So far the alcohol produced in the US is made from corn and the overall economics is marginal at best. But an effort by the government to push for more use of alcohol is a good idea as it will make new alcohol technologies feasible later on. I think the most promising technology will be the use of algal fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_fuel), which can produce both biodiesel and alcohol.

Electric cars are interesting but the electricity to charge the batteries must come from somewhere, and the somewhere will still be fossil fuels (chiefly coal) unless Americans rethink the use of nuclear energy. No matter how clean power plants are in terms of sulfur, nitrous oxides, soot and ash, they still emit carbon dioxide. Algal fuels get their carbon from the atmosphere and ultimately put it back when they are burned.

..

_smokey_ (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:38 pm . Algal fuels get their carbon from the atmosphere and ultimately put it back when they are burned.

There is a very sophisticated distinction to be made here.

- COAL and petroleum is "old-carbon" or "long-cycle carbon". This carbon has been in the ground for thousands of years since it was living plant matter.

- Algae, switch grass, fast growing woods, E85 , and other renewable carbonaceous fuels are "short-cycle" or "new-carbon" (to keep the same terms. This carbon circulates on a monthly or yearly cycle in the atmosphere.

- The Carbon Cycle can be as short as hours (trees taking in CO2 and returning O2 as a day/night cycle). the Carbon Cycle can be months or years as in the seasonal growth of leaves on deciduous trees.

- And the Carbon Cycle can be geologically long as coal, petroleum and natural gas. Carbonate rocks have an even longer lifetime for fixing carbon dioxide.

Now the sophisticated part of this distinction is that when you burn short-cycle carbon, you can grow something and remove carbon from the atmosphere by regrowing the plant. When you burn long-cycle carbon, you have can't remove it from the atmosphere by changing it back to coal or petroleum easily.

Therefore, in terms of absolute increases in the CO2 level, burning short-cycle carbon is different than long-cycle carbon in that it reuses the carbon already in the Carbon Cycle. This isn't a trivial distinction.

A second thought - converting cars to run on electricity changes the source of CO2 from petroleum to coal-fired power plants. That is a reduction of CO2 is you can do the mathematics. PLUS, technology exists to remove the CO2 and sequester it. If the power plant doesn't emit CO2, NOx, SOx, or particulates, we move ahead of the game, so to speak.

The final thought - changing the carbon emitters from thousands of point sources (cars, trucks, busses) down to one source (the power plant) makes removing or controlling the pollution easier. It is a matter of scale. One big point source is easier to deal with than thousands of small point sources.

Now the rational of the Brazil decision to use E85 should become clearer and the logic should begin to show itself.

Paolo wrote: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:08 pm Straight gas fell to $1.879/gallon here today.

But how much was the gay gas?;)

I do not blame the oil companies for not drilling more. I first hand have been involved with manufacture of a product the involved the EPA. They make life so miserible for you. It has to be so much easier for the oil companies to just import the product already made then have to deal with the EPA. I guess we are our own enemy.

Gasoline fell to a new low in Evansville Indiana the other day. $1.729/Gal

Not sure where this is headed as the Stock Market is still going down too!

Re: Ethanol...

It is a damned shame to have to burn in your car what you could be drinking...