Various news agencies reported on Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's statements at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, that the U.S. "will need to have more imports of ethanol," if it is to meet the new mandate to cut gasoline use.
Bodman also said that he did not see a 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy to U.S. farmers remaining in place beyond 2010 or import tariff on ethanol of 54 cents a gallon beyond 2008. These remarks were made in regard to Bush's proposal outlined in Tuesday's State of the Union address in which the president said that he aims to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017, mostly by replacing the fuel with ethanol, and by expected improvements in automobile fuel economy.
"The idea is that at some point in the future all these technologies need to stand the test of the free market," Bodman said.
Another report quoted Bodman as saying that the U.S. "must go beyond corn" to increase ethanol supplies. Corn could produce only 12 billion to 15 billion gallons of fuel a year, so the nation must develop ways to derive ethanol from plant waste.
Bodman admitted that technology currently doesn't exist to produce the needed ethanol quantities in a cost-effective manner. There is “an element of trust that U.S. companies can develop the technology to meet the target," Bodman said. He said he’s "cautiously optimistic this will happen," but that the U.S. "will need to have more imports of ethanol."
Bodman also defended Bush's drive to reduce oil consumption without higher gasoline taxes.
"The idea of taxing gasoline at an increased level, which is something that gets discussed from time to time, I view as a highly divisive matter," he said.
Bodman said nuclear power would have to play an important role in future U.S. energy planning. "I see no alternative other than nuclear power as an emissions-friendly source of electrical power," he said.
So the discussion goes on. Any way, my that we could not meet Bush's goals from domestic supplies is confirmed by another source. I think his implication of how much corn ethanol we will produce is high. Or at least his use of the word could should not be interpreted as will. Of course we could, but it would be at the expense of food supplies and high prices. Where the actual number will come in is pretty much up in the air now. I have always thought that the importation of ethanol from the Caribbean, Central America and South America would be a good idea, benefiting US needs and their economies. The use of butanol and coal to liquids to supplement ethanol was not brought up however.
The need for producing these quantities of renewable and alternative fuels should not be dismissed. For reasons of national security, energy independence, the risk of inflation and a severe economic downturn and for the economic benefit of our farmers we need to develop these supplies.
I support the reduction of subsidies and tariffs on ethanol so that a free trade on ethanol can be had and our domestic producers do not indulge in price gouging as would be possible with them. The market for ethanol must be maintained however and I support ever increasing requirements for alternative and renewable fuels as required to meet the production required to assure the goals outlined in the previous paragraph.
Their certainly are other alternatives to nuclear, but are they better? I happen to think clean coal with carbon capture is better.
No comments:
Post a Comment