Otherwise - there is one "single bullet" for US, namely a higher gas tax. The rest will happen naturaly.

1. Start a national campaign to get Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs into the hands of every household.
   
2. Set up an independent think tank for the best minds in energy to write scientific reports on different types of energy production without influence from government, industry or academia. The best minds in the world would flock to you!
   
3. Make sure that every drop of vegetable oil waste somehow makes it into biodiesel
   
4. Start a national "sustainability" movement that tries to put the US on the path to a sustainable lifestyle.
   
5. Go on CNBC, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Fox wherever and tell them that CORN ethanol is not scaleable and probably at best has a near neutral EROEI. Tell them a gas tax would be the best way for us to save fuel.

From the little I know about this Vinod Khosla person, I would be extremely cautious about interacting with him. I'm sure he didn't get to be where he is by being a reasonable nice guy who respects the other person's opinion.  I have met a few examples of his general type, and they can be exceedingly ruthless and manipulative. They do not like to lose.

If I understand correctly, he has some sort of actual or possible future financial interest in ethanol from corn. Correct?  If indeed that is the case, than why would he really want to talk to the likes of you, other than to probe behind enemy lines, gain more ammo for his own arguments, or the find some way of co-opting you into being for rather than against some ethanol scheme?

Anyway, it should be interesting.

Personally, I think the best way to leverage money now is to fund an impartial entity that acts as a clearinghouse for the world energy balance sheet, and fuses academic and private research into an umbrella model matching up energy assets and liabilities and mapping out strategies for the best options to transition from a world run on energy stocks to one run on energy flows.  Ethanol works pretty well in Brazil, but wind works better in the US. Solutions will need to be local based on the limiting factor locally.

This doesnt sound as sexy as 200 billion gallons of ethanol, but we cannot afford to waste our fossil bullets on large scale marginal net energy projects. We need to dramatically increase the % of our world energy that is produced from electricity, and develop policy initiatives that reduce dependency on personal automibiles.

Unless Mr Khosla understands the severity of the crisis ahead, he is more likely to choose the business as usual path. What is really needed is a new paradigm. The best advice I have for someone of his means is to start looking at investments from an energy perspective instead of a dollar perspective.  Expect energy across the board to be much more expensive in the future and invest only in things that have high energy returns.  Investing in ethanol follows the neo-classical model (and poorly at that).

Oh and lets not forget. Certain scaling options (like coal) may have good energy payoffs, but when environmental externalities are included, look quite unappealing.

We need some billionaires to understand that there ARE limits to growth and without their help, our grassroots effots may be too little too late.

As part of this, I have been looking at relative consumption and what impact biofuels can realistically have - lots in poor African countries where the average consumption is a fraction of a barrel per capita per year.  Virtually none in the US where we AVERAGE 28 boe/year per capita.

But that word AVERAGE is important.  You have an opportunity to get in personal contact with a member of the global elite.  Maybe one important starting point in on PERSONAL impact - a turning inward instead of outward.

I live on the approach path of Boeing Field in Seattle, and I watch Paul Allen's jets fly in and out all the time.  I think it is virtually universal that elites WANT to do good.

It is also universal that elites consume many, many times more than the average jane.  I would think that someone like Paul Allen consumes hundreds or thousands of barrels per day, with jets, boats, houses, etc.

If we can get an effort towards personal conservation among elites we can both change the mass ethos, and make a huge impact where it is easiest.  Maybe the question is not what can he do for the world, but what can he avoid doing for the world.

Ty in Seattle (where the blue Angels will soon convert immense quantities of jet fuel into noise during Seafair - wish I could be somewhere else for that)

We need to start building an emission-free or low emission super structure. A distributed DC grid with PHEV's is the sane way to go. The DC grid will be powered by wind, PV and solar-thermal (stirling engine) means. It can also be powered by geothermal (our great fission reactor at the core of the Earth).

It is a daunting task. But it is the right thing to do --even if it is not the most "profitable" thing to do.

You need to share with us what evidence you have that tends to prove said intentions. Words? No good. The mean nothing. In fact, less than nothing. Need to see physical, verifiable ACTIONS. Words and good intentions mean jack shit.

With all due respect, if you can't come up with some physical evidence of said intentions then I'm inclined to believe you're being suckered and are being suckered semi-willingly because it is flattering to have the ear of a billionaire.

Some physcial evidence please.

I propose the following:

The Party's Over by Heinberg

The Long Emergency by Kunstler (Got Richard Rainwater to see the light)

The Coming Economic Collpase (For a financial perspective0

1. Invest heavily in demand reductions to reduce electricty demand by 40% or 50%.  Entirely doable with current technology.

2. Tax petrol cars off the road.  Replace with say 10%PHEVS and 90%BEVS all with vehicle to grid capability.  The small amount of PHEVs required could perhaps be fuelled with ethanol or CTL.

3. Drastically increase subsidies/incentives for public transport.

4. Close every coal thermal plant.  Replace with integrated gasification combined cycle plants with gas turbines.  Massively increase the distributed grid and change to about 70% renewable (solar/wind/tidal/wave/biomass) with V2G transport supplying the necessary storage.  IGCC plants, classed as intermediate, can interact with renewable power vastly better than base load thermal coal plants.

Energy Independence and Public Transport by BruceMcF
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/24/181920/012

Two by the user cskendrick:

Toward a Post-Petroleum Economy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/6/195417/0756

Oblivion about Peak Oil = Oblivion
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/112418/292

Hope it helps.  

TOD is attracting attention. You, as the resident Ethanol expert are thus also.

Khosla profits from the status quo setup in the US re Ethanol and as such your rational and empirically grounded arguments are a threat to him, but the "great" man must not be seen to avoid his accusers for that gives them credibility in the eyes of others.

The advice to be given to Khosla, is I would suggest unchanged for thousands of years:

"Now you have become rich, sell all you have and give it to the poor, then go out into the world and seek enlightenment"

First off, I'm not convinced that higher taxes will solve the oil problems. Increased the tax at the pump is unpopular and political suicide in a democracy. Even if it could be done, without a more effective government, the revenues are likely to be squandered on subsidizing Hummers and the like.

But lets say taxes were raised and consumption drops - without offsetting efficiency gains, the resulting economic downturn would result in less consumption, but also less output. Taxes simply increase the drag on the process. Its like breaking a leg to save gas, it works, but its not the best solution. Also, remember oil companies are global - they don't have to be US companies. Choke thier profits and they can move to other countries (hell, the greedy bastards can buy countries). More realistically, they can simply buy more politicians and block efforts much like they are currently doing.

A better solution is to find more economic alternatives through R&D, incenting conservation (higher CAFE standards with less exceptions, stricter building codes, etc), and implementing quick-win strategies that address multiple issues.

One such strategy is to incent the entire desiel-based transportation industry to switch to biodesiel ASAP, picking up the tab (subsidizing) on infrastructure and conversion costs within the first 3 years, and replacing all farm subsidies with minimum payment guarantees that will cover a portion of losses. this will move unused land into production. Exempt farm-use biofuels from taxes and the first 50 million gallons of fueling from taxes. At the end of five years, a major portion of the infrastructure will be converted over and sustainable.

Step 1 is good government. Step 2 is good policy.
More to follow.

Ive not drawn up plans but the ide is pretty simple.

Water is drawn up through tubes via the use of large black sponge
evaporators basically
a artifical tree. If you need to recycle the moist air is reused to
heat the liquid nitrogen.

As the water moves through the tubes it passes through a water
aspirator drawing in air
that is compressed on the source side a partial vacum is formed.

Periodically the pressure is released and the air cycled through a
number of hirch vortex tubes resulting in partial liquidfication.

Cycle repeated.

I don't know the entergetics but even if its as low as 2% the design
is dirt cheap.

The compressed air/vacum can be used directly to power a generator
based I prefer the
plastic tesla turbines since agian they look cheap to make and could
use air bearings.

Cheap cheap cheap is the motto :)

Anyway thats the basic outline I just ordered my second hirch vortex
tube I could not figure out a easy way to get any real cooling with
out chaining  at least two together.

I can test with a electric water pump so I'll start experimenting when
I get home I'm traveling now.

The idea is pretty sound and will for sure work with running the
compressed air over the turbine. I'm confident that I can eventually
get the liquidification given enough time.
If I can even hit 5-10% efficiency the cheapness of construction
allows it to be viable.

I know its mainly plastic but there is no reason it could not be done
with bio plastics wood for many parts. Black cotton or sawdust can be
used for the evaporators.

In desert climates the moist air can be recycled by letting it move
through underground passages to condense and the liquid nitrogen  or
cool air can be used to dew water out of the air so in that case it
would work as a water collector if needed. Or it can be condensed by heat transfer to the source liquid moving to the evaportator to recover the heat.

Anyway if your interested or know and investor that's interested or
better a mechanical engineer or even someone with a good workshop let
me know.

I can send a lot more research later if you need it.

Now the design is based on water and liquid nitrogen but there are many small organic molecules that may be a better fit the since it works on a preassure differential the working fluids vapor pressure is important. Alcohols/Butane may also work. Except for using a simple generator that can be made of plexiglass or other reasonable plastics there are no moving parts. There are enough variables that I'm confident a functional system can be developed.

Technologies.

Vortex Tubes

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=523179

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

The evaporator is simply a large open or closed black mat of spongy material and the rest is plastic tubes and reservoirs. One pressure valve may be required.

The key is there is no reason the whole system can't be incredibly cheap made of plastic or  ceramic and wood even if needed. Charcoal or charred cotton can be used as the evaporator. The vortex tubes could be made out of porcelin.
Tubing could be clay concrete or recycled tubes from langfills. For the closed collector windshields windows or plastic sheeting could be used. Considering cost per kilowatt not necessarily the size this could be very economical. I't could take say one acre of land to produce power for a home but the material cost would be a few thousand dollars.

Michael Emmel
mike.emmel@gmail.com

Looking at the cash-flows of businesses and the government in the US of A, if you want an assured profit, become a protected business.

Energy companies that are already established have local government granted monopolies and are able to use lobbyists to keep that monopoly, at the expense of the users. Mr. Khosla sees a market that WILL have a protected status and wants in on the ground floor.

Figure out a market he can own that the government will protect and he'll be all over it.

If he wants fast money, ethanol is the way to go, the government covers his risks and the taxpayers fork over for the delusion. Low risk too: whatever party wins the next election, they have all embraced it.
If he has enough mullah, and wants the right thing, however, not the same picture:

• Ethanol is ridiculous; apart from the EROEI, the world will need its soil, and will need to cold-turkey that soil off of its chemical addiction, which takes a few years. Unless someone wishes to suggest organic ethanol, growing corn (or cane, or anything at all) for fuel equals murder. Without chemicals, this continent stands to lose 70% or more of its food production (Pimentel has higher numbers). Regenerating soil is the best, and likely only, bet we have. Soil trumps oil.

• Anything meant to power automobiles is out. Peak oil equals peak automobile equals peak American dream etc. Moonshine all you want, what road-surface will you drive on? How far?

• Anything meant to keep the electricity grid going is out. The entire behemoth grid will go down and not return. Peak oil equals peak electricity equals peak media etc. Oil built these infrastructures, roads, grids, all of it, and lots of oil is needed to maintain it.

Our energy sources will have to be next to where we live, where everything else will be.

So suggest: micro-generation, for power and drinking water. Not ideal for making the next billion perhaps, but it might keep him alive.

If you want to scare him, mention die-off and suggest he go into funeral services. Growth industry. Opportunities.

Maybe that billionaire can lobby Congress to copy the Japanese laws allowing 660cc Kei cars on our roads

Looking at your previous Vinod post this week, I found two of your points to VK closely reflect what I've been thinking as a response..

7) Investments into conservation are the best use of our alternative energy dollar.

  --Hardly news, but that of course masks the extreme benefits of simply 'cutting back'.  Not too sexy for an investor, tho, unless you 'productize' it.

8) Solar is the key to sustainable energy, not ethanol. The efficiency of solar is an order of magnitude (or two) higher than the solar efficiency for ethanol.

 --I probably bang this drum regularly, but I think the best direction of Solar that I would like to see instigated, and it should be profitable, in as much as it would trigger a great deal of construction/installation work, is introducing affordable products to use as much of our Domestic Roof space as possible collecting heat and electricity, Heat being the primary, AND a cheaper investment, with the quickest return on that investment.  

..I don't hear 'fungible' around here as much as I used to, but it seems that the degree to which we can let Solar Heat preclude the burning of Oil, Gases and Wood for home heating releases those more portable energy sources back towards transportation, while working to reduce our overall demand.

As far as Vinod is concerned, my approach would be to plant that argument with him that most effectively spears Ethanol's achille's heel(s), and making sure it's presented as a point that is also easily made very publicly, in terms everyone will understand.  Of course, this would include anticipating and challenging the point(s) he considers to be the most supportive of ethanol.  In particular, I would be looking for the areas where his advocacy is most based on 'exuberance without evidence', and make sure that magic carpet can be respectfully, but unapologetically unraveled.  If you see this winding up as 'Let's agree to just disagree', do you have a parting shot ready that really encapsulates Ethanol's problems?  Like the elevator speech, only in 11 words?

  I look forward to hearing how it goes.

Bob Fiske

1) Battery technology that makes the gas optional plug-in hybrid electric vehicle competitive on the show room floor with the conventional car.

Such cars enable the use of considerably more efficient energy conversion processes, feedstock to electricity and electricity to motion, with cogeneration and CO2 capture possible at central electricity generation sites. Reduces multiple problems due to energy consumption in its present form.

http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

Where to go from here?
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2004/11/where-to-go-from-here.html  
Nothing will be enough if you keep wasting it
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/07/nothing-will-be-enough-if-you-keep_18.html

2) Green building system technologies and design that builders can't afford not to use

Conventional building systems use a tremendous amount of energy. Day in and day out, likely for their lifetime because of the cost and difficulty of retrofitting.

http://www.usgbc.org/
http://epa.gov/greenbuilding/index.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

3) LED light technology with good color temperature and balance that leapfrogs fluorescent and is competitive with incadescent on the store shelf

I'm not proposing what you may be thinking offhand. I propose that we take the existing automotive infrastructure and alter it slightly. The current trajectory is heading towards fossil fuel and/or bio fuel electric hybrid vehicles. These may be gas/electric, ethanol/electric, bio diesel/electric (my fav.), or fuel cell, which is little more than a fancy hybrid from a fuel standpoint. If we were to take these vehicles, and add a few more parts, we could easily add the ability to run directly off the grid. We already do this for subway trains, light rail/trolleys, and electric busses (ala San Francisco). The tricky and expensive part is retrofitting the existing roadways to provide power in a simple, safe, and idiot-proof way (trust me, there's idiots out there). There are several ways this could be accomplished using existing tech, or we could come up with a fancy new technology such as conduction coils buried in the roadbed. If we went with a "simple" road retrofit plan, then I would think that the fast lane on multilane freeways (or the commuter lane if you have those) would be the obvious choice for electrification. Note that you don't have to retrofit everything, you just need enough roadbed retrofitted so that the vehicle is powered, and the batteries are recharged enough so that you can make it to your front door from the off ramp. Areas with large amounts of city traffic would want to electrify portions of the city streets. Perhaps a couple car lengths in front of intersections would be enough.

Some advantages:
People get to stay in their own vehicles rather than be forced to ride public transit. Very few people enjoy public transit. Many people love their cars.
People rarely have to fill up their tank due to continuous recharging. Battery packs, and the associated weight can be greatly reduced. At some point in the future when enough roadway is retrofitted, people will be able to drive vehicles without substantial energy storage at all. These cars could continue to have regenerative braking by feeding the power back into the system.
There is little to no pollution, at least on the roadway.
Provided that the method of transmission from roadway to car is efficient, there may be an overall efficiency improvement in the system when compared to onboard power generation.
The vehicle "burns" any form of energy fed into the grid. This can range from the green to the ungreen. Is nuclear green this week, or was that last week?
The system provides an excellent opportunity for highway automation. There's little reason why you couldn't press the button labeled "work" on your dashboard in the morning as you get on the freeway, and let your car take you there automatically. The lane next to the electrified fast lane would become the "automerge lane". Cars could be packed together tightly at high speed. This has already been prototyped by several groups, and there are few hurdles (but a whole lotta safety testing) to make it a reality.
Existing "vintage" cars such as the Hummer can continue to be driven on the same roads, though the fuel will likely be expensive. There may be some opportunity to retrofit older cars for road power as well. I doubt many of the true classic car owners will want to yank their big block V8's.
The car manufacturers would not fight the transition, though big oil might. They shouldn't worry though because chances are someone is still going to be burning something somewhere to generate the electricity for the grid. What this replaces is the distribution network which is not a big profit center for the oil companies.

Now here comes the leap of faith jump: if we can figure out how to make the automation completely safe in a congested urban setting as well as in rural areas, there would be other huge advantages as well. For instance, you don't need to own a car, you can just have one waiting for you "near" your front door in the morning. If you own a car, but don't have a place to park it near you, it can park itself elsewhere. At the point where the system becomes safe, you can also turn it into an automated delivery system. You don't need huge semi-trucks on the road for most distribution when small "just in time" deliveries show up at your door (or loading dock). You've just replaced most rail and subway, so honestly you can just recycle their infrastructure into conduits for personal transport. People could get into their cars in Connecticut, and step out of them in a midtown Manhattan (former) subway station. Their cars will go find a place to park on their own.

On that note, I think that the best way to make the system idiot proof is to isolate the automated vehicles fully from anything unpredictable such as foot traffic, older cars, livestock, deer, etc. Using underground or elevated roadbeds similar to what subway trains use makes a lot of sense in both urban, suburban, and even many rural areas. Concrete is going to be relatively cheap and abundant for a very, very long time. Asphalt (tarmac) is not. Perhaps we could plan the system around a monorail for most automated portions. Monorails make efficient use of resources, they're relatively cheap to build, they provide an off the shelf opportunity for "old fashioned" physical electrical connections rather than potentially lossy conduction, and face it, they're just plain cool. There would be little difficulty (other than financial) to add raised automated transit lines to areas currently served by busses, light rail, trains etc. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there would be no red lights when under automation. What is a few months of your life given back to you worth?

Now back to reality. This is a solution that would require an absolutely massive commitment of public funds. With a bankrupt federal government, there isn't a ready source of funds there. It is a solution that will strike some as socialist, though that is just a knee-jerk reaction. The private sector would make tons of money on what would be the largest infrastructure project since the interstate highway project. It's an idea that smells of utopian ideology, and would have loud detractors from day one. In short, it is an idea that has little chance of moving forward. It's too bad that we're too nearsighted to think big because I'm afraid that the real future of transportation is going to look like India or worse, Mad Max.

Ethanol from corn does not work as a long-term solution mostly because of the fossil fuels currently needed for fertilizing, planting, harvesting, distilling, and transporting in tanks. Oil and natural gas are scarce, costly, and environmentally unfriendly to use. And corn to ethanol converts what are already perfectly good fuels to another type of good fuel, without much net energy gain.

If the EROEI were good, we'd actually be OK with this process. But there is one other circumstance that might work out. A low EROEI, or even a negative EROEI might be acceptable if we are converting a less-desirable energy form to a premium energy form like ethanol.

If we succeed with cellulosic ethanol, then we can convert less energy-intensive biomass feedstock to ethanol. If we were to use biomass, geothermal, concentrated solar, hydro-, wind-, or nuclear electricity to run the distillation process, then we don't use fossil fuels as input, and we're carbon neutral.

If we use coal or lignite to fuel the process, we're really bad on the C02 side, but we are converting energy from a solid form to a liquid that's far easier to use for transport. You could compare the environmental damage to a Fischer-Tropp process, and see which is worse. And we could run the tanker trucks or trains on ethanol as well.

There are obviously scalability questions with this. As always, the non-sustainable solutions are a lot easier to scale and run than the sustainable options. But that doesn't make it impossible, just more difficult. And we're going to have to get used to doing things in more difficult ways.

I see Khosla as an ally in trying to move away from the fossil fuel problem. Find the common ground, and work from there.

But don't unfairly tax those that need it the most.

I stole the following from a web site....

While well-intentioned advocates of a gasoline tax tout the way it will shift demand away from gas-guzzling SUV's and toward hybrid cars and public transit, they fail to recognize how it will devastate large groups of lower-income commuters.

Many of the rural poor already spend a large percentage of their income on commuting to and from work. If a sizable gasoline tax were to be enacted, without the public transportation infrastructure already in place, many of these lower-wage earners would be left to choose between gas for commuting to work, or food on the table. If they choose to immediately feed their families, they could be left without sufficient funds for gas, in which case they could lose their jobs due to their inability to get to work. It's a "catch-22."

Many people say, "Regressive taxes are tough. Deal with it." That is easy enough to say when you aren't worried about when your next meal is coming from. That is easy enough to say when you can afford the $20,000 price tag that goes along with a new Toyota Prius or Honda Insight. That is easy enough to say when you live in an urban environment when you already have access to public transportation. But when you're not lucky enough to have these advantages, a regressive gasoline tax can be devastating to your ability to simply survive.

Plainly put, regressive taxes (such as gasoline taxes) are unfair, and they are wrong. Instead of looking to regulate fuel consumption through regressive taxation, maybe we should look at placing additional sales taxes on vehicles with low fuel efficiency, while eliminating sales tax from high-efficiency vehicles. The Rocky Mountain Institute (a market-based think tank) advocates placing a sliding sales tax on automobiles in this manner, with SUV's like the Ford Excursion and GM Suburban taxed at a rate of say, 10-12%. High-efficiency vehicles like the Prius and Insight could have a 0% sales tax. Funds raised from an "efficiency tax" could be used to fund public transportation projects. Of course, Congress raising and enforcing higher CAFÉ standards wouldn't hurt, either.

The real answer to our problems lies in creating and enforcing a progressive tax system based on fairness and establishing equality of opportunity. Regressive taxation only places more of a strain on the people who need the most help from the very social programs their taxes are funding. This isn't right, and it must be stopped.

My first suggestion is he take a course in soil sciences so he would understand something about nitrogen, carbon, potassium, phosphorous, micronutrients, soil fungi and other cycles in nature. Then maybe he wouldn't be so gung-ho to mine the soils barren. Whenever I see the words "marginal lands" or "farm wastes" or the like, I just shake my head and think "this person is an urban-born, urban-bred, urban-educated person who hasn't a clue what makes nature sustainable". And I see many well-educated posters here of the same ilk.

After all, in the US today, we consume 104 EJ of energy in the form of fossil fuels (with a part being nuclear and hydro). Total photosynthetic energy capture ("primary productivity") of the entire country is estimated at 70-90 EJ. A quarter is already under human control in the form of agriculture. To imagine biofuels of any kind can provide more than a small slice of our current total consumption is an exercise in wishful thinking. The irony is, with high US natural gas prices, we are trading, with this scheme, our import dependency on Middle East oil with import dependency on Middle East fertilizers.

The paradigmatic problem is one of sustainability. Those who believe that exponential economic growth can continue unabated simply by switching from the mining of millions of years of stored solar energy to current solar income obviously don't understand natural accounting. Khosla's proposal is in that vein. If there were dollar signs attached to the natural accounting, perhaps then he would understand.

Perhaps he can be an influential voice, but he needs to be much better educated than he is today.

Get rid of cars.

Done.

Gee. So easy, yet so hard for some to follow. Let me repeat.

SOLUTION --

Get rid of cars.

Done.

Wow. I feel better already.

But, I suspect that the "save the automobile" crowd will ignore the only real solution to the problem.

Ho hum. Bring on the dieoff. Maybe its the lack of young brains that makes the introduction of new paradigms so difficult here. Takes so long to make those neural connections.

Bloom. Dieoff. Repeat.

Long haul there is no reason you can be on the grid going down major roads and only drop to battery power for local areas.

The only thing really missing is a fast charging high density storage that could be expensive but this is doable with new capacitor technology or even better batteries that charge faster.

The  distributed capacitance factor is in my opinion critical for making the electric grid into a more generic energy source. It needs to be reasonably efficient at each conversion since there can be two or three. Assume its 60% efficient and you still get for two conversions overall 36% efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Pumped storage is well over 60% more like 70-85% batteries and capacitors are up there also so you need one more cheap distributed storage and thermodynamic conversion is technically 60% but 30% or better is fine. A fuel cell may also work but why the expense ?

Shoot for vapor condensation you can add gravity also and do a gravity conversion plus a liquid to vapor.

Its a thermodynamic problem at the heart and no we can get the energy density of gasoline but that's not its only strength its also the fact its distributed. By adding grid power for major arteries and using distributed power battery or other only when your on side streets you get a pretty good proximity to what we get out of gasoline.

Think of it this way gas is good for getting me to the major road for my commute but once I hit the road/rail etc I'm happy to go back on the grid till I get to my destination.
The next problem is how far is the destination from the grid. If its too far then it may make sense to take my personal transport with me to use off grid at my destination or if I want to pay for the privileged fine.

I think were way to focused on the abusing gasoline when grid power would work just for the fact that it give you freedom at each end where a grid solution may not always be the best.

No easy solutions. Lots of hard work and ideas are needed. But with support and telling folks what the options are, the truth could help push people faster than not telling them anything.

The United States are not the only ones in this boat. We have been world leaders before let us step up and lead again, making the hard choices and gettting the actions done.

Making cities where the car is only needed for family vactions if even that, would be an improvment.

I write fiction and poems, energy is not my forte, but others here can fill the edges in, on this big puzzle of ours.  

I would point to Switzerland during WW II, where they endured a six year complete oil embargo with ~10 months of oil in storage.  Each year they used less, but they functioned (and kept their military trained till 1944).

In the 1920s Switzerland made the strategic decision to electrify their railroads and preserve their electric trams in the cities and towns.  With their hydroelectric power, bicycles and shoe leather they "got by" fro 6 years.  Oil for military, police, medical and what was left over, a minimal amount, for farming.

In 1998, Switzerland made another strategic decision.  A national plebiscite voted to spend 31 billion Swiss frances (adjusted for population & currency = to $1 trillion for US) over 20 years to improve their already excellent railroads.  There were several goals but the largest one was to get heavy trucks off Swiss roads and onto (hydro) electric rail.

This will have massive energy efficiency gains (20+ to 1), environmental and economic benfits to Switzerland.

Instead of Brazil, let us emulate Switzerland (and Russia as well).

More details at:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

We can reduce US oil consumption by 10% in ten to twelve years (more later) IN ADDITION TO EVER OTHER PLAN !

If cellulose ethanol can be made to work, fine.  This plan will save an extra 10% on top of that.

Short/Mid term strategy: Reduce Power consumption with Mass Transit (light rail, bus, tube, whatever applies best); biking whenever practical.

Long Term strategy: hard to tell, but I like
Folke Gunther's Ruralization a lot.

Be careful with that man though. It seems to me that he's lying consciously in order to put his business through. He might just use that talk in order to "have an insight on Big Oil alternatives".

Good luck.

3. Follow the ten rules in Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Surprisingly, they work well. I've yet to find anything else nearly as effective.
   
4. Use the GENTLE form of the Socratic method. In other words, make no assertions whatsoever. Instead, ask "innocent" questions, just as Socrates did, but be careful. Socrates was often cruel and humiliated the idiots he had dialogues with. Win, lose, or draw, you want to be in a position to be invited for a rematch.
   
5. Whatever he is drinking, you drink. He orders tea, you order tea. He orders a single-malt Scotch, you order one also, but a different brand, just to show you are not trying to be a toad eater.
   
6. If you eat together, eat super duper ultra slow. I often use chopsticks in this situation, just because one of my worst habits is to eat too fast and too much in social situations.
   
7. Before you say "good night," be sure to say how much you enjoyed the meeting and how you would like to make this the first in a series.
   
8. Raise no unnecessarily controversial topic. If he mentions the Mideast, just mutter, "Terrible, terrible, it's terrible over there," and sigh. If he says it is hot outside, agree with him.

(And for heavens sake, say nothing bad about Pacific Ethanol. He knows way more bad things about that company than any of us do. If possible, say something nice--e.g., maybe they contribute to charity or sponser a softball team. Who knows? (Doing your homework in advance in this regard can have an enormous ROI.))

The promise, and challenge of the Plug Hybrid Electric

Let us now connect the importance of this to transportation, and to the
automobile in
particular. The electric car has a very long history. Sadly for those who have
believed in
the promise, it has not lived up to expectations to this point. And the
weakness has been
the same one that creates the limitations discussed above on the electric power
grid:
Electric power storage. In the birthing days of the automobile, around 1900,
electric cars
had many advantages. They did not require hand cranking as did gas cars. They
were
clean and quite as gas cars in those days were not. They started almost
instantly as steam
cars did not. And they could be powered up at any home with electricity. The
last item
was only an advantage in towns with operating electricity. Combined with the
biggest
single limitation, that being limited range on a charge of batteries, the
electric car was,
from the start a "city" and not a long range car. But in the early 1900's, this
was not a
problem, as even small towns had rail service. in those days, the "Interstate
Highway" was
in the heads of only a few visionaries, and was regarded by most as the stuff of
science
fiction. After the introduction of the electric starter, and reasonably easy
access to
gasoline for refills, the development efforts began to favor the gasoline car.
And when
Henry Ford put the advantages of standardized construction and assembly behind
the
gasoline car, thus reducing costs, it essentially sealed the fate of the
electric car as a
marginal player. Except for some short range delivery vehicles, golf carts, and
novelty
cars owned by supporters of the electric car cause, the world left the electric
car behind
for about 50 years.
It would not come back into the automotive spotlight until the energy crisis
year of 1973,
and the California environmental movement began pushing for a way out, and
seeking
cleaner options than gasoline.

When they returned to take a look at the possibilities of the electric car, and
the challenges
involved in it's use, they came upon exactly the same barrier that had already
been known
for over 60 years: THE BATTERY.

And the truth is, there had simply been no battery development to speak of for a
half
century. Lead Acid batteries, at that time just about the only choice, were
still king. They
were cheap and easy to build compared to anything else. It was a mature
industry, with
no breakthroughs needed or sought for many years. On the down side, in a car
they
limited range to far below what the modern "interstate" driver considered
useful. The
batteries were heavy, so the car was slow, and much space had to be provided for
the
number needed to have any useful range at all. And worse, they wore out. They
could
only be charged and discharged a given amount of times, before they would stop
holding
a charge, and had to be changed, at considerable expense. But the promise of
the electric
car was there. It offered the opportunity to take advantage of that wonderful
electric
power grid, which was humming away day and night, delivering power right to the
owners
home. It must be doable, with a little work. Now, where to start? Of course,
at the
battery!

For most of us, our memories can begin to take over here. In the science, auto
and tech
magazines, we have followed at a distance what has the seemingly never ending
struggle
to produce the super battery. It would be cheap. It would hold enough power to
give
gasoline style range. It would deliver the power quickly on demand to give the
wanted
acceleration. It would be small enough to allow for luggage and passenger
space. It
would take thousands of recharges so as to last about as long as the car itself.
And it would be lightweight, making the electric car the vehicle of choice. In
the sentences
immediately above, I have laid down the challenges, the parameters faced by
battery
designers and technicians. With the burst of research and development
throughout the
1970's, every conceivable material in every conceivable arrangement was tried.
Nickel
Cadmium, Nickel Iron, Aluminum Air, Nickel Air, Lithium Ion, Polymer Ion, on and
on...and
in every conceivable shape and arrangement, cylinders, sheets, and radial
sheets, layered
together in different arrangements. And at the end of the 1970's, some progress
had
been made, but not nearly enough. If a battery excelled in one area, it was
weak in others.
If the range was there, it was too expensive, if the expense was low, it lacked
range, if the
range and the expense were pretty good, it would not take the needed recharges,
and
then there were tempeture considerations; some could not take heat well, while
others
needed heat to work well. And one wall was always hard to overcome: COST.
Nobody
could do it all well at a cheap price. By the end of the 1970's, only three
major contenders
began to emerge:
http://www.rqriley.com/images-spech/img006.jpg
http://www.rqriley.com/images-spech/img007.jpg
Nickel Cadmium, or NiCad, Nickel Metal Hydride, and Lithium, either polymer or
Ion.
These cost more than lead acid batteries. But, they promised the cycle life of
recharges
and the power density needed to increase range, and last for almost the life of
the vehicle,
but, and this is important to our discussion, WITHIN LIMITS. Those limits, in
how deeply
the battery could be discharged and recharged without shortening the life of the
battery,
will come back to haunt us momentarily.

So with this in mind, another idea began to emerge: Hybrid electric. If the
battery could
do everything else well except hold enough energy to give long range, then
combine the
gas and the electric car, and use the gasoline for the range, and the electric
for the other
advantages. This is not a "new" idea. Ferdinand Porsche built an electric
drive car, using
gasoline to run a generator driving electric motors in the wheel hubs very early
in the
century. And GM and GE built railroad locomotives using Diesel engines driving
a
generator to power motors at the axles of trains. It is still used to this day
with computer
control. What was new was the idea of adding batteries for electric storage, so
that the
gas engine could be shut down if need be, or could be used only to recharge
batteries, OR
be used in combination to drive the car, charge batteries, and still be shut
down when
needed.

It is a complex dance for a drive train to perform. But even before computer
controls were
available, it was doable. In the links below, you will see described one of the
most
inventive and pioneering cars ever built.

http://econogics.com/ev/bspamph4.jpg

http://econogics.com/ev/bshybrid.jpg

http://econogics.com/ev/bspamph6.jpg

http://econogics.com/ev/bspamph5.jpg

This was the gas/electric hybrid of Briggs and Stratton Corp., in conjunction
with the
Canadian maker of short range electric delivery trucks, Marathon Corp built in
1980. The
car was never put into production. Data concerning the performance is sparse.
Reports at
the time said that it would do "highway" speeds, and would achieve over 80 miles
per
gallon. Notice, that since range was handled by the gasoline engine, the
batteries were
the old cheap standby, lead acid. There is one other point to mention. The car
was
conceived from day one as a "grid supported" or plug in hybrid. It never
occurred to the
original pioneers not to take advantage of the ability to plug the car in
overnight! This
surely helped on the fuel mileage side, since the first low speed miles around
town were
using the electric power already in the batteries. In fact, the batteries could
provide for
almost all low speed commuting for at least an hour or more a day, if the speeds
were not
high, and we know that this is the way most cars are used each day. It was a
plug hybrid
by it's very design, with all the advantages of that layout. But, and this is
very important,
one question remained unanswered, since the car was never developed and tested
for full
"life cycle" of the vehicle. If used this way, how much would the constant deep
discharge
and recharge shorten the battery life of the lead acid batteries, which are
limited in their
ability to take the cycles?
No long term testing of any hybrid system was actually done that I am aware of
after
1980.
The Reagan administration took a dim view of the electric car research programs,
and as
gasoline prices collapsed, and the SUV craze took hold, small, efficient cars
became passé'
For twenty years, fuel consumption became a non issue. Prosperity was the game,
and
conspicuous consumption was everywhere. No one asked where the fuel was coming
from
or how much it cost. We simply assumed that the concerns over fuel consumption,
environmentalism, and balance of trade with the oil producing nations had been
resolved.
It was yesterday's problem.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, when a group of Saudi Arabians, at the command of the
Saudi
Arabian Osama Bin Laden, struck the blow. It can be argued, (and I would argue
it, but not
in this post) that the attack on 9/11/01 was the opening shot in the oil wars.
Prices had
already began to climb, after being so absurdly cheap in the 1990's that oil
producing
nations in the Mideast were begging for mercy. It was a factor in causing Sadam
to invade
Kuwait. He was going bankrupt, after the damage done to Iraq in the Iraq/Iran
war, and
felt the Kuwaiti's and Saudi's, with no war damage and small home populations,
were
bleeding him to death by selling oil so cheap. Through the 1990's, oil was
giveaway
priced.
But after 9/11, oil slumped on the expectation of a recession of great
consequence.
When the recession was not as bad as expected, and accepting the suggestion by
G.W.
Bush to "go about your business, go shopping, travel....", consumption of fuel
climbed
back to it's old levels, and then kept on climbing. Meanwhile, non-OPEC oil
production
was declining. British North Sea, Indonesia, American, including Alaska, our
ace in the ice,
were speeding up in their decline. And China, Eastern Europe, and India were
all
increasing consumption. By the end of the first Bush term, prices for oil were
climbing
rapidly, and after the election, they have only speeded up in their climb. For
the first time,
many Americans began to hear

of something long ago predicted, and discussed only in geological and oil and
gas
journals until then: DEPLETION. At some point, it was argued, that rising
consumption
would outrun the ability of the oil to be extracted from the ground, and prices
would
continue to rise, in fact, the rise would speed up. Dick Chaney, now Vice
President of the
United States, had said in his years at Haliburton that we would need "a new
North Sea
sized find every decade" to stay up with demand. The remark was at an oil
conference in
Europe, so was not widely repeated in the U.S. The energy advisor to Chaney
and Bush
from the outside was Matthew Simmons, among others, and Simmons began to sound
more alarmist. In the two years prior, his speeches had simply insisted that
the United
States needed massive investment in oil infrastructure to stay ahead of
consumption,
giving the number as over a trillion dollars in "the next decade". He said this
in 2001. By
four years later, Simmons began saying anywhere to anyone who would listen: The
world
was near peak, IF we had not already past it. And, natural gas, long considered
the ace in
the hole of American "clean" energy production, was near peak as well. People
began to
do web searches on Peak Oil. The name of that great giant of petroleum geology
and
forecasting, M. King Hubbard returned to the press, and his disciples, Ken
Defeyes and the
big name, Colin Campbell, who had been shouting from the wilderness for years,
were
suddenly in major newspapers. And the price of oil kept climbing, knocking down
price
barriers in a mater of, at first, months, then, weeks, 40 dollars a barrel, then
50, then 60...

And the Japanese were ready. Having embarked on a program of "Hybrid Electric"
cars,
Honda and Toyota begin to relive their old status as the technology standard
bearers, and
were suddenly back in the same great place they had been in the 1970's, when
there had
been waiting lists for the fuel efficient Civic and Carolla. Now, there were
waiting lists for
Honda Civic Hybrids, Honda Insights, and Toyota Prius hybrids. The development
of the
electric idea, combined with gasoline for range, long ago abandoned for all
practical
purposes in the U.S., had been going on apace in Japan.
Chrysler had built an experimental sports/race car using combination flywheel,
gas
turbine engine, running on Compressed Natural Gas, (CNG) but they had bitten
off more
than they could chew, it was too much technology to manage at once.
http://www.rqriley.com/images-spech/img010.jpg

They abandoned it as junk only a couple of years later. General Motors, in an
attempt to
answer the environmental crowd, had built the GM EV-1, one of the most well
conceived
full electric cars in the modern history of the industry. Dr. Paul McCready had
used all the
tricks of the trade to raise the range, performance and comfort levels of a full
electric car
to almost gasoline car standards, with all the advantages of using that great
American
power grid.
http://ev1-club.power.net/evpics.htm

It was a wonderful car, even if they are all in the crushed and scrap heaps.
The issue was
cost and timing. GM could not make money on them, and with gas still not at
high prices,
they were met with a yawn. The EV-1 will go down in history, like the Briggs
and Stratton
attempt, as one of the great bits of "bad luck" in auto history. They were the
right
development, but for the wrong time.

Toyota and Honda, however, had gotten the timing just right. (aside: are they
that lucky,
or do they just use patience and stay with their program, until the games come
to them?
An interesting study in management and technical leadership)

But fuel prices were still climbing, and the concern about "Peak Oil and
Depletion" was
beginning to gain strength. Even oil companies were admitting there were
"replacement
issues" concerning "mature fields". Chevron created a discussion board and
advertising
with along with the http://www.willyoujoinus.com web site, one of the most
fascinating
sites ever by a major oil company on the web. Exxon Mobil in the annual
outlook on
petroleum, quietly showed charts showing that oil, 20 years from now would be a
smaller
percent of total world energy consumption as a percentage of total use than it
is today.
What would take it's place? Renewables, natural gas, nuclear? The chart was
shocking if
you read between the lines, because the replacement fuel was coal. There was no
way to
believe that acceptance of coal over crude oil, with coals carbon/acid
rain/greenhouse gas
issues, would be a voluntary choice. Exxon, with the best technicians in the
world, and
access to the best data, seemed to be telling us, in their beauracratic way,
that the oil
simply would not be there in enough quantity to play as large a role as it does
today.

Suddenly the press began to tell stories of "The Plug Hybrid Prius". A web
site was set
up: http://www.calcars.org
The press went crazy. The numbers were insanely high: 150, 200, and in the
last report
250 miles per gallon! Was it just hyperbole, or was it actually possible?

Much had happened since the 1980 attempt by Briggs and Stratton. A ready made
car was
there to begin the attempt. The Prius is a daring work of art and technology,
and may go
into history as one of those great breakthrough cars in the history of the
industry. With
the modern computers to make the transition from gas to electric and back, with
an
aerodynamic shape, advanced electric and gasoline drive train, great packaging
efficiency,
it was the dream platform for a tinkerer to begin work from. So much of the
work had
already been done. But it gets even better. For emergency purposes, the car
already had
a provision to run on electric only for low speed/short distances, for example,
if the car
ran out of gas. It could be plugged in. In the American market, this had been
disabled
and blocked off. Given the recent EV-1 experience, Toyota wanted it very clear
that the
car DID NOT HAVE TO BE PLUGGED IN TO RUN. They even featured this in their
advertising. But the tinkers wanted to plug it in, and recharge at home, giving
the first
40+ or so miles at low speed as electric only. For many people, this would be
most of
their commute for the day. Then, with a bit of added battery, the gas engine
could
recharge the battery by engine and regenerative braking, and thus, run on only
electric at
low speeds and short distances again.

What this means is that the gasoline would ONLY be consumed at higher speeds on
longer
trips. Essentially, the car is an electric car that uses gasoline for range and
power
enhancement. The revolution is huge. It changes everything. It opens up
possibilities
due to the low consumption of fossil fuel that have been to this point out of
the question.
Because the alternative fuel can be used in such small quantities, options such
as bio-fuel,
alcohol, natural gas, propane, compressed methane from waste, on and on, become
viable. The car becomes essentially grid based. It gets even better. If you
recall our
discussion of the grid at the start of this document, you will recall the
discussion of peak
power production. The grid is built for the absolute highest consumption of the
year. The
rest of the year, and in particular, at night, the electric utility grid is at
surplus. Units
cannot be shut down easily, due to the costs and complexity of restart, and it
cannot store
the power it produces (at least not until some type of efficient night storage
comes along),
so there is a MASSIVE excess of power available at night. The plug Prius would
be charged
at night. The wasted power would be used, making the grid more efficient by
assisting the
day/night power difference, as the car is also reducing fuel consumption, making
auto
transportation more efficient. There is more: Using the grid as the power base
allows the
whole range of power production methods to be used as transportation power:
Nuclear,
wind, solar, hydroelectric, natural gas and coal all become transport fuels.
The price
leverage and

supply leverage given the buyer increases dramatically. Gasoline and Diesel
would be
direct competition with the power grid with all other power sources.

IT IS JUST TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. Or is it?

There must be a fly in the ointment, so let's look for it: The car is very
good. The
computers allow a level of drive train control not possible in prior years. The
standard
Prius Hybrid is very efficient even before it is tinkered with. It has standard
NiCad
batteries, which would be too small and light to use as a "Plug Hybrid" so the
Calcars
technicians install a larger set of batteries in their place. At this moment,
the battery of
choice is the
Lithium Ion set from a company called Valence Technology http://www.valence.com

Ahhh, there we are! We are back at the battery! Does the battery have enough
power? All
indications are yes, particularly when used as in a hybrid, where it works in
tandem with a
gas engine. Is the battery small enough? yes, if you are willing to forego
some luggage
space. Is it safe, and environmentally friendly? This is considered it's
strongest point.
The so called "Saphion" medium is classed by testing (including military) as
safe enough to
withstand high powered rifle shots without catching fire, a real advantage over
other
batteries in a crash. The medium encasing the cells is essentially dirt ((of a
particurlar
grade, but easily disposed of as environmentally neutral). Is it cheap enough?
Well, now
we are getting to a bit of a problem, it is DEFINITELY NOT CHEAP. But, if fuel
prices
continue to rise, and battery production is brought to full scale the comparison
becomes
VERY close, and it can compete with gasoline above 4 dollars a gallon. If we
assume full
crude oil depletion, and prices in the U..S comparable to what Europe already
pays, (over 6
dollars a gallon in some places) the battery is definitely in the ball game.
In California,
prices are beginning to be high enough to make the plug hybrid competitive.
What have
we forgotten?

Oh yes. Discharge and recharge. How many times can the Valence battery take
it? The
claim is huge numbers, upward of 10,000 cycles. BUT, at what discharge rate?
This is where it gets a bit sticky, and involves some very intricate testing.
Because if the
battery life is 15,000 cycles at discharge recharge of 20% capacity, the Plug
Hybrid does
not gain you much. The car would only allow you to go about 4 miles at low
speed, before
it would essentially go to being a standard Prius hybrid, but NOW carrying as
baggage the
larger battery pack. BUT....if the battery can be discharged down 80%, it
changes
everything. The amount of grid power stored becomes a big factor. But what
will 80%
discharge do to the life of the battery? Again, if it shortens the life by some
10%, no big
deal. If it cuts the life of the battery in half, shortens it by 50%,
economically, this is a very
big deal. THIS IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER. Right now, the only holdup is
whether the
battery can take the charge/discharge cycle at deep discharge rates, without
shortening
the life of the battery. If the Valence, or any other battery can do it, we
have a revolution
in transport and fuel consumption which changes everything.

We should remember that the Valence battery is not the only one available.
Other
privateers have done the Plug hybrid conversion using electric bicycle
batteries, grouped
together in a rack, some Nickel Cadmium. There have even been experiments using
lead
acid batteries, which will not last over a year under such strain, but are very
cheap. If
crude oil goes much higher of course it opens up possibilities that would not
previously
pay.

And more new batteries are on the way. Below is a link to the extreme amount of
work
going in research and development of the "super" battery. It describes advances
in battery
development, Lithium Ion and lithium polymer in particular, 131 pages long. The
applied
battery section is of great interest:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2004_energy_storage.pdf

With new "nano" chemistry, advances may come very fast.

Now you begin I hope, to see why the "Calcars" plug hybrid has the press,
politicians (it is
already endorsed by one political lobbying group, http://www.setamericafree.org
), and
other technicians fascinated. It is a tantalizing possibility which would
completely alter
the economics of transportation. We now know that the package works, in it's
ability to
move a vehicle at reasonable speeds with VERY LITTLE LIQUID FUEL. All that is
needed is
the battery that can take deep discharge and charge, at a reasonable price.
Easily done,
just ONE BREAKTHROUGH, WE ARE SO CLOSE.

But of course, that is what the electric car folks were saying back in the
1970's.

Only time will tell, and the cost comparisons get easier each time crude oil
goes up in
price.
It demonstrates how difficult predicting the future can be.
Thank you for your time and attention.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Also talk about investing in technology that has relevence outside North America, grain ethanol is a NA only "solution", the technology cannot be sold around the world.

Short term wind seems to provide the highest rate of return at low risk. It has a very good EROEI and low dependence on external factors (other than the wholesale price of electricity) after the initial investment. There is currently a shortage of manufacturing capacity for wind turbines, which shows signs of continuing for many years given the 40% pa growth rate.

Solar electric probably would be competitive with domestic tarrifs if production could be raised to 10x present levels. So investment in large production facilities could not only expand the market, but also give market leader position.

Longer term in-flow marine turbines and wave look good bets, there is relatively little competition in these areas.

If a project has a negative EROEI, it can only be beneficial if it is converting a lower value fuel (ie. coal) to a higher value fuel (ie. gasoline). However, once EROIE is positive, it gets much more complex. It is not possible to look at one project that is 1:3 and say it is better than one that is 1:2. Here is why:

1)    The energy turnover period also makes a difference - at least from an investment standpoint

If one project has an EROEI of 1:1.2, but can be done 50 times per year, it may produce more energy than one that has an EROEI of 1:1.5 but can only be done once. If corn ethanol has an EROEI of 1:1.2 but turns the initial investment over frequently enough, it can produce quite a lot of energy.

If you take the same ratios, but harvest twice as often, your energy input may double and your energy output may double, but your investment stays the same since the harvests are sequential. It's continual compounding.

The process looks like this:

Invest one unit
Get back 1.2 units
Invest 1.2 units
Get back 1.44 units
Invest 1.44 units
Get back 1.73 units
Etc.

2)    Using ethanol as the fuel input

As long as EROIE is positive, you can create whatever ratio you want by using ethanol itself as the energy feedstock. If all of the trucks that shipped ethanol and all of the machinery that worked the fields were run on ethanol, it would reduce both the numerator and the denominator equally and the ratio would go up.

However, it would make absolutely no difference. The reduction in gasoline used would be offset by the reduction in ethanol produced. But it is important to realize that if you wanted to create an elaborate system of fooling EROEI, you could.

This brings up the question of why don't ethanol producers use ethanol fueled machinery and transport. The answer is because no one makes ethanol fueled tractors or suitable trucks and it would be inefficient to use custom made equipment.

As long as a project is EROEI positive and the inputs can be substituted with ethanol, you can theoretically get the EROEI number as high as you want.

Imagine a computer game, similar to the Civilisation series in concept, playability and addictiveness, but with the following key difference:

the models for the game world are the cutting edge, the very best scientific knowledge that we have for each and every aspect. ie, the game world behaves as close as we can make it to the real world.

ie, the resources in the game deplete in exactly the same ways as in the real world, with energy costs for recovery, appropriate behaviour for renewables that depend on soil type, climate, lattitude etc.

The way this could be done would be to have a huge collaborative, open-source and inter-operable model set that experts in the different fields can contribute state-of-the art knowledge as they are able (along the lines of the wikipedia). You would have state-of-the art models for fisheries management, climate change, mining, economics, forestry, military conflict, acid rain, soil depletion, salination, population dynamics etc. etc. etc.

The model set would act as a game engine that could be interfaced to standards compliant commercial game interfaces, as well as being a useful research tool. People would learn a lot about the realities of the world we live in just by playing the game. Uncertainties could even be built into the game!, ie maybe you don't really know how certain things work until it's too late!

I'm sure there would be a group of developers out there who could figure out a way to do this.

So, if you are interested in getting an idea to Mr. Khosla, here is the opportunity. Please present a better alternative than ethanol, and a brief synopsis of the idea

Is there a better alternative?

No, I don't see one. Plug-in hybrids are a non starter, at least in Europe where the grid is already at capacity and cannot be easily expanded. This is especially true if you consider limitations of current battery technologies.

Light rail will help a lot but it isn't backwards compatible. The road/car infrastructure is mind bogglingly vast. Replacing it is something of a non-starter at this point. So even a competently-executed light rail system in every city will not even halve road usage, and considering the difficulty/cost of building them ...

JIT ride-sharing .... yes, the technologiy is viable today but it's an optimisation and there are limited gains to be squeezed out there. It is obviously not a gasoline replacement.

So we end up needing some alternative liquid fuel for cars and trucks, alternatives are either unworkable or optimisations designed to reduce usage of cars but cannot eliminate them.

Of those alternatives what are there? Waste vegetable oils. Doesn't scale. Methanol? Unless somebody cracks the separation of CO2 from the atmosphere problem, doesn't scale/unviable. Leaving ethanol.

Of all the alternatives it seems celluloisic ethanol is about the only one that has a chance of making significant dents in petrol usage, given the wide range of possible feedstocks.

Why is this analysis wrong?

I am way down the list hope you get to me.

1. Reduce consumption everywhere, particularly liquid fuels, via drive for efficiency of motors and conversion of fuel energy to work.
   
2. Eliminate waste everywhere.  All waste will be some one elses raw material.  Stop sending everything to Land fills.  Ames Iowa has one of three Resource Recovery plants in the nation (built in the 1970's) that sorts metals, glass and others and and provides refuse derived fuel, RDF. The RDF is sent directly to the coal fired generating plant and reduces coal consumption very significantly, electric rates haven't changed for 25 years.  We need more of this approach  country wide.
   
3. Mass transit should be funded massively to reduce use of cars for work commuting.  This can be electric, hybrid diesel or other and can be light rail buses or other.  The goal is lots of bodies moved per btu's consumed.
   
4. Raise CAFE standards (double?) now with built in increases yearly.  Make sure these can't be reversed if things improve in the short run.
   
5. Do not pick winning transportation strategy (hybrid, electric, hydrogen, NG, etc.) but allow 3) to crank up innovation.
   
6. Each state must identify the correct mix of alternative low fossil fuel energy to chase.  This needs to be fostered with incentives provided nationally to holistically reduce energy consumption and start capturing renewable energy.
   
7. I live in Iowa and see ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans as viable for the midwest.  Good EROEI in these states where irrigation is not needed.  This technology should not be exported to all 50 states.
   
8.  For the midwest it makes sense to maintain a liquid fuel supply to farm and transport agricultural commodities.  Biofuels can meet this need with waste streams feeding animals or used for industrial purposes.  
   
9. The loop on biofuels can be closed in the midwest.  Percent of crop used to make fuel which is used to plant and harvest next crop with distillers grains and glycerine being used locally to make more food.  If this can be done other places with other raw material it should be pursued.  Energy must be captured and used locally, don't make ethanol from cellulose in New England and send it to Arizona for consumption.  All the efficiency is lost in transportation.
   
10. The goal is for each state/region to manage their energy balance, gaining as much non fossil energy as possible from appropriate sources.  Every southern state is a natural for solar cells on every roof surface.
    
11. Push solar, wind and micro-hydro at the individual consumer level.  Facilitate a distributed grid for electricity production and storage.  Lots of small generating sites rather than a few huge generating sites.  Big companies can manage the maintenance and distribution system.
    
12. All of above should be set up to allow people to track their consumption and production of energy so that feed back loops get created.
    
13. Once people are more responsible for having to maintain more of their balance of energy they will hunt for ways to use less and make more on their own because it has direct financial benefit to them.

This needs to be a 50 year, minimum, retooling of the United States.  The Interstate highways took 50 years to build.  The new transportation and energy system will take just as long but will be self sustainable when complete.

Over the 50 years it takes to get off oil and coal world population has to be allowed to decrease through lower birth rates matched with natural die off of elderly.  If we stop having lots of children in 30-50  years 6 billion people will be die naturally at the end of their life span.  At that time a smaller population can use the energy capture system that will have been built to maintain a stable population.

That's the vision.  How do we convince moneyed and political interests to buy into that long term view at the expense of short term gain?

Vinod is well educated in engineering - to the MS level - as well as in business and economics (Stanford MBA). He may need to brush up a bit on his thermo but he likely has it in his background. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla

Given his track record, I expect that he is very much more market-solution oriented rather than government-solution oriented.

Put a competitive product on the market that solves a problem faced by many or saves them money and mountains are moved overnight by individuals making their own choices in their self-interest. Government solutions require the consent of the governed, require continuing compromises made in smoke-filled back rooms, take a very long time and are almost never as economically efficient.

There are a lot of great things about Ethanol - for a start, it's nearly a direct substitue for gasoline.

But when you make it from corn, there's a real question f if it scales.

I think it doesnt scale for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, grains are a feedstock for animals and for people - and both those uses directly compete with ethanol from fuel. If there is a drought or some other sort of supply crisi, it's likely that people will be more willing to pay an extra 20 cents on a loaf of bread or a packet of cornflakes than an ethanol plant is to increase it's OpEx numbers.

Secondly, there dont appear to be many quick technical fixes that will improve ethanol from corn technology. We've been making the stuff for a long time, there's a very liquid market in it, including futures, and it's probable that any technical fixes would have been implemented by the industry.

At the moment, ethanol is selling for more than for gasoline, and I think thats giving us a hint about the state of the markets.

Finally, grain production uses quite a bit of fuel, both directly for tractors and harvesters and indirectly for chemical fertilisers. Ramping up grain supply to provide feedstocks for ethanol from corn is going to increase demand for these hydrocarbons ... from where I sit, the amount of liquid fuel you are getting out as ethanol looks pretty similar to the amount of liquid fuels that are being put into the system.

I think ethanol is part of the solution, but personally, I'd be trying to skip a generation and looking at research into non-grain feedstocks.

**

Basically, Khosla is a player, both in terms of influence and raw cash. You dont want to piss him off , and by making the 'scaling' argument you go back to his technical roots (plenty of good technologies dont scale).

Ian Whitchurch

A cap and trade system will help us sort out which technologies throughout all sectors are the least carbon intensive and most energy efficient. Just looking at the transportation sector alone will not be adequate to sufficiently lower emissions to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Under an overall cap and trade system, each corporation and individual would be forced to buy additional carbon credits or tradeoff one use of energy vs another. If one chooses to buy a Hummer, one would have to cut one's air conditioning or retrofit one's house to be able to drive that Hummer.  The same principle would apply to all products purchased by the consumer.  Buying products with high embodied energy or operating energy costs would also cut into one's overall store of credits.

1. Telepresence and telecommuting.  We spend too much energy needlessly moving people around.

2. Mixed-use commercial/residential development in close-in areas that can be served by light rail in the future.  Someone is going to make a fortune in building four-six story buildings on rail lines when suburbanites decide they moved too far out.  IMHO, eventually most Americans will move by foot/bike/transit.

3. Foreign rail manufacturers like Bombardier and Siemens are going to do very well selling light/commuter rail systems to the US.

4. All cars will eventually be hybrids, so the hybrid electrical components and systems will continue to do well.  If we switch to hydraulic hybrids, however, high-pressure tank manufacturers will be the ones making money.  I'm betting on series hybrids with small turbine generators and all electric drive.

5. If he's just out to make a lot of money, ethanol probably isn't a bad place to be.  It will continue to have a nice bounce until people figure out it isn't going to help much.  It will have another nice bounce when cellulosic ethanol really becomes available.  By that point, our transportation sector may have been beaten down enough for ethanol to make a dent in supply.

At the most basic level, liquid fuels is about mobility - connecting people to places, goods and services, activities and interests. This naturally breaks into 3 meaningful distinctions - transporting people, transporting goods and services, transporting photons via the internet in the form of voice, video communication and entertainment, and the web.

The danger of an excessively narrow focus on just the "fuel" issue  is that the larger opportunities, which have demonstrably much higher economic, ecologicial, social and political returns may be lost as we continue to maintain an unsustainable business-as-much-as-usual paradigm.

Benefits of this technology would be:
1.Existing transportation infrastructure would remain in place including vehicles, pipelines, storage facilities etc...
2.Carbon neutral ( Or if excess production capacity is used to make synthetic crude for injecting into existing depleted oil fields for carbon sequestration carbon negative)
3.Process could also be used to make synthetic petrochemical feed stocks.
4.Would free up crops now used for bio-fuels for human food production which with the short falls in global grain production are going to be needed in only a few years.
5.Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced could be used as a storage medium to be used when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow to produce the electric power the nation needs on a 24/7 basis. This would permit both solar and wind to become base load capable in electric generation.
6.This proces would permit all of the nations of the world to produce the fuel they need (within the limits of available solar/wind input) which would eliminate the need to ship vast amounts of petroleum products all over the world. And this would also eliminate much of the current global political strife over access to and price of both crude petroleum and refined petroleum products.

Negatives:
1.At this time I have no specific information on costs and efficiencies. (Sandia National Labs is believed to have (at least some) of this information.
2.Most of the fuel would probably have to be produced in the "Sunshine Belt" of the USA and transported via pipeline to the rest of the country - Much like petroleum products are today, rather than being produced locally.

Again, I am sorry that I have not yet received the information I have requested so that I could give much more definitive information on the current status of this technology.

• Plug-in hybrids with E85-optimized engines. With the ethanol coming from sugar beet, sugar cane or switchgrass. Non-subsidized!

• integrated production a la E3; maybe also CHP, ethanol as alcohol for biodiesel production, powered by glycerin by-product?

• Electric cars. Use all that computer and EE knowledge!

Vinod Khosla, and partners at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers funded the ballot initiative Proposition 87 in California. It appears they are all involved in alternate energy ventures and could profit from this initiative if it passes. Proposition 87 is expected to generate billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Is it right for multi-millionaire venture capitalists to put a referendum on the ballot that they might directly benefit from? Is this really the way to energy security for the U.S. or just an enrichment scheme for venture capitalists?  

What happens if tax policy like this moves to other states? Will we see millionaires across the country putting initiatives on ballots that they could directly benefit from? This is the worst case example of horrible tax policy.

I too think there should be gas taxes. I specifically endorse the tax policy of the Earth Policy Institute that raises taxes on gas for 30 cents a year for 10 years and is offset by a reduction of income taxes. This should be done at the Federal level of government where our elected legislators can determine where the money will be appropriated.

I doubt Khosla will want to discuss the issue of Proposition 87 and who will benefit from it, but I think it's an issue that should be discussed by the rest of us. As we try to move towards energy independence tax policy will be the center of the strategy. And, tax policy of the type of proposition 87 are a prescription for failure.

Another politically infeasible but important idea is to eliminate the flex-fuel-vehicle mileage rating loophole.  Treating cars that potentially burn ethanol as if they are not burning any fossil fuels is foolish in the extreme.

I believe that higher gas costs are absolutely necessary, but I also see that a simple pay-at-the-pump tax is going to put the worst pinch on those who can least afford it.  The best solution to that problem I have heard so far is a tradable gasoline ration system.  Problem is, it would involve the creation of a huge new bureaucracy with so many possibilities for abuse, that I'm not sure it would do more good than harm.

As for alternative fuels, I'd like to know why he isn't supporting algeal biodiesel.  In terms of potential energy ratio impact, it seems like one of the best options out there.  I terms of technical complexity, it's not as right-here-right-now as corn ethanol, but it's not nearly as far off as cellulose ethanol.

For that matter, if he wants to talk about ethanol production, why hasn't sugarcane been mentioned?  To the extent that Brazil has done anything miraculous with ethanol, it's been done with sugarcane.  According to Milton Maciel, an organic sugarcane farmer in Brazil, it's a semi-annual crop that fixes a large fraction of its own nitrogen.  Granted, we have alot more good corn land than we do good sugarcane land.  But it could be a piece of the puzzle.

Which brings me to what may be the most important point to make with Mr. Khosla: THERE IS NO SINGLE, SIMPLE SOLUTION.  As with any good investment strategy, we must establish a portfolio of technologies.  Picking any one technology, even a good one, and riding it to the exclusion of all others is not going to get us there.

As you know, transportation fuels are the biggest problem caused by Peak Oil. Mr. Khosla is trying to address this. When I watch his video carefully, I see a much stronger focus on cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol. In other words, don't attack what he isn't selling. In his video, he also pointed out that he was specifically not looking at a range of other promising technologies. He does this because he thinks they are not yet ready not because he won't invest in them. (He is a VC. They make hedge investments all of the time.)

As to advice, I would ask him to join with Mr. Woolsey and the Plug-In Partners. This group, who's existence was catalyzed by my citiy's electric utility, Austin Energy, is leading the charge to have cities make their fleet purchases require plug-in hybrids - to create a market. Personally, I would also add a requirement that any such vehicle come with what I call a 'Prius Plug'. This plug is a warranty approved way for customers to add extra batteries to their vehicle. (Both the warranty concerns and the engineering difficulties are major impediments to adding more batteries to any hybrid.) Of course, these plug-in hybrids should be flex fueled. (This is a prudent low cost addition to any gasoline powered vehicle. Yes, I know it undermines your argument but flexibility in public policy frequently has its own reward.)

In my opinion, the most politically promising technology is both coal and natural gas into a methanol gas additive and di-methyl ester diesel. We cannot forget that a major part of the enthusiasm for ethanol is the large number of entrenched interests it doesn't gore. We should be pitting interest against interest. I also have high hopes for algal biodiesel.

Andrew

A "plastics" tax (say 150% of the "at the plant" price tax) should reduce unnecessary waste (why not take a canvas bag with you when going shopping.  Avoid the nickel or dime/bag charge).  Since lighter weight of plastics reduces direct oil use, exempt transportation uses of plastics.

Is cast iron lower energy that PVC pipe for drainage pipe ?  It surely uses coal instead of oil.  A difficult question for which I do not know the answer.

Home and water heating with oil is more ticklish.  NG is not super abundent (and limited NG pipelines).

Ground source geothermal seems the best solution in many areas; with district heating plants in urban areas.  Solar water heating for domestic consumption (assisted retrofits plus required for new construction) will free up oil, NG and electricity).  A good use of new gas taxes IMHO.

Heat pump hot water heaters (especially if located in attics) are also "good".

Ethanol can be produced in a myriad of ways and not just from food-chain feedstocks.

Corn ethanol of course has its limits in terms of yield, arable land and EROEI, however corn ethanol production has played a valuable stepping stone for the renewable green fuel industry as a whole and at the very least, has started a national discourse for building a bridge to people's understanding of what we study here: Peak Oil.

That said, if the ultimate objective is to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil and perhaps avert what will likely be an all out war for the remaining resource base, then the very scope of the task at hand will require every tool in the toolbox - tools such as the big `C' or conservation, LRT, solar, geothermal and biofuels including ethanol.

In light of this, I ask why no one attributes awareness of the Peak Oil crisis to Vinod Khosla's actions?  

His presentations are actually quite good and if any of you have seen one, then you would know that one of the first statements he makes, is that `ethanol is not perfect'.

Furthermore, Mr. Khosla's light hearted jabs against Big Oil are a far-cry from the alleged threats he has received in return and in point-of-fact, Vinod actually credits the oil companies for being some of the most receptive and adoptive forces of change.

Make no mistake, the ethanol industry is in a veritable stage of infancy and Mr. Khosla does an excellent job of outlining the likely progression of ethanol production away from fermentation to enzymatic, to gasification (Syntec's process) to algae.

As such, I suggest that it's quite naive to think that Mr. Khosla has invested solely in grain-ethanol production processes or that grain-ethanol producers are not aware of their respective barriers or savvy enough to overcome them.

As I've stated above, there are many ways to produce ethanol not just from food-chain feedstocks and I encourage all Drummers to broaden their understanding of the true potential that exists.

Feel free to learn more at: www.syntecbiofuel.com.

I highly recommend this video of a speech given by William McDonaugh:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/william_mcdonough.php

The theme is that something as destructive as the modern American lifestyle is a design problem. We should not be striving for a scaled back version of a clearly disfunctional system. Instead, we should come up with a better design for the way we live that meets environmental needs, of which humans are a part. It may have some pie in the sky aspects to it, but I think it has some merit. And it's inspiring at the very least.

Cheers,

RR

Sustainable transportation must place an emphasis on electrification of public and personal transportation: electric rail, BEVs, PHEVs must be a priority.  

Mr. Khosla, please invest billions in battery technology and electric / hybrid drivetrains instead of ethanol!!!

Where liquid fuels are a must, such as in aviation, I believe thermochemical conversion of all of the biomass via Fischer-Tropsch is the way to go, not just a fraction of the biomass via fermentation.  Extending this further, I would prefer to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide directly and then use thermochemical means to produce syngas from carbon dioxide via a reverse water-gas shift and then use F-T to make a number of synthetic hydrocarbon products in a much more direct closed loop, rather than go through the very inefficient process of: agriculture to fix the carbon, to harvest it, transform it into fuel, ship it and finally burn it.  

I believe that an overlooked way to make a dramatic impact on energy consumption would be to mass-produce integrated technology to:

A. Measure total household energy consumption to provide the occupants with info on how their lifestyles and conservation efforts affect their energy consumption and associated costs.  A near-real-time display of $ per hour of total (gas, oil, electricity) energy usage would give people the feedback they need to alter their habits and to make wise investments in energy efficiency upgrades.

B. Retrofit vehicles with a real-time MPG display, and several options for displaying the cost (per mile, per trip or per unit time) of fueling the vehicle.  All new vehicles should be equipped with this feature as well

As energy prices continue to rise, people will gladly grab the low-hanging fruit.  IMO if they have a way of accessing information that gives them a fix of instant gratification, the fruit will taste all the sweeter.  I have used a commercially available product (WattsupPRO tm) to make measurements of electrical usage on certain appliances and circuits and the information this device has provided served to alter the behavior of a very self-involved teenager. Truly a "powerful" tool, I just wish I had something like it for the whole house.

Consumption of fuel in May 2006 (light vehicles):

1.985 billion liters of Gasoline (E20 by law)
398 million liters of Ethanol (Hidrated Ethanol)

Since 1.985 billion liters of Gasoline contains 397 million liters (20%) of Ethanol, the total consumption of Ethanol was 795 million liters against 1.588 billion liters of pure Gasoline.

The consumption of Ethanol in Brazil was around 50% the consumption of Gasoline when we are talking about light vehicles.

This is a pretty good ratio, and a good example of how we can walk toward independence of oil, a better environment and a better income distribution.

It's a fact that Brazil's overall fuel consumption is about a seventh of the US, but the solution to the change in paradigm is presenting itself bit by bit.

Altough in the US the sugar cane is not avaliable, and the Ethanol is made from grains, people should not disregard Ethanol as a means of fuel and the investments in the research of new ways to produce it must go on. There will soon be a day where cellulosic Ethanol will be competitive enough to be a good alternative to oil in the US.

Human waste (sewage) to biodiesel via algae ponds. Previously discussed here, but I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread.

Technology seems to be simple, just needs a bit of R&D. to scale it up. Probably easy to retrofit to existing sewage treatment plants, if you pick the cities which have sufficient real estate for the ponds, and sufficient sunshine to get high energy density.

Charlie Thomas
?Beautiful Cascabel Arizona

My idea echoes those of Will, Darrell, Alanfrom New Orleans, and others.

I would try to persuade Khosla to see that our imaginations are bound.  We continue to explore paths which are merely extensions of the transportation staus quo.

Sure ethanol might be a viable "bridge technology" given The Best of All Possible Worlds" in terms of Peak Oil, Global Climate Change, Population Overshoot and Geopolitical Strife.  But we are not likely to get that Best of All Possible Worlds.

So we need to invest more in unlearning the way we've organised human settlement and transportation around cheap gas, and also in learning how to live well without that pattern.

If Khosla is as well-motivated as he professes to be, perhaps he would be willing to also invest in work that will further biking and walking and relocalisation of farming.  As far as more resource intensive transportation technologies go, perhaps he would find a way to invest in light rail.

My guess is that Khosla's imagination is bound in a number of ways, but he might see such investments as a way to demonstrate his goodwill, and to leave a legacythat will possibly outlast the ethanol path he is so enthusiastic about at present.

Imagine that Khosla supports a nonprofit that acts much like a car dealership, but instead sells and leases a variety of workbikes and trikes.  These vehicles could be a rolling classroom for folks to learn how they might integrate biking into their own daily lives -- for getting groceries in an urban setting, for example.

When people think of getting a vehicle, they immediately think of going to a car dealership where there are a huge variety of cars to choose from.  People are already familiar with cars, and so can easily see how a car might work for them.  Given the opportunity to see and try out a variety of HPVs -- Human Powered Vehicles -- many people might overcome some of the hurdles which prevent them from considring them presently.  Namely, they are largely an intimidating "unknown" and not easily accessible to try and learn about.

Human Powered Vehicles are a necessary element of our future transportation mix, and well-placed HPV fleets will very effectively reduce our need for liquid fuels. That way we can use the liquid fuels where they are most needed right now.

Good luck talking further with Mr. Khosla!