ETHANOL is not the answer for Australia’s future fuel needs.
2 Responses to “Ethanol Fuel is not so Green”
Comments are currently closed.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Frank Eggers on Nuclear vs Nuclear vs Nuclear
- Frank Eggers on American Airlines Wants to Terminate Its Pension Plan, Lay Off 13,000
- saeed on Eye-watering cost of renewable revolution
- Steve Darden on Interminable innumeracy: ‘renewables’ versus nuclear
- Frank Eggers on Interminable innumeracy: ‘renewables’ versus nuclear
Categories
- Africa (18)
- Agriculture (11)
- Apple (95)
- Australia (8)
- Biology (26)
- Biotechnology (53)
- Climate Change (353)
- Climate Science (116)
- Counter Terrorism (325)
- Development (9)
- Economics (2480)
- Financial Crisis (1387)
- Education (167)
- School Choice (29)
- Energy Policy (1303)
- Nuclear Costs (33)
- Nuclear Mass Manufacture (6)
- Nuclear Power (500)
- Nuclear Risk Assessment (19)
- Nuclear Waste (8)
- Entrepreneurship (36)
- Favorites (7)
- Finance (36)
- Fisheries Policy (19)
- Foreign Aid (16)
- Foreign Policy (601)
- China (58)
- Democracy (46)
- Israel (139)
- Middle East (117)
- General (47)
- Global Warming (209)
- Globalization (5)
- Healthcare (290)
- History (31)
- Japan (49)
- Media (274)
- Military (83)
- Nuclear Risk Assessment (7)
- Politics (491)
- Science (85)
- Science Policy (85)
- Space (24)
- Technology (756)
- Tumblr (51)
- Transportation (66)
- U.K. (2)
- U.K. (11)
- Uncategorized (1192)
- Water Policy (11)
- What are you optimistic about? (12)
- X Prize (16)
Actually, it is government mandates for corn/maize ethanol that are not green. Ethanol technology itself is skipping ahead fairly quickly.
While corn ethanol returns 1.5 unit of energy for every 1.0 unit invested, advanced ethanol from biomass and other feedstocks can return between 8 and 12 units of energy for every 1.0 unit invested. Sugar cane supposedly returns about 10 (EROEI).
Thanks for your correction. I should have written “ethanol mandates/subsidies are not the answer”. Nor are mandates for any source of energy. The least costly way to reduce GHG emissions is a revenue-neutral carbon tax — so that companies can confidently predict the comparative returns of new investments.
For a comprehensive demonstration of the bad economics of such policies see this new post.