Here is a recent story on Amyris, one the companies which can convert sugarcane direct into gasoline or diesel, which will hasten the switch from fossil fuels to renewables:
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&Itemid=27 There is also an article in today's SF Chron on the company. One thing not being mentioned so far - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet so to speak ... and that is mostly for fear of fomenting early problems with US agriculture (which has already been successful in keeping Brazilian ethanol from being imported) is this: When Amyris teaches them (Brazil) how to make renewable gasoline from sugarcane (for a small royalty), there is no way to stop that fuel from coming-in by the mega-barrel. We should be grateful, right? Renewable fuel, carbon neutral - and from an ally not an enemy. But there is a downside for tree-huggers. If you thought the Amazon rain forest was in trouble before now - just wait. This could be the death warrant. Guess you could call it the 'Grateful Dead' but after all - that is their problem, right? This dilemma then - is the new trade-off - with a new set of morals in the balance: renewable gasoline - not ethanol - which is a good thing as it is CO2 neutral - but based on the same sugarcane, farmed on former rain forest land, and harvested with low-wage labor, but coming from a Free Market country and ally of ours, yet one with few eco-morals - which is poised to take full advantage of the situation in a rapid manner. Tough choices - since to limit the imports now to protect a rain-forest that the owners do not care about protecting- that plays right into the hands of OPEC and increases CO2 at the same time. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Horace Heffner wrote: >"Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to >$26.3 trillion to 2030. . . . >This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to >convert the world to renewable energy. Exactly! And it stands to reason that would be the case. An industry has to replace most of its capital equipment in 25 to 50 years (depending on the industry). It takes very roughly as much equipment to make the economically viable forms of renewable energy as it does to produce conventional energy. So, it boils down to a choice: Do we rebuild most of conventional energy industry over the next 25 years as it wears out, or do we build something else? Put that way, the "cost" of wind turbines, solar thermal and so on looks a lot cheaper. And cold fusion, needless to say, is cheaper than free. It is a free lunch you are paid to eat. >The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the >US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) >reducing speed limits . . . Good idea. I do not see why any highways has a speed limit above 60 mph. Between Atlanta and Washington there are hundreds of miles of 65 to 75 mph highway, which seems excessive to me. >. . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal >choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: "New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers." EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. >(5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a >fixed price for fuel, >say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize >renewable energy and conservation . . . Good idea. Long overdue. Most of the other items Horace listed are Good Ideas. - Jed
