This is a surprise from Newsweek. Some recent examples of green subsidy: Fisker Automotive will receive a $529 million subsidy from the US government to build hybrid cars for the US market in California. This follows a previous subsidy award of $465 million to Tesla Motors to build electric cars. Both awards were made on the recommendation of former vice-president Al Gore. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an electric car fan, I drive one myself. But such projects should succeed or fail on their own merit and without public funds in my opinion.
By Stefan Theil | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 24, 2009
Excerpts from the magazine issue dated Nov 2, 2009
Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry.
Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump–starting a new -industry—both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it’s hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.
It’s a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve. Thanks to effective lobbying by American and European farmers, the more cost–efficient and environmentally effective Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol is locked out of U.S. and EU markets. Even within Europe, most countries have their own “technical standard” for biofuels to better keep out competing products—even if they are cheaper or produce a greater cut in emissions. Because the subsidies are tied to feedstocks, there is zero incentive to develop better technology.
Both the International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have asked Germany to end its ludicrous solar subsidies that will total $115.5 billion by 2013.
Read the article The Dark Side of Green at newsweek.com
Why has Cannabis Hemp been ignored as a biofuel? Hemp grows quickly and abundantly in a variety of climates with minimal care (it is a weed afterall). Why use corn for fuel when we could be harvesting millions of acres of Hemp for fuel? The continued demonization of Cannabis is ridiculous. I’m not talking about Cannabis for smoking, I’m talking about industrial Cannabis Hemp. It’s an amazing resource that we’re not utilizing, and of course numerous corporations oppose Hemp and lobby intensely against it. Using Hemp for fuel could help alleviate our dependence on foreign oil and end the use of our food crops for fuel. The Greens would like it too since Hemp is a renewable resource. Is there any reason why we shouldn’t use Cannabis Hemp for biofuel?
Global Warming Hysteric Sharon Begley is a Newsweek journalist. Most others Newsweek writers are postulating the Truth of AGW, with the exception of George Will, and to a lesser degree, of Robert Samuelson. As a Newsweek subscriber, I find this constant undertone increasingly annoying.
Newsweek, which is a subsidiary of the Washington Post Company, has an obvious pro-AGW editorial policy
The day Newsweek reverses itself on Global Warming, then we will know a Mainsteam Media tipping point has occured.
Dan Lee (09:49:08) :
The US isn’t dependant on Saudi Oil. The biggest oil source for the US is Canada, then MExico, I think.
Isn’t the promotion of ethanol a curious choice if limiting the CO2 emissions is a desirable goal.
Half the weight of the sugar molecule gets up in the air as CO2 when sugar gets fermented into ethanol.
Hic, who are we kidding?
Or is it just the revenooers that are on our trail?
Robert M. (10:15:45) :
“We will gladly sell our food to anyone who can pay. I have never heard anyone complain about OPEC and their failure to produce enough oil for the world.”
To be fair, the US complains about this all the time. We complain and work things over behind the scenes to get them to increase the amount of oil being sent which lowers the price.
Here’s the Clinton admin: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/27/world/opec-oil-increase-likely-to-fall-short-of-clinton-s-target.html
Here’s Bush: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/31/whitehouse.opec/index.html
The transcontinental railroads in the U.S. were indeed built with massive subsidies (free land for the railroad companies). However, the U.S. Government still owned the rest of the land, which was suddenly worth much, much more than before the railroad was built. Up until the end of the 19th century, the single largest source of revenue for the government was the sale of land.
I don’t see that sort of payoff for the taxpayers in the current “green” energy subsidies.
Terryskinner (11:15:44) :<>
Although, sadly, the Science Museum poll has been corrupted, it is still running. Ignoring the possibility of ballot stuffing, the scores have been ticking up since 14.00 GMT at the rate of over 6:1 sceptic.
Regards
S
I love what Tesla is attempting, however why subsidize something only the rich can afford?
More on the Peel cars featured in the leading illustration can be found here:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.carter/
They are allegedly the smallest cars ever produced commercially.
If we want to retain personal autonomy in where we travel, we must not allow the gov’t to mandate all electric cars.
This will only result in control, high prices, rationing and in being jammed all together aboard public transportation.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in clean energy investments that will jump-start our economy and build the clean energy jobs of tomorrow:
$11 billion for a bigger, better, and smarter grid that will move renewable energy from the rural places it is produced to the cities where it is mostly used, as well as for 40 million smart meters to be deployed in American homes.” whitehouse.gov
Many ethanol producers are capturing that CO2 and selling it as a commercial co-product to CO2 users like green houses (increase crop yield) and dry ice and carbonated drink producers.
It is CO2 neutral in that the feed source used to make the ethanol recaptures an equivalent amount of CO2 during the next growing season.
Many of the folks who support fuel ethanol could care less about CO2 anyway as it is a harmless trace gas and necessary to plant growth. We support ethanol for other reasons like a diversified transportation fuel source, and its high fuel quality.
It like biodiesel is also the only practical way to store solar energy for indefinite periods of time in a readily transportable and usable form.
Larry
Anthony may I ask a few questions about your electric car?
Do you recharge it from a standard 120 volt 15 amp outlet?
How far can it go on a charge?
What is the top speed?
Do you know how much it weighs ?
Thank you
Dave
Pink ones would do much better.
BTW: Did you know that “Amazing Grace” was written
by a slave trader?
)))((((((
(*)…(-)
….U….
..[___]..
I will post my calculations again, demonstrating that electric cars are less efficient and more polluting than diesels.
Engine type Efficiency Miles per gallon equivalent (100% = 120 mpg)
Petrol 22% 27
Diesel 37% 45
Battery 31% 37
Hydrogen 22% 27
Basically, you don’t have to store the energy from a diesel engine – it goes straight to the wheels. All an electric car does, is transfer the pollution from the city to the countryside (where the power station is).
If you had 100% of your electrical power generated by nuclear power, electric cars would make a great deal more sense. And please do not think that windelecs (wind turbines) can do the job – if you rely on them, you would only get to work for one week in every three.
We would also have to triple the number of power stations, to cope with electrical demand for transport systems. Greenies will not mention this, for some reason. Their Green agenda is based upon smoke, mirrors and downright lies.
.
Notes:
Petrol car assumes 10% losses for refining, 2% losses on transport from depot to station, and 75% petrol engine losses (25% efficient engine, which is average).
Diesel car assumes 5% losses for refining, 2% losses on transport from depot to station, and 60% diesel engine losses (40% efficient engine, which is average).
Battery car assumes 55% power station losses in generating electricity, 5% transmission losses to the socket, 20% battery losses, 10% electric motor losses.
Hydrogen car assumes 35% in reforming losses, 10% compression, 5 % transportation, 50% fuel cell, and 10% electric motor losses.
Petrol and diesel efficiencies assume European cars, not American gas-guzzling dinosaurs.
Transmission system losses assumed same. In practice, electric engine transmission systems are probably simpler and more efficient.
Analysis of fuel cells.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E04.pdf
Energy consumption:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf
And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. Windmills grind grain into flour. Windelecs generate electricity.
.
See what industry thinks at the Tlegraph today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6425372/Climate-targets-cant-be-achieved-say-energy-companies.html
I believe the top supplier of US Oil is… the US. Then followed by Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In that order I think. Statistically, there is not a big difference between Mexico and Saudi Arabia. For the year Mexico usually wins. On a month by month basis it may differ. Of course, this is only if you are talking about crude imports used for distillates produced by US refineries. However, I believe that if you count the 15% of distillates we import (from Europe mainly), then Saudi Arabia moves ahead of Mexico on a permanent basis. This statistic will never be reported by the US government because we only look at sourcing for crude oil we import for our own refineries and not the sourcing of crude oil for distillates we import.
In terms of working behind the scenes with the Saudi’s, this is simply not going to happen as much going forward. First, they are near their maximum output when the world in not in a recession, and will not be able to control the world price like what they did for the last two decades unless they start developing some of their other large oil fields. Second, there is a practical aspect to this from their side. They don’t really need any more oil money than what they are making now. It covers far more of their govenment expenses than what they planned for (Their government plans on ~$50/barrel oil.)
hotrod (11:53:57)
Thanks for the insight on this corn to biofuel situation. Very neccesary knowledge on this issue that seems to be ignored no matter which side of the AGW debate one happens to view from.
Josh (12:02:26)
Brilliant observations. We can blame the Cotton Growers lobby (circa 1920) for the sad state of hemp in North America today. It is a wonder-plant and could solve so many problems if just given a chance. And what Greenie would rally against weed… man?
And this is Jeremy Clarkeson from TopGear test driving the Peel P50. Just the card for Greenies – especially if there is a juggernaut (big-rig) doing 70mph behind.
.
Larry, (hotrod), ethanol from corn is a net energy consumer – not producer. California’s Air Resources Board and federal EPA both concur.
Also, for anyone in the Los Angeles area, a good presentation on cellulosic ethanol is scheduled for tomorrow night in Long Beach. The meeting announcement is below, I can provide meeting location/time to anyone if you send me an email at the address above (click my name).
“BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc. has completed the arrangement of the major commitments necessary to proceed with final development of its first commercial facility, which will be sited in Lancaster, California. BlueFire Ethanol, Inc., a Nevada corporation developing cellulose-to-ethanol plants in North America, is actively cooperating with JGC Corporation in developing projects in Japan and Southeast Asia. JGC licensed the ARKENOL technology from BlueFire’s licensor and has built two pilot plants for themselves and the government of Japan (NEDO). The latest one just completed four years of operation on Japanese waste wood, rice straw and waste biomass.
The Japanese government is cautiously moving forward on opening the fuel-ethanol market previously closed to all but the beverage industry. JGC Corp.’s Izumi pilot plant can be seen on the Bluefire webpage. They are cooperatively participating in BlueFire’s development of a 2.5 million gallons/year commercial facility in Lancaster, California .
Unlike other biofuel producers, BlueFire uses acid hydrolysis, which requires less energy. BlueFire does not need either high temperatures or high pressure to make their process work. That means the equipment used is less costly as well. The uniformity of the biomass is less important because they do not need specific, appropriate enzymes. Often one enzyme will work for corn, not rice or tree leaves. Sulfuric acid works equally well on all starches and the binding lignin found in plant matter.
Acid hydrolysis does require dry biomass. That green trash picked up by sanitation trucks often runs about 40-percent water, but once a commercial scale BlueFire plant is running, it will create enough hot air exhaust to be able to do its own drying, essentially for free. The process would also allow complete reclaiming of steam by adding a condenser system at the exhaust end. This is particularly useful in dry areas like southern California. Water use is a touchy issue among ethanol makers and critics. The BlueFire process requires about five gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, and much of the water could and should be reclaimed and re-used.
The BlueFire process uses a continuous fermentation process on their sugars, producing ethanol in about six hours, much faster than many existing ethanol plants that can take up to three days. The process also saves on storage and energy costs. Finally, unlike ethanol from corn or sugar, the biomass BlueFire wants to use is green refuse, which has no other long-term human use.
The speaker, John Cuzens, is BlueFire Ethanol’s Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President. He has held this office since the company’s inception in March 2006. Mr. Cuzens was a Director from March 2006 until his resignation from the Board in July 2007. Prior to this, he was Director of Projects at Wahlco Inc. from 2004 to June 2006. He was employed by Applied Utility Systems Inc. from 2001 to 2004 and Hydrogen Burner Technology form 1997 to 2001. He was with ARK Energy and Arkenol from 1991 to 1997 and is the co-inventor on seven of Arkenol’s eight U.S. Patents for the conversion of cellulosic materials into fermentable sugar products, using a modified strong acid hydrolysis process. Mr. Cuzens has a B.S. Chemical Engineering degree from the University of California at Berkeley .”
.
Sorry, I should have also pointed out Jeremy Clarkeson’s classic piss-take of the BBC’s AGW-Greenie culture. Scroll to 7:40 minutes on this clip.
This is a classic satire of why the BBC has no money left to make decent programmes – but the same will be true of all industry, if we let the Greenies control government. According to the Times, UK industry alone faces a £370 billion bill to keep the Greenies happy.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6888941.ece
But that claim should be rephrased. Industry will just pass the bill onto us. So this is our bill, and if we don’t pay then all our industry goes tits-up, and the nation is sunk without trace.
Thanks, Greenies.
.
What on earth are those hideous, coloured Cyclopsian frogs in the photo?
OK, I know really. I wouldn’t like to be in any sort of serious prang (accident) in one of them, though. Instant mince meat.
Completely OT but something interesting is happening at the Science Museum at the moment.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
I agree with what Ralph says in terms of efficiency losses. The problem is criteria selection. People who make their decisions based primarily on economics worry about efficiency. This is not what a Green does. Greens and AGWs are concerned primarily with atmospheric emissions, and in turn emission reductions and mitigation. By leaving the biggest part of the greens argument out of the equation, which is CCS (as imaginary as it may be at this point), there is a value criteria disconnect in the argument. With a 100% electric vehicle, 100% of the CO2 is theoretically sequestrable. When you add sequestration into the picture, where a Green/AGW is not primarily concerned about efficiency, but rather CO2 emissions, the ranking then becomes Electic, Fuel Cell, Diesel and then Petrol (gasoline).
To further emphasize my point that Greens are more about emissions control and not efficiency, the US could easily increase the efficiency of the entire gasoline fleet on the road today. Simply remove the catalytic converter and add the lead back into the gasoline. This simple fix would increase efficiency by 5-10%. Of course it would also contribute to increased smog, ozone, CO emissions and lead in the ground water. But hey, the efficiency is better (he says tongue in cheek.)
The primary point here is its easier to monitor, police and mitigate 1000 smoke stacks than 150 million tail pipes belching out CO, CO2, NOx and SOx.
Well there is a difference between a loan and a subsidy. But more importantly Tesla and Fisker only asked for these loans to get some sort of parity with the GM, Chrysler subsidies/loans. So you have it backwards. Without these loans Tesla and Fisker would have been severely disadvantaged by the government largesse funding gas-guzzlers or plugin hybrids. There probably will be a big demand for practical leccy cars though, which will likely drop in price substantially as more folk buy because leccy tech always does.
If anyone does cost comparisons they shouldn’t forget to allow for the fact that the base load at night is mostly wasted energy. Electric cars charging can use up that previously unused energy which is hugely significant for comparing real costs. And yes, there is enough spare base load to change up everyones cars – it’s been studied.
Re Allan M
The Cyclopsian frogs also featured on Top Gear.
The Greens will be fitting, as they’re two-stroke engined Peel Type 50s. (The yellow one looks particularly smokey)
Jeremy Clarkson drove one around the interior of the BBC, even going up in a lift in it.
Whilst being exceptionally small, it does lack reverse gear (So no sales to Italy!)
Brazil’s bio-ethanol industry is basically a work-fare programme, employing otherwise jobless & thus starving & homeless men.