CLEAN ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION 101

Solid, liquid, and gaseous hydrocarbon Fossil fuels have been sequestered for geologic ages deep in the Earth. When they decompose to produce energy the chemical byproducts are released into the atmosphere and biosphere increasing the supply of chemicals from ancient biomass and chemicals from deep within the earth incorporated into these fossil deposits. These chemicals increase the supply of greenhouse gasses and other potentially hazardous chemicals not naturally available to the surface environment.

Biomass fuels- alcohols and vegetable oils- are produced from plant matter grown during the current year. When they decompose to produce energy, the chemicals released into the atmosphere are used during plant photosynthesis to capture the Sun’s energy and produce biomass that could be used for replacement fuel. This recycling process is a closed loop that could continue indefinitely without increasing the atmospheric supply of greenhouse gas.

For that reason a flex-fuel SUV using pure ethanol fuel does not contribute to the potential for global warming while a gasoline powered Toyota Pirus does. The same can be said for electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles whose electricity and hydrogen were produced utilizing fossil fuel energy. If the energy to produce the hydrogen or electricity was generated using biomass, nuclear, wind, water or directly from sunlight it does not contribute to the potential problem. Therefore the first step is a law specifying that only flex-fuel capable vehicles can be sold in this country. These vehicles can continue to use gasoline until suitable biomass fuels are available.

Once this is accomplished you can intelligently apply current technology to conserve energy. We currently consume 120 billion gallons of gasoline and 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel from over 180 billion gallons of oil. Attempting to replace fossil fuel gallon for gallon with biomass fuel would be foolish. The infrastructure needed to produce that amount is unnecessary. Enforcing stricter CAFÉ, corporate average fuel economy, standards for new vehicles will enable us to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for transportation faster and with less expense than a gallon for gallon replacement. Because, at this time we can lower our total fuel requirements with technology faster than the number of vehicles is increasing.

But we need money to fund this effort. Logically, we should tax the problem to fund the solution. A half dollar a gallon tax on the approximately 108 billion gallons of imported foreign oil would produce $54 billion a year. This tax should not be passed on to consumers of diesel fuel because of the negative impacts on all the other areas of our economy and the fact that diesel engines conserve fuel better than gasoline engines. The money should be used in a two fold incentive program composed of: zero interest loans to be used for construction of state of the art biomass fuel refineries and tax rebates to encourage the purchase of technologically advanced flex-fuel vehicles. All of the oil tax money will eventually be used to lower the cost of biomass fuel for the consumer. The hidden oil tax of $60 billion per year to protect Middle Eastern Oil will no longer be necessary.

The net result of this policy is higher gasoline prices encouraging the acceptance of cheaper and increasingly available biomass fuel and faster implementation of energy conservation technology. Brazil has been using 22 to 25% ethanol in all gasoline for the last 20 years. Currently 40% of Brazilian vehicles are flex-fuel and run on 100% sugar cane ethanol. For many years the U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture have known about advances in biomass fuel production technology that would enable the U.S.A to follow the Brazilian example by using cellulose ethanol.

Oil company lobbyists and contributions to political candidates have slowed implementation of technologies which would allow us to decrease and replace our dependence on foreign oil. Since the 9/11 attack our politicians have waged war on the Islamic Charities in Western countries that support terrorist organizations while ignoring the billions in oil revenues from sales in the U.S.A which have financed Terrorism for over 60 years. Hopefully an anti-oil movement can enlist enough support from the public servant politicians in U.S. political parties to save the world from conquest by a modern Arab Jihad without resorting to military force and also preventing the environment’s degradation by fossil fuel without negative changes to our way of life.

This is a very good proposal Adam.

Can anyone see flaws in it? Let's add to it and incorporate this into a CGCS Press Release.

I agree -- this would make an excellent policy statement and a tangible way we could help shape the discussion.

I don't want to blow your cover Adam but you sound like our energy expert.

Hey, how about a petition too?

I was just roaming around and found this.

http://www.petitiononline.com/biotour/petition.html

Thanks. I signed.
375 signatures.
We need more!

It's fine to add this to a press release, but ethanol as it is currently produced from corn is not an answer. Switchgrass ethanol could produce enough to have an effect, but we also have to raise public conciousness on the TDP process which makes oil and gas products from agricultural and human waste, and is also a part of the closed CO2 loop. However, while ethanol has the support as being labeled as an alternative fuel, the TDP process falls outside the current legislation and can't be subsidized. Therefore, the patent holders of the TDP process are now seeking to move out of the US into Europe where they have been accepted. The end product is America loses the technological edge once again because our politicians are short sighted and tied to corporate donations and big oil.

Good to see you still at it Mark. Haven't seen that many oldbies from the Kerryforum site yet. Are you still marketing for the company that makes the ethanol substitute from sewerage effluent. Magnagas??

I'm currently trying to get a lobbying movement up and running for the Blue States to recover lost federal funding through raising emissions fees. I'm wondering how that could work for carbon neutral technologies like ethanol and magnagas?

Cheers

While these ideas have merit, transportation policy can't be just about fuel for cars. The biggest thing we can do is to make our transportation system more balanced and design our communities better with quality of life in mind.

We need a modern rail system. We need better public transit. We need better designed communities so that driving is a choice rather than a requirement. This alone would save a lot of energy.

You are sitting in front of a computer and suggesting that we commute to work by train? Most people in this country could tele-commute 90% of the time, but I am not against mass transportation when it makes sense. Using modern versions of the Fischer-Tropsch method we could produce diesel or gasoline from methane gas from biomass. With bio-refineries like those mentioned here, http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integra...refineries.html .We could produce all the chemicals, plastics, etc that we now produce from fossil hydrocarbons. If it were not for lobbying groups, the idiotic politicians might pay attention to what some educated public employees have to say. Unfortunately the real solution to our energy problems requires better politicians not superior technology.