impression that, if oil prices fall, it is the Middle East that will be left standing, not Canada.
you claim that conservation can make a bigger difference in greenhouse gases than switching to ethanol. That’s only true on the margin. The marginal benefit of not burning a gallon of gas is, indeed, much higher than the marginal cost of producing the equivalent amount of ethanol.
But you can’t conserve your way down to zero CO2 emissions, unless you want to go back to dark ages standard of living.
If ethanol really does require substantial fossil fuel inputs, than its price will eventually go high enough to force the conservation we would all like to see anyway.
If ethanol really does require substantial fossil fuel inputs, than its price will eventually go high enough to force the conservation we would all like to see anyway.
That’s not an “if”. Ethanol definitely requires large energy inputs, and in this country we use natural gas, and lately some plants are starting to use coal. Over 2/3 of the energy value of the ethanol is used up just in the distillation step. You can go to the pro-ethanol USDA studies and see this for yourself. Other energy inputs are used in growing and harvesting the corn. You would be better off just to convert vehicles to natural gas.
My concern is exactly what you alluded to: We will commit ourselves to ethanol, and then natural gas will become very expensive, or the corn crop will come in poorly one year and then we will have a real energy crisis on our hands. In my opinion, the potential of biodiesel trumps ethanol by a wide margin.
RR
Which option contributes the least toward global warming? A). Conservation; or B). Fueling up with ethanol.
What do you mean by “contribute”? Does contributing more mean an increase in global warming, or a decrease? This sentece is easily misunderstood and should be reworded before someone misquotes you.
Having had the chance to comment on an early draft of this oped and seen what was sent to the New York Times, I can tell you their editors did a disservice to the piece by removing language making clear that the idea encompasses more than just ethanol. Other vehicles that reduce carbon dioxide would also benefit. A longer paper expanding on the idea is coming soon. I hope you’ll give it a read when it comes out.
Robert,
The ideal solution would have two elements to it:
1. It should use waste (as much as possible) as a feedstock. Alternatively, it should use cheap and widely available biomass.
2. The fuel itself needs to be as close to identical to the existing fuels as possible.
Based on these two requirements, it’s easy to see where corn ethanol misses the mark: Converting food-to-fuel is an incredibly dump idea. Compared to that cellulosic ethanol is a silver bullet.
But it’s not as simple as that either. Ethanol (regardless of source) poses some challenges:
1. It is hygroscopic, and thus corrossive. This means that ethanol cannot be pumped with gasoline in existing pipelines. Trucking, barging or railing ethanol separately adds a lot of cost.
2. Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of the ethanol-gasoline mixture. This increses VOC emissions and evaporative losses.
3. Ethanol has a lower volumetric energy density, so you get less mpg.
As you pointed out biodiesel avoids many of these problems. The main limitation for biodiesel would be feedstock: how much fat/oil can the US produce? Not nearly enough!
The better solution I believe is this: producing synthetic oil from waste products, via gasification/Fischer-Tropsch. Synthetic oil is much cleaner than crude (no sulfur or aromatics), but it can be blended with existing fuels at any convenient ratio – a huge benefit compared to both ethanol and biodiesel.
How much oil can we produce from waste? A recent combined USDA-DOE report () concluded that we could replace a third of our oil use with waste-derived fuel. This number is probably optimistic, it does not appear to include energy lost in the transformation steps. Even if it was only 20%, it is still significant.
To make-up the remaining 67 – 80% we need a plant that grows rapidly, requires little attention and can be harvested using the minimum labor and power. I think algae would be the appropriate answer, especially if it is combined with wastewater treatment (byproduct clean water and recycled fertilizer).
I see the comment “Let’s see your calculations, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Khosla. I can show you mine, that demonstrate that if we turned 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, we would displace less than 15% of our annual motor fuel demand.”
I do *not* see any calculations or any links to spreadsheets! I have read Khosla’s 10+ page discussion (not just the NY Times article) and it does not appear that he suggests we can meet our entire fuel needs from corn but does suggest that we have the available land (and solar energy) to ultimately satisfy all of our fuel needs. His primary point is that if we do *not* do something to start this we will not get anywhere. I live in Massachusetts and although I could buy a flex-fuel car the best information I’ve been able to obtain to date is that I would have to drive to PA or MD to purchase E85 fuel. And *that* is due to the vertical monopoly that the oil companies have on both the production and distribution of a fuel to which we are addicted and whose reserves would potentially be devalued were there alternative replacement for gasoline.
All the rest of the comments are handwaving. For example, why would the waste from ethanol production be more of a greenhouse gas if fed to cows which might convert it into methane vs. plowing it back underground where the bacteria would convert it into methane? For that matter, if we fed the corn to cows (instead of converting it to ethanol) wouldn’t a significant fraction end up as methane? Instead, converting it to ethanol results in it being converted directly back into CO2 in internal combustion engines rather than being converted to methane (a more significant greenhouse gas) by the bacteria in cow’s stomachs.
Ultimately the corn, cellulosic and algae ideas are all bad. What should be used is bacteria, similar to cyanobacteria, which use solar energy to convert atmospheric CO2 into either ethanol or methane in solar ponds. It requires some genetic engineering to do this optimally but the genes required are already sitting in public databases.
I am so glad you wrote about this. Having just taken a renewable energy class in College, I find this issue to be intriguing and important. The economics of the matter just dont support ethanol usage. As you so eloquently stated, ethanol production doesn’t curb carbon emissions, it just changes how the carbon gets into the atmosphere.
Brilliant article; I’ve forwarded it to my friends and colleagues.
"So do not pretend that Brazil’s "miracle" is in any way applicable to the U.S., unless you are also willing to implement 1-4 above."
You have no idea how idiotic that argument is.
Fact is that NO technology can ever feed america with its hunger for energy.
Even oil is highly subsidized and america gets it cheap because it basically steals it from "liberated" countries such as Iraq.
So unless america learns to behave like grown people and quits being a wining bitch, the only solution would be to invade venezuela this time.