Engineers are practical. That’s the indication from Dawn Manley, an engineer and “transportation fuels expert,” according to a Sandia National Laboratories new release issued today.
Manley works at Sandia’s Livermore, California, branch. In October she spoke to California’s Senate Transportation and Housing Committee about what the news release headline called “practical ways to reach new energy goals,” in particular use of ethanol. My objective here is neither to criticize Ms. Manley, or to make fun of her. Rather, the issue is the yoking of Sandia’s world-class technical staff to discredited policy goals such as using ethanol as a fuel.
A higher truth or, perhaps, practicality exists regarding ethanol as a fuel. Ethanol is a terrible fuel because it is short on carbon atoms. That means it is inefficient. Expanding ethanol production, which is made from corn, brings collateral effects. Two are displacement of forest land for new corn fields and higher tortilla prices in Mexico.
In allowing the presentation, Ms Manley’s bosses may have been being practical. Sandia gets lots money research various energy topics. Another player worth consideration as a practical matter is Sandia’s ultimate boss, Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab which is general neighborhood of Livermore.
A proper, practical use of Sandia’s technical prowess would be to stop consideration of ethanol as a fuel.
Showing posts with label Ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol. Show all posts
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Energy: Ethanol is Marginal
An article about ethanol is this subhead, "Shucking the hype yields a kernel of truth—oil will still dominate." No surprise there, but it is a point sometimes lost in the rhetoric about alternative and renewable energy. The article, "Ethanol: Economic Gain or Drain," is in the July issue of The Regional Economist, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (www.stlouisfed.org/publications). The article says,
"Greater use of ethanol would make a dent in the demand for oil, albeit a pretty small dent. (Using all corn grown in the U.S. to produce ethanol would replace only 12 percent of the gasoline used for transportation in the U.S.) Moreover, many experts contend that burning ethanol will lower greenhouse-gas emissions.
"These potential benefits must be weighed against the potential costs of ethanol production noted above. But there might be other costs.
"Furthermore, the long-term benefit from ethanol production depends on its viability when compared to conventional fuels. A repeat of the 1980s’ decline in oil prices would most probably lead to a considerable departure of economic resources from ethanol production. This development could create pressure to extend or increase the federal tax credit and the import tax. Hence, meeting the federal mandates set by EISA might require even larger subsidies and government outlays than are currently anticipated.
"One way to partly meet the federal (ethanol use) mandate would be to remove the federal import tax. This would allow imports of ethanol from Brazil, which is the world’s second-largest ethanol producer. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian ethanol enjoys a significant cost advantage relative to U.S.-produced ethanol. Moreover, since Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane, allowing increased imports from Brazil would lessen the potential supply pressures on U.S. feed grain production noted above."
"Greater use of ethanol would make a dent in the demand for oil, albeit a pretty small dent. (Using all corn grown in the U.S. to produce ethanol would replace only 12 percent of the gasoline used for transportation in the U.S.) Moreover, many experts contend that burning ethanol will lower greenhouse-gas emissions.
"These potential benefits must be weighed against the potential costs of ethanol production noted above. But there might be other costs.
"Furthermore, the long-term benefit from ethanol production depends on its viability when compared to conventional fuels. A repeat of the 1980s’ decline in oil prices would most probably lead to a considerable departure of economic resources from ethanol production. This development could create pressure to extend or increase the federal tax credit and the import tax. Hence, meeting the federal mandates set by EISA might require even larger subsidies and government outlays than are currently anticipated.
"One way to partly meet the federal (ethanol use) mandate would be to remove the federal import tax. This would allow imports of ethanol from Brazil, which is the world’s second-largest ethanol producer. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian ethanol enjoys a significant cost advantage relative to U.S.-produced ethanol. Moreover, since Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane, allowing increased imports from Brazil would lessen the potential supply pressures on U.S. feed grain production noted above."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)