Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

As CEO of General Chrysfordco, Obama Can Spearhead Renewable Energy & Rebuild America

By David Blume, Author
December 1, 2008   |   24 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
December 1, 2008
Mr. Blume is a visionary.
When we realize that ethanol producers have already gone broke,
that fuel at my local station is less than $2 per gallon, and $200 billion
would not be enough to convert the U.S. to ethanol, you get the feeling
that we are going to have to do a lot more than even he realizes to
make the ethanol switch.

Petroleum is still the basis of a huge amount of our packaging
and manufature.
China does have an agreesive international oil company.
Brazil imports over 600,000 barrels of oil per day.

Keep the vision, but know the facts.
Comment
2 of 24
December 1, 2008
In order to discuss energy policy and not push books, facts must be shown. Brazil just found a huge offshore oil field. They will either use the oil or sell it on the open market. The truth is ethanol does not have the energy content that gasoline does. If most farmland in the US were turned into corn production, the ethanol produced would still not be enough to replace our oil use. Also, corn based ethanol is a net energy loser by the time all of the fertilizer and oil used for growing and transporting is considered. Technology does not currently exist to make cellulosic ethanol in viable quantities. We can't mandate something that does not exist.

The "enviros" are also starting to balk at creating wind and solar farms for their environmental impact. Carbon taxes will cause electricity prices to skyrocket (Obama quote). Nuclear is really the only way to go if we really want to solve the energy problem. My feeling is that the "enviros" want us back in the stone age with a few less billion people on the planet. The choice is yours.
Comment
3 of 24
December 1, 2008
I agree with the first comment that we should place more emphasis on electric cars. I am not totally against using ethanol but think it should be used in plug-in hybrids until all electric cars are more practical. The battery exchange idea is intriguing. I'm not sure how well it might work, but if comapnies like Netflix can be successful renting DVD's why can't a similar effort be done with batteries? Electric motors are so much more efficient than internal combustion engines and technologies like solar, wind and geothermal would not put the kind of pressures on land that growing plants to produce energy would. I fear that overreliance on biofuels in cars might degrade the quality of the land and lead to loss of fertility and soil erosion.
Comment
4 of 24
December 3, 2008
I am living in Brazil, my wife has a so called Flex-car from Ford to burn either gasoline or ethanol in any proportion. Interesting part is that Brazilian gasoline contains already up to 25% ethanol to keep the oktane value high. These flex-engines have a considerable drawback which is mostly underestimated. They are not fish, neither meat, electronics does it all and you are the looser faced with bad milage in any case. The engines have low compression to handle the gasoline and with pure ethanol or any mixture inbetween the electronics shifts the ignition point and regulates the air- fuel proportion for proper buring, that´s it.
If we do not have high compression engines together with direct fuel injection, which today only diesel engines sport, there is nothing really interesting in turing over to ethanol.
Next question is the ethanol production :
USA is today numbering out Brazil in ethanol production !!
However, there is a remarkable difference when it comes to the energy consumtion during production of ethanol from corn (US) and sugar cane (Brazil). The proportion of energy consumtion of Ethanol production from corn is 1:1, while production from sugar cane is 1:10. That does mean, you need the same amount of fossil energy to produce one gallon of ethanol from corn, while you do need just 1/10 of fossil energy for the same amount of ethanol from sugar cane. Did you know this ???
Therefore, the US-ethanol program is a fake. Politicians should be warned to invest in this program. Just moving to other cars does not help anybody. Let research do its job first and then invest or look for reliable contracts with Brazil or Cuba, the biggest sugar cane producers in the world.
Comment
5 of 24
December 3, 2008
There is no mention of the inefficiencies built into the big three auto makers and their massive legacy costs. These issues loom just as large in any "bailout" to the auto industry. They must become competitive to survive or we will just end up bailing them out again because there is not courage enough to let them go through the bankruptcy that they need. (Ford has been smarter and may survive on it's own without an infusion of funds.

I agree that electric cars should be a significant component of personal transportation, but will be irrelevant in heavy hauling to transport materials around the country. There are good comments above about the merits of sugar beets vs. corn and there is also the issue of trade barriers blocking imports of economical Brazilian ethanol. Congress is not likely to open the US market more fully to the opportunities that lie before us; a resurgence of protectionism is probably in the cards and will do considerable harm to the US economy.

The issues are complex and environmental issues abound in the solutions. We need to be willing to make hard choices, suffer some environmental costs in order to gain greater benefit and understand that it is a good thing that we are competing in a global economy. Politicians are not well equipped to make these decisions, being generally most interested in getting re-elected and bringing home the pork. There was not enough courage in Congress to raise the CAFE standards, much less make them rational instead of convoluted enough to allow the automakers to reclassify vehicles out of the stricter requirements. It might be smarter to raise fuel taxes and scrag the CAFE standards and let people decide what makes the most sense for them to buy.

If government can come up with some rational regulation and then stay out of the way (difficult to imagine but not impossible), independent initiative on the part of private businesses both large and small will provide the creative solutions we need.
Comment
6 of 24
December 3, 2008
Brazil timing was brilliant if not for necessity it worked in there best interest. I think the United States needs a new strategy with the if not one of the oldest gases Hydrogen fuel cell to Fusion. Just to me this I hope will be in the long run until they really have something less expensive( Bio-fuels) very short term.Lets grow food supply not Bio-fuels my opion .I will discuss this in a more scientific way but I have my thoughts and ideas. Others will disagree.This makes options and opion fun don't you think. I think I am right.
Comment
7 of 24
December 3, 2008
#1 hit the nail on the head - the US doesn't have the sugar resources to make ethanol a viable, realistic source of fuel, and I was sure that the author would say that as Brazil quickly converted to ethanol, the U.S. should quickly convert to electric cars (powered by wind and solar energy, of course). The first sentence of #7 is right on the mark, too; sugar was right for Brazil, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer for the U.S. (Though I do not agree with the rest of #7, because hydrogen fuel cells would require an incredibly drastic overhall of the entire transportation network that we simply don't have the money or resources for.)

#3 - what "enviros" are starting to balk at creating wind and solar farms? The extremist audubon enthusiasts who don't think that even extremely careful sitings to avoid migratory routes are enough? Your accusations, if they are such, are nothing but vague rumors. While energy efficiency and decreasing demand should absolutely come first, large and small scale solar and wind projects are by far the best and most responsible ways to meet our energy needs.
Comment
8 of 24
December 3, 2008
In reality - the only comment that was "real" came from the author who called himself "reality".Nuclear is the only practical way to go at present.Solar could work in some places but the likes of wind power is a sad example of people just not doing their homework - except of course the profiteers
Comment
9 of 24
December 3, 2008
What a terrible idea.

By all means, if we're going to bail out the Big Three make sure they deal with the legacy costs that are dragging them down--but DO NOT presume to dictate market solutions to them.

This worked in Brazil only because of the deep isolation and tariff system they had against any imported vehicles. It won't work here in America without similar obstacles being erected, and that leads to a whole host of problems that we don't want to deal with.

There are also several "and then a miracle occurs" moments in the writeup that as an engineer I find vastly amusing. They demonstrate the difference between wishful thinking and knowledge of how engineering works.

For example, "Also, by 2011, all vehicles should be at least as efficient as the current GM-Saab and get equal mileage on either fuel." isn't a plan nor is solution--it's simply an uniformed statement. Alcohol doesn't provide the same amount of energy as gasoline--for any given efficiency of engine gasoline will probably *always* beat out alcohol.

I'm a huge fan of increased efficiency. I reluctantly support CAFE standards, and I want the US to be energy independent more than any editorial writer hereabouts. But let the MARKET figure out how to do this--otherwise you simply mandate a solution rather than tapping the energy of innovation to find one.
Comment
10 of 24
December 3, 2008
If the commentor in #9 has a method for nuclear waste amelioration, he has somewhat of a solution. But nuclear has many pitfalls that even Margaret Thatcher did not envision when she directed the English scientists to buy into the CO2 debacle. We claim to be far superior to the Russians with our brain dead antiquated methods of boiling water using nuclear fuel, but Chernoble was just one accident scenario of many that clould abound over time if we buy into this technology. People make mistakes and they always will. Nuclear fuel is dense, dangerous and meltdowns will always be disasterousno matter how you sugar coat it. No amount of readiness will prepare a population for where one would takes us when a plant near a large urban population goes to China. There are far better ways of solving this energy problem.
Comment
11 of 24
December 3, 2008
So, which of the guys who say we don't have enough alcohol sources has ever observed the kudzu plant, which overtakes old cars and all sorts of other things across the south?

Alcohol Can Be a Gas asserted that we have plenty of bio-waste separate from kudzu to make appreciable amounts of alcohol.

Kudzu makes huge starchy roots underground. Removing a fraction of the mother roots would not cause soil erosion because you can leave the tops. This is a plant used in other cultures that is, ahem, resilient.

The notion that we don't have enough surplus plant material, separate from cartel-imposed corn culture, strikes me as tunnel-vision.
Comment
12 of 24
December 3, 2008
Mary - I did read once about ethanol from kudzu. Is research or manufacturing picking up at all on it?
Comment
13 of 24
December 3, 2008
Lauryn - Many things like this are perking along underground right now. Unless there are substantial subsidies to be had, small operators don't have much reason to surface. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can still be an intimidating presence. They comb local news outlets looking for people to visit.

A neighbor in the 'hood got visited for making wine that won a ribbon at a state fair. According to David Blume, it has been common to get visited if your livestock wins also, because historically that may mean the winner was feeding mash left over from alcohol production.

Mash is more easily digested with less flatulence by animals.

Mash also makes bread to die for, if the bread I tasted from Edgefield Manor (formerly a poor farm, now a bed-and-breakfast and film location) is typical.

David has another interesting use for mash, which he patented in a very entertaining story.

I hope David Blume will check back in on the comments here. He may know more about the present kudzu situation, whether it has surfaced above ground anywhere. I visited the South many years ago, and was amazed by kudzu.

People pay good money for topiary in other places, whereas kudzu just does it with whatever armature it can find.

Thanks for the feedback. m
Comment
14 of 24
December 3, 2008
Scientist have discovered recently as stated on a news show." Paul Harvy " that sorghum will yield 4x as much ethanol as corn. Also, we could increase
our own production of cane sugar ( Brazil obtains ethanol from their cane sugar) as well as sugar beet production. Somehow, though, we need to
persuade the politicans that corn is not a cost effective crop from which to obtain ethanol.
Comment
15 of 24
December 3, 2008
I like the kudzu idea proposed above---does anybody know if it's been tried?

My guess is that if it's a great idea somebody has tried it, which means there's some reason we're not using it.....

Seems like a win-win though, don't it?

Steve
Comment
16 of 24
December 3, 2008
OK, so I went out and Googled kudzu fuel, and some really funny stuff came up, along with pictures. I especially liked the one about kudzu rescuing NASCAR and being just as Southern as Dolly Parton drinking sweet tea.

And yes, people are apparently now gearing up to produce fuel. Put a bounty on the stuff, and the South will have full employment, at least until frost takes the green leaves of kudzu down. Apparently that's when fire season starts.

I highly recommend a Google tour of kudzu and its potential.
Comment
17 of 24
December 4, 2008
"Its government mandated that General Motors and other companies making cars in Brazil produce vehicles that were to be powered by alcohol-fuel engines.
So the Brazilian leaders said, "Read our lips. It's alcohol engines or leave the country." Miracle of miracle, six months later, high-compression, high-performance alcohol-only vehicles began rolling off every car company's assembly line."
Here in America, the U.S. government has been corrupted by big industry and commerce, it is "running in the streets" with industry and commerce, figuritively speaking and these "thugs" saw a weakness in one of their fellow "street rats" they knew for a fact that could exploit and they did.
What you are calling "bailout" I call terrorism.
Big industry and commerce is holding the American economy hostage demanding the U.S. government to pay ransom and to be perfectly honest with you, I do not exclude the RE industries from this action. The RE industry is not going to spin my head around with its tales of greating jobs and saving the planet. The RE industries don't give a damn about anything except money, just like any other industry. I have heard nothing but a bunch whinning and crying from the RE industries about all of these other industries that are getting to nusre on the U.S. government teet, and how they feel pushed aside. If thats not enough, for most people to be able to afford an RE system on their home or business, they have to exploit the U.S. government as well as state government for incentives to help pay for it because its so damned expensive.
In my opinion, the new age American is nothing more than mindless automatons. They are not willing to sacrifice so much as an once of bread to show the U.S. government the error of its ways and to help it out of the "gutter", out of the "streets" and back into a more triditional
United States of America.
They are too worried about losing everything.
Stand up America! Take our government back from industry and commerce.
Comment
18 of 24
December 4, 2008
If some degree of "government assistance" is appropriate in this case, the government would be well within its rights to impose a few conditions on it. Brazil's success also shows the kind of thing that can be done.

While I'd love to believe that the market could sort this kind of thing out alone, US automakers have shown an amazing lack of vision and innovation, which is the main reason they're in this mess. The 1908 Ford Model T was capable of running on either alcohol or gasoline, and got 25 mpg. A hundred years later, we've gone backwards on both fuel flexibility as well as economy! In that 100 years we've also nearly exhausted our own national reserves of oil, and pumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We must kick the oil habit!

Alcohol would definitely be good for the environment, and in time I expect that America could produce it, via kudzu or other crops.

Plug-in cars would be better, but the energy still has to come from somewhere. If the electricity's coming from a coal-fired plant, I'm not convinced there's any environmental benefit. Solar and Wind are coming, but not fast enough to really solve this problem - yet.

Alcohol worked well for Brazil because they could get the amounts they needed quickly, solving their economic and environmental problems. While I'd love to be convinced that America's ready to do the same, I haven't seen the right kind of evidence for this, yet.

On the other hand, the US has proven natural gas reserves of 167 trillion cubic feet, 635 billion of which we're currently using per year. It's not renewable, but there's less carbon in it than oil. That makes it better than oil both economically as well as environmentally, and less risky than alcohol. Here in New Delhi, all public transportation was forced to run on natural gas, and it's done a lot for cleaning the air.

I think it's worth considering, at least as an interim step on the way to a home-grown carbon neutral solution like alcohol or solar-electric.
Comment
19 of 24
December 4, 2008
Here's another idea: refuse the bail-out. Instead offer a sizeable subsidy on each car produced over the next year or two that can meet or exceed some rigorous requirements.

Among these would be some strict economy standards, like they already have in other countries, and a requirement that it be able to run on something other than oil.

Turning this into a complete solution will take some more thorough research, but I think it's a much better starting place than handing out a bunch of money. It may also be helpful to legislate a direction for a solution, but leave some room for creativity and discovery as to which solution will work out best.
Comment
20 of 24
December 4, 2008
What about an option of beginning to un-do commercial imperialism by asking the car companies to retain rights to the designs for the better vehicles they produce for countries that have asked for better efficiency, but asking them to sell off other assets to the countries of origin.

Maybe they could get a royalty from the sale of a vehicle using their technology, but no longer own ground or even manufacturing equipment in other places. Then they take mortgages or something to allow the other countries to pay for hard assets over time, or just take lump sums of dollars off the hands of places that have too many.

Make it a celebration, inventing ways of talking about it that help all the sides do figurative yoga headstands to improve the circulation and appearance of their faces. Richardson could read the story boards for this I bet.

It's my understanding that a German company offered to buy a plant that has been there since the 1920's, but GM refused to sell. They refused to sell while they are begging D.C. as if they are paupers? How are values for things owned overseas decided?

I believe the German company wanting the ground was a solar company offering cash. What should that tell GM?

I'm trying to understand the talking points from the point of view of wanting outcomes that benefit Planet Earth. Humans need to care for stones, flora, and fauna (ourselves as part of fauna) in better ways going forward.

We need to do this with the Truth-and-Reconciliation way practiced in South Africa, looking for regenerative practices in all directions, kind of like an Arabian Nights way of telling stories to get another day without being executed by an irate Goddess.

The suspense method is one of the few ways to engage jaded adolescents, and that's about where we are. This way gives everyone a stake in transparency. I don't see other ways out of the mess except pulling one of the story strands and getting started.
Comment
21 of 24
December 4, 2008
Many people seem to have missed the point that while the energy content per gallon in alcohol is less than gasoline, the engine's power output can be higher. The reason for this is that engine efficiency can be higher because a higher compression ratio is possible.
Plug-in hybrids should have flex-fuel engines to extend range when the battery runs down.
Comment
22 of 24
December 4, 2008
I think David has some good ideas and hopefully we can implement at least a few of them. Maybe we have learned our lesson this time because gasoline prices will go up again.

I like to think of the day when most of the society is electrified and most of that electrical energy comes from renewable resources like wind, solar, underwater turbines and geothermal. We are going to find a cost effective way to drill 15 - 25,000 ft deep wells soon mark my words. While this is somewhat of a fantasy that I may never see in my lifetime one can still hope right?

tomgarven@hotmail.com
Comment
23 of 24
December 6, 2008
The question now is whether the human race is smart enough to survive. We will probably take several thousand other species down with us, but the earth will easily prevail without us.

If we are to sustain, we will need to look in totally different areas than we do now. Combustion based vehicles will soon be a thing of the past, like horse buggies. In the meantime, there will soon be ways to turn just about any biomass into crude feedstock, which lowers the transition costs and allows the use of all existing infrastructure - cars, petrol pumps and so on. The bio crude can be made into all existing forms of petroleum products, and will make ethanol uncompetitive as a fuel.

The question will be - what biomass is the most efficient and extensive? Look far beyond foods - Seaweed, microalgae, saline resistant plants (irrigated with seawater in arid areas), Kudzu and all other weeds that we don't have to force growing - they do it more than willingly on their own.

On the electricity side, solar, wind, ocean and geothermal must come down in price as soon as we get our head out of the perennial box. Oil is under $40 now so it will be extra urgent for the RE industries to get their costs down and get out of their fake, subsidized existence. There is nothing sustainable about a $6/W solar panel, produced for the wealthy few. Only 4% of solar panels go to rural users developing nations where 90% have no grid. Still, over 50% is installed in Germany where the sun is much less and everybody is on the grid. Go figure.

The west is also doing itself a disservice to only consider their local energy markets. They should invest around the world in renewable energy, particularly in Africa which has the best natural conditions for biofuels and solar.
Comment
24 of 24
December 7, 2008
"Alcohol doesn't provide the same amount of energy as gasoline--for any given efficiency of engine gasoline will probably *always* beat out alcohol."

The whole reason for metallic compounds like Tetraethyl lead was to raise compression to make engines more efficient. Remember leaded gas, and what happened to it?

Know anything about compression ratios? How about racing?

Racing uses more methanol than ethanol, but some are switching, as ethanol becomes more common and cheaper, because ethanol is non-toxic and non-corrosive.

Do your homework.

"there will soon be ways to turn just about any biomass into crude feedstock, which lowers the transition costs and allows the use of all existing infrastructure - cars, petrol pumps and so on. The bio crude can be made into all existing forms of petroleum products, and will make ethanol uncompetitive as a fuel. "

Same feedstock for 'bio-crude' and ethanol. Just so happens, ethyl and methyl alcohols run better engines. [biobutanol, not so much]

Petrol -gasoline- does not work well as a fuel cell feedstock, ethyl and methyl do.

Fuel cells, with no moving parts, converting chemistry directly into energy, are the next step, if we are daring enough to take it.

Do your homework.

mogblog.org
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Concepts NREC Ambient Technologies, Inc. Unirac, Inc. North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners SolarNexus Enphase Energy SolarEdge Technologies
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters