ETHANOL is not the answer for Australia’s future fuel needs.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Topics
- Africa
- Al Qaeda
- Apple
- Avian Flu
- Biology
- Biotechnology
- CIA
- Climate Change
- Climate Science
- Constitution
- Counter Terrorism
- Cruising
- Economics
- Education
- Energy Policy
- Entrepreneurship
- Fisheries Policy
- Foreign Aid
- Foreign Policy
- France
- General
- Germany
- Global Warming
- Globalization
- Healthcare
- History
- Homeland Security
- Katrina
- Media
- Military
- National debt
- NSA Intercepts
- Palestine
- Politics
- Russia
- Science
- Science Policy
- Space
- Technology
- Torture
- True_False
- U.K.
- Venezuela
- Waste
- Water Policy
- What are you optimistic about?
- World Health
- X Prize
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.