It might be hard to administrate but, I sorta think we could do our fellow citizens a favor by paying them to ride bicycles whenever possible as well as take public transport. Basically attacking the problem from the other end.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

I think there should be tax incentives to encourage employees to work from home. The US Patent Office encourages telecommuting.

The new X Prize is focused on getting 100miles per gallon out of gas.

... proposed 2.5 cent per-gallon ethanol subsidy currently before the Tennessee General Assembly.

The "pilot" program would be targeted at nine East Tennessee counties. A Pilot Oil lobbyist is promoting the bill.

Aaarrrgggghhhh! Geez, between Knox and Blount Counties, the State of TN, and the US Federal Government, I am spending way to much time on public issues. What a ridiculous proposal.

I've pretty much decided that ethanol is the wrong path to pursue.

There is another disadvantage of the ethanol path. Corn products are used in so many other daily needs that there will be an inevitable rise in the cost of foods to compensate for growing ethanol demand.

Now, about my magic bullet, kudzu . . .

The Hill Online

I keep trying to figure out what's wrong with your proposal, Randy. There's got to be something wrong with it, I swear. Who could be against it?

I am not a farmer, but I grew up around them

From what I remember, the grain used for ethanol is not used as a rule for human consumpsion. I was told that kind of corn is mostly feed grains and such. And that lands to grow that kind of corn do not produce the corn that humans mostly eat.

So I am not too sure that ethanol will cut into the human food supply.

I could be wrong, but that was what I was told years ago.

No Matter Where you go, There you Are!!!!

I agree with you that ethanol does not appear to be the way to go, especially corn-based ethanol (apparently sugarcane-based ethanol production is much more effecient). However, I read something interesting about the hybrids as well (particularly the Prius). The article can be found at:

The Recorder
Or I blogged about it HERE

It mentions that making the batteries for the Prius does a significant amount of damage to the environment as well as using a lot of energy. Then the nickel/batteries are shipped from Canada->Europe->China->Japan->U.S. So a lot of energy is used there as well.

It is simply an interesting article that brings to light that even though the end consumer is using less oil/gasoline, more is used on the front end. Just something to think about when considering a hybrid.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

I live right next to a farmer and he tells me the cost of corn and cattle feed has gone crazy.

Corn products are used in so many other daily needs that there will be an inevitable rise in the cost of foods to compensate for growing ethanol demand.

Isn't feed corn also used in the production of corn syrup, which is a foodstock in about every prepared food known to man these days?

____________________________

"If people think nature is their friend, then they sure don't need an enemy." K. Vonnegut, 1922-2007

I go to these guys when I want solid info. Here's the Hybrid Center as a nother resource. And the Vanguard project. And the big one, the FAQ on Ethanol.

I'm shocked...shocked, that an American Marketing firm would publish a misleading report...Particularly one that specializes in research for American car manufacturers who are getting their asses handed to them by foreign hybrids.

S

If we could only make the cars as efficient as the wingnut talking point mills...

You say that offering a $1000 subsidy will encourage 3,300 people in Tennessee to buy hybrids. Actually, that subsidy would only fund 3,300 purchases. Whether it would encourage 3,300 people to actually buy the cars is another matter entirely. Using a calculator found at (link...), I compared a Toyota Prius with a similar Camry. If you follow through the calculator staying with all the default choices, it will tell you that you save just over a thousand dollars with the Prius over 7 years. This sounds wonderful until you look closer and find that in order to save that much, you have to be able to sell a 7 year old Prius with 105,000 miles on it for nearly $9000. Unfortunately, Kelly Blue Book gives a trade in value for this car as $7400 if it's in good condition. Using this number the advantage for the Prius becomes only $600. Now, to save that $600, you have to invest $6000, the difference between a Camry and a Prius. I'm willing to bet that I can achieve a higher rate of return on my $6000 than 10% over 7 years.

Suddenly that $1000 subsidy doesn't seem so enticing.

As for selling an additional 43,300 hybrids in Tennessee because of a $1000 subsidy, well, there were only 250,000 hybrids sold in the entire nation last year. It's hard to imagine any scenario that gets Tennesseans to buy 1/5th the national sales of any car, much less a hybrid.

For the final mathematical analysis, let's use your numbers. Your plan would save taxpayers $37 million dollars at the gas pumps, all for the low low price of $44 million in subsidies. (Although it would also cost them roughly $5,000 apiece at the auto lot, net with the subsidy. And you've already factored in the gas savings to offset the subsidies, so you can't use them again to defray the cost of the car.)

So the botom line would be that the tax payers would pay an additional $7 million in taxes, plus pay an extra $5000 for their car.

Yeah, I can't see why anybody would be against that plan...

What's amazing to me is that encouraging (or mandating) higher gas mileage is a partisan issue. After 9/11 how can anyone not think it's a good idea and that it's a better idea to buy Hummers instead?

Just like it's amazing to me that the failed, misguided, and probably illegal war and occupation in Iraq that has been widely recognized by military and foreign policy experts and even some Republican politicians as a complete and abject failure of foreign policy is a partisan issue (although it's mostly the GOP 30% dead enders and surge protectors still on board).

Just like global climate change is a partisan issue when virtually all experts, scientists, policy makers, and even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledge it exists and it's a looming catastrophe of Biblical proportions and that human activities contribute.

Just like it's amazing to me that 45 million Americans without health insurance is a partisan issue when nearly every health care worker, doctor, insurance company, public policy think tank and responsible politician agrees that it's a national crisis.

Just like it's amazing to me that poverty is a partisan issue.

Just like it's amazing to me that civil rights is a partisan issue.

And so on.

It would appear, though, that progressives and liberals and most Democrats are on the right side of the partisan divide on most issues. Republicans don't seem too concerned about justice or the health and welfare of our people or our planet. It would be helpul for them and everyone else to wise up and get on the right side of issues that matter.

This sounds wonderful until you look closer and find that in order to save that much, you have to be able to sell a 7 year old Prius with 105,000 miles on it

Camry w/2.4L engine = 24MPG city, 33MPG hiway

Camry Hybrid w/2.4L engine tandem with 105kW electric motor = 40MPG city, 38MPG hiway

So, for 105,000 miles...

Straight gas - 4375 gallons city (or) 3182 gallons hiway

Hybrid - 2625 city (or) 2763 hiway

Net gain: 1750 gallons (@$2.79/gal): $4882 (city)
419 gallons (@$2.79/gal): $1169 (hiway)

Ten people switch from the Camry gas to the Camry hybrid: 17,500 gallons saved city, 4,190 gallons saved highway.

100: 175,000 city, 41,900 highway.

Etc. Etc.

Now, let's start talking in aggregates...

How many gallons of gas saved per year leads to how many tons of carbon emissions reduced?

Oh, but wait... we have to stack the deck against reducing carbon emissions and pollutants because, well, we can't punish the people buying cars getting 18MPG or worse.

____________________________

"If people think nature is their friend, then they sure don't need an enemy." K. Vonnegut, 1922-2007

R.Neal said:

It would appear, though, that progressives and liberals and most Democrats are on the right side of the partisan divide on most issues. Republicans don't seem too concerned about justice or the health and welfare of our people or our planet. It would be helpul for them and everyone else to wise up and get on the right side of issues that matter.

Funny you should bring that up.

Pete McCloskey

Meanwhile, arguments about what the cars will run on dodge the more fundamental question of why we all need to drive so goddamn much.

From the Slate article posted:

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser.

Actually there are some issues here. Number one, the tractor should be converted to ethanol. Why the hell are we fertilizing fields with petroleum products? Did Dick Cheney think this one up? All of these areas can be addressed through increase efficiency and economies of scale. And corn is a lousy way to make ethanol. There are better crops to use.

While we are talking about the costs of oil, have we factored in the enormous amounts money we spend in the Middle East trying to keep the place from going up in massive wars that would prevent us from getting oil? Have we factored in the costs of subsidies we pay farmers not to grow anything so we can keep the cost of crops artificially inflated, instead of having them grow crops that could be used to manufacture ethanol and that could actually be sold? Are we figuring the costs of pollution caused by oil? This "from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining" does not include all of the costs of using oil.

In the long run I find ethanol, and even running cars completely off ethanol a great solution. We get off the Middle East tit, we can put more farmers to work. We can employ scientists to figure out more efficient methods to manufacture ethanol. We have a supply system in place that can also be used for ethanol, unlike hydrogen for which we have no supply system and the energy costs for manufacture are incredibly high. Pollution and its related costs start to go away. It cannot happen over night, but it can happen- unless Dick Cheney has anything to do with it!

What I'd like to know is where these people get their numbers on net energy loss for ethenol. How much ethenol is produced from one acre of corn? How much diesel is consumed by the farm equipment servicing that acre? How much diesel is consumed to transport the corn and then the ethenol between the field, processing plant and gas station? How much petroleum is used to make the fertilizer used on that field?

Until somebody shows me the math on this, I don't believe it. I suspect that one acre of soybeans could produce enough biodiesel to power the equipment need for dozens of acres of corn. I'd also be surprised if there weren't inexpensive non-petroleum based fertilizers available.

But it will require changes to cars, changes to the fuel distribution system, etc. that hybrids don't require.

The fuel distribution system in place can handle it fine. Most cars on the road now can be altered to run straight ethanol. I would rather run an all electric car, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Hybrids are great! Imagine your hybrid running cleaner ethanol! Imagine an electric car you can charge, gets passive energy like your hybrid with ethanol as a backup! Imagine solar cells on top of the car! I love hybrids. They do not exclude ethanol, however.

Why is it that hybrids are impressive getting 35 mpg when Honda Civics got 45 mpg thirty years ago? By all means, though, CAFE should go up, and it should include all the exurban assault vehicles that are being sold to the Going Mobile g-generation and that now get advantageous treatment because they nudge-nudge, wink-wink, must be intended for hauling something besides the narrow asses of my fellow yuppie suburbanites.

Liberty and justice for all.