The Oil Drum

AP has a similar article:

The U.S. currently produces nearly 7 billion gallons of ethanol, all of it made from corn, thanks in large part to government mandates and subsidies included in the 2005 energy bill. The 2007 bill, which passed the House Tuesday and the Senate last week, mandates 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 21 billion gallons coming from so-called cellulosic ethanol.

There are significant obstacles to meeting this goal, however, not least of which is devising a profitable method of producing cellulosic ethanol.

Other challenges include: growing enough feedstock without harming the environment and efficiently transporting it to ethanol refineries; delivering the finished fuel to pumps nationwide; and bolstering consumer demand. The lack of an adequate transportation system for biofuels and limited demand already have squeezed ethanol producers’ profits this year.

And Technology Review has a lengthy series this week called The Price of Biofuels:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

It's pretty grim, for them. (They're usually techno-copians.)

"This construction would need to take place ``after this technology is proven to be economically feasible, which it hasn't been.''

if the techonology did prove feasible, there would be a boom in construction because the profits would be enormous.

Cheers Nate!

I agree -- it does seem pretty risky to be putting all the energy eggs into the ethanol basket. Right now, we can produce ethanol from corn, soy beans, and sugar. Corn is the primary feedstock and we won't get anywhere near 36 billion gallons with those three.

So it's a bet on cellulosic -- another unproven technology with long development and phase in times.

In my opinion, this is an energy bill that supports scarcity in the short and long terms. We have some pushes toward efficiency, which is certainly needed and will buy us time. But if we are on the peak/plateau, we'll need a hell of a lot more than just efficiency to get us through. In short, 35 mpg standards for automobiles is a start; phasing out incandescent light bulbs is a start; and incentivizing ethanol without equally incentivizing other options is a risky venture that could become a boondoggle.

Furthermore, in my opinion, continuing subsidies/tax breaks for oil industries is a recipe for disaster. We need to incentivize AWAY from all fossil fuels starting yesterday.

The HUGE loss was the loss of tax breaks for renewables (primarily, solar, wind, water/wave/hydro). Renewables are, in my opinion, a large part of the solution to this problem so long as a smooth and rapid transition to an electric/grid based transportation infrastructure is put in place (electric light rail, plug in electric hybrids, electric cars etc). The removal of tax breaks for renewables at the federal level constitutes a great leap backward from the policy perspective.

In all, the Congress produced a compromise when we needed a revolution. We have marginal gains in the form of efficiency mandates, a HUGE loss in the form of tax breaks for renewables, and the status quo of transferring wealth and power to the major oil companies.

Given the current state of the nation's politics, such a compromise was bound to happen. So right now, as voting citizens, the ball is in our court to continue the power change in this country. We need a leadership structure that will rapidly move us away from our current dependence on fossil fuels through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS with a focus on renewables as the solution -- not as some marginal technology that should forever remain high priced and inaccessible to consumers.