[Editor's note: Tad Patzek is the latest to weigh in on our Prop. 87 "oil tax" debate. See our previous discussion of Patzek's private meeting with Vinod Khosla several weeks ago.]
If we go along with Proposition 87 as it is formulated now, we will continue destroying the Earth ecosystems in real time to feed our greedy cars and lifestyles. We will trick ourselves into believing that we are saving California and the planet. This monumental waste of time and public money will not move California toward energy independence.
Proposition 87 is centered on several biofuel delusions that must be confronted and debunked. For starters, we really need to stop driving the gas-guzzling Chevy Tahoes and Hummers. We also need to understand that feeding monstrous SUVs with E85 or biodiesel is bad for the Earth.
Here I will illustrate just one of the many biofuel delusions. I call it the “Brazilian Syndrome”:
• “I went down to Brazil and I saw President Lula down there. I don’t know if you know this, but the vast majority of fuel to fuel the cars in Brazil is made from sugar.” (President Bush’s Advanced Technology Initiative presentation at 3M in Maplewood, Minnesota, February 2, 2006)
• “If Brazilians could do it, Californians can do it!” (Former President Clinton’s soundbite promoting Proposition 87)
• “The big success story in cellulosic (sic!) ethanol comes from Brazil, which will achieve energy self-sufficiency some time this year thanks to the 30-year investment in ethanol.” (Berkeley’s Forefront Fall 2006 issue quoting Professor Daniel Kammen on page 9)
The volume and depth of misinformation about biofuels and Brazil are staggering. Almost every candidate for a public office or governor has his/her fixation with Brazil. Is it the US version of the South Sea Bubble delusion in England? Here is just one more example: “…That country is now completely energy-independent by using sugarcane methanol (sic!) as a primary source of fuel” (Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, March 12, 2006).
So, we have been admonished from left and right to follow the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol success story and gain independence from the Middle East oil. It is commonly suggested that all cars in Brazil drive on ethanol. The truth is more complicated:
1. Since 2003, Brazilians have been producing more petroleum and natural gas than they consume. Yes, today, Brazilians are crude oil exporters. They are busy selling sugarcane ethanol to Sweden, Japan, US, and other countries.
2. The average ratio of total energy in anhydrous ethanol consumed in Brazil over the last 25 years to the energy in crude oil consumed there has been 8%.
3. Gasoline fuel use in Brazil is less than 1/2 of diesel fuel use there and sugarcane ethanol has added 40% to gasoline supply in Brazil.
4. When one accounts for the displacement of other crops, most notably soybeans, from the Cerrado to the Amazon region, and the resulting obscene forest destruction that emits greenhouse gases at a rate rivaling total US emissions, one wonders about the grotesque self-deception perpetuated as the Brazilian biofuel “success” story.
California ranks 1st in the US in gasoline consumption and 2nd in jet fuel consumption. In 2005, with 36 million people, California consumed about 4.1 exajoules (EJ*) of crude oil, 17% more than the 3.5 EJ consumed by Brazil with 185 million people. Brazil is a developing country, whose consumption of crude oil has been 10 times less than that in the US. All Brazilian ethanol would not suffice to drive passenger cars in LA. Therefore, to emulate Brazil, Californians should do the following:
1. For an equal per capita use of petroleum, we must cut down petroleum consumption by a factor of 6. This would mean driving all vehicles in California only one day per week.
2. All gasoline passenger cars and SUVs would have to be driven only one day per 16 days.
On the positive note, gaining total independence from the Middle East oil imports would require the US transportation sector to be 15% more efficient. Modest gains of fuel efficiency of 1-2 miles per gallon across the board would do the job. The permanent energy savings would be 40% higher than all crude oil consumed by Brazil, and would equal the fossil energy of all US corn grain.
(*1 EJ is the amount of calorific energy in food sufficient to feed and fatten 300 million people for 1 year.)
8 Comments
-
William Jolitz said:
This reminds of Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”, another perfect example of Malthusian thinking. Everyone was going to starve to death in the 70s/80s, and pregnant women were harrassed as “breeders”.
Fortunately, the last quarter of the 20th century has seen famine reduced greatly, due to technological innovation and international intervention.
California can’t make the federal government or the UN to do broader mandates. But we can push technology innovation here to do more with less.
I don’t see how this is antagonistic to your stated goal. Nor how to do your strategy with a California proposition.
Berkeley chancellor Birgeneau says his priorities include biomass energy conversion systems. I’d like to see California fund part of his efforts to reduce gasoline dependance.
-
Wes Hermann said:
While Tad is likely correct that (low emissions) biofuels can only account for a small fraction of our transportation energy demand, Prop. 87 will encourage a range of substitutes.
There are several companies taking advantage of recent advances in battery technology to make the electric car viable. In addition, Prop. 87 would promote vehicle efficiency, which is by far the largest low emissions “resource” available.
I didn’t find this commentary particularly convincing.
-
Tad Patzek said:
Bill,
I understand your impatience and frustration, so please let me clarify my arguments:
The politicians and functionaries of science cannot dangle biofuels in front of the scared and disoriented public that desperately wants a sense of normalcy and security. They are morally equivalent to con artists dangling a prospect a summer home or a one-million dollar award in front of a lonely retired person. It is not OK to lie about biofuels to achieve what one believes are progressive social goals.
Thomas Malthus died in 1834, in a world with 1 billion humans running on wood and some coal, and using horses for transportation. That world was already too energy-intensive to rely on biofuels alone and in another 25 years it started on the current crude oil drinking binge.
Somehow we have forgotten the practical utility of telling the truth to the public. Before we start developing the new miraculous energy technologies, we must remove the root causes for our insane energy use.
The quest for new energy resources cannot be posed in separation from the living earth systems that are becoming tired of protecting us. We spend the majority of fossil energy in our homes, on food, and while driving to work and shops. The development of energy-efficient, compact cities, intertwined with the local water, crop, animal and biofuel resources, and complete waste recycling, is the necessary condition to start shrinking our runaway energy consumption. Once we develop the thriving, local, low-energy community centers, time will come to reform medical care, and schooling, which will be tied to the communities they serve. Of all countries on the earth, the US is perhaps most removed from the walking-distance low-impact lifestyles, while consuming more energy than anyone else.
It is time to begin discussing the real causes of our excessive energy use, and not distract the public with the irrelevant expensive noise in the form of biofuels. This noise is heard in Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, etc., and the Earth is being exterminated in the name of our good intentions.
So, if Proposition 87 presented meaningful ways of saving substantial amounts of energy in California, instead of multiple new ways of driving the same old Chevy Tahoes on E85, I would vote for it with all my heart.
Tad Patzek
-
peter Starr said:
Tad, thanks for a breath of fresh air not tinged with auto exhaust of any kind. I was prepared to vote yes on 87 as I had no idea it would support the big corn and the ethanol boondoggle.
I’ve referenced and debated your important paper in Natural Resources on biofuel energy returns and am looking for more on sugar. Anything that calculates a true eroei?
-
Charlie Peters said:
Dr. Tad Patzek,
Good job.
The corn ethanol push in California saeems to result in more oil use.
More oil profit seems to me to match the corn ethanol progress.
Thank you for your efforts.
Charlie Peters (510)537-1796
-
David said:
The ethanol boondoggle is a pipedream for those who already enjoy immense wealth and can drive whatever they choose, live any way they want.
Another pipedream is to think drastic changes take place overnight. Somehow the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of the electorate or the wealthy, will determine the energy course for the prolonged future.
Oil, consumed in small and large cars alike, will continue to be the preferred fuel.
Thanks for your efforts
-
Joe Smith said:
REDUCE CONSUMPTION FIRST BEFORE ADDING NEW FUELS.
Start by passing a law in congress that mandates sane fuel efficiency standards (35 mpg) and include SUV’s and light truck in the passenger vehicle category. Tax engine displacements on a sliding scale. Singapore has/had a tax scheme along these lines. Encourage investments in local shops that people can walk to instead of Starbucks that people drive to. Put i a maglev train system in California and Nevada. Reduce the 50+ mass transit organizations in the Bay Area to one organization so it does not take 2 hours to travel from the Menlo Park Cal Train station to Cisco in San
Jose via Cal Train and light rail. Go to a train station in Holland. They give you a printed customized itinerary for trains and buses to get you anywhere in Holland with transfer points and times. They know how to move people around.
I have been in Europe for the past year. For every large SUV in California there is a Smart Car or mini. I get in a car once every 3 weeks. I do not take taxis or public transportation. I walk 2-3 hours a day. I can buy everything I need on foot. And guess what I lost 20 pounds with out trying. Just wait until we have a gas shortage worse than the 70’s. Then the SUV drivers may see the light when the country is brought to its knees. By then the Euro will be $2.80 and no one will be able to afford to see how fuel efficient Europe is. -
Charlie Peters said:
What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL
