You can’t simply “re-tool” a plant and expect more fuel efficient vehicles. You have to design a vehicle with a desired fuel efficiency as one of the engineering goals. Given that most automakers are already firming up designs for 2007 and 2008 MY, Kerry couldn’t effect the average MPG till the next presidental election.

As long as he’s already going to mandate changes, he might as well push the ethanol alt fuels. Ford and GM already have SOHEC engines in production that can run off ethanol without modification. One would simply have to make the ethanol available at the pumps.

Posted by: Brian at August 7, 2004 09:50 AM

Two words: CORPORATE WELFARE.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at August 7, 2004 10:28 AM

One would simply have to make the ethanol available at the pumps.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

All the alternative fuels possible won’t make a bit of difference if they are not available to consumers. Where I worked, one FY the city council opted to replace the vans being depreciated out of our fleet with natural gas vehicles. These vans were used to take kids and seniors on field trips, transport sports teams, etc. But there were only 4 natural gas stations on the list of contractors for fuel. The locations of those sites and the hours they operated made those vans the least productive use of transportation, we couldn’t get the fuel to use them!

Same thing will happen if the push for alternative fuel in to the automobile consumer. It really needs to be focused in other areas a fuel consumption.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 7, 2004 10:52 AM

JZ,

2 1/2 more words

Tax and spend.

Posted by: jones at August 7, 2004 11:56 AM

Ever since a couple years ago, when I first noticed http://changingworldtech.com , whenever I hear the words, “Alternative fuel,” I think misguided hippie clinging to arguments of yesteryear without respect for advances in technology or difficulties of reality.

“The Bioremediation of Solid Waste,” as CWT so marketably puts it, has the potential to produce 5.8 billion barrels of oil a year from inside the United States alone. Current imports, according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html , amount to 4.4 billion barrels a year. Translation: Solid waste could be remediated into sufficient oil to cut off all international dependency, including Canada. No alternative fuel source needed. More importantly, no corporate welfare needed. They’re doing this now, w/o any of J Kerry’s “reforms. ” (They are utilizing a “waste technology” tax break, but it only amounts to $50,000 a year for four years. Meaning it’s allowing them to hire one mid level manager. Woo. Go, Gov’t, for funding this project!)

However, problems remain.
1. Even though TDP produces light crude, it still needs to be refined… and NIMBY for refineries is strong in the United States, meaning a lot of that oil would have to be shipped overseas before returning home again.

2. CWT is very tight lipped about the cost/profitability of the process, beyond “Yes, we can make money…once the plant is fully operational” This means either a) They’re making money hand over fist, and don’t want competition, or b) something fishy is going on. I lean very heavily towards ‘b’, because currently, they have a single plant slowly ramping its way up towards only 500 barrels of oil a day (Not 500M or even 500k, just 500), and has plans for only a single additonal plant. This tight-fisted policy leads me to believe that the process is only profitable on a technicality. Their focus on waste streams (and not, say, giant soy farms harvested for bioremediation) makes me believe that they are using the waste disposal fee to cover the gap between what the oil sells for and what it costs to produce. Which is still making money, mind you. This gap is entirely depend on the market price for oil… so if TDP were to take off like a rocket, OPEC could theoretically lower their prices enough to send them into the gutter before they can recover the capital investment. S’risky game they’re playing. OTOH, I keep hearing noises that Saudi Arabia, at least, is more or less at its limit anyways… and with China’s demand on the upswing, this will be less and less of a problem as time goes on.

3. The pilot plant is attached to a Butterball Turkey factory. That means their oil is made out of turkey feathers, bones, beaks, sh*t, etc. This means Vegans will have to stop driving cars. I can’t decide if this is a bug or a feature.

So, what can we do to support this market?

1. Maintain or increase environmental restrictions on waste disposal; industrial, agricultural, or municipal. Like I said, they’re making their money on that waste disposal fee, so if there’s a sudden drop in the waste disposal market, they’re screwed.

2. Encourage an overall increase in demand of oil. This means supporting China, India, Eastern Europe, etc, in their quest to raise the standard of living of their people (Oooh, blatant spin!) If we can push OPEC to its limit, they won’t have the ability to undercut this operation. Yes, this means we have two directly competing goals: Save the environment by reducing oil consumption, and save the US by eliminating dependence on foreign* oil. Quite frankly, I firmly believe that the only way to be free of foreign oil dependence, directly or indirectly, is for oil reserves to run out. They’re too damn cheap to combat in any other way. If you’re worried about increased pollution, CWT makes a very valid point that I’d never thought of before: Assuming you’re growing sufficient new ones to replace losses, it doesn’t matter how many trees you burn, because the total carbon in the surface environment remains the same… and its an *increase* in carbon that’s blamed for most of the global climactic woes. That increase comes from introducing carbon that was happily sloshing miles beneath the surface into the upper world. Since everything bioremediated *came from our ecosystem, we’re dealing with a closed system and total carbon cannot go up. Now, managing the relative amounts of carbon in atmosphere vs. carbon in people and plants… that’s another problem, and almost totally unrelated.

3. This Thanksgiving, buy a Butterball turkey!

Posted by: TBox at August 8, 2004 12:29 AM

You want energy self-sufficiency in North America? Forget turkey guts - focus on building core/mantle tapping generation plants around the Great Lakes.

In the interim, while that is being developed, go coal-conversion - generates double the BTU per ton of feedstock versus poultry waste.

Posted by: CERDIP at August 8, 2004 11:33 AM

Tbox

They’re building one of these plants in Carthage MO. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. We are also big into bio fuels out here. However, transport is a problem for them. Ethanol absorbs water so it can’t be transported by pipeline(too much condensation) and has to go by rail or truck or ship. Bio diesel is subject to market demands and some gel problems in colder markets. The bio fuels probably have the potential to take 5 to 10 percent of the market if they don’t drive commodity prices too high to be profitable. They all rely on cheap commodities and expensive oil to be profitable.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 8, 2004 11:33 AM

“focus on building core/mantle tapping generation plants around the Great Lakes.”

CERDIP,

What is it and why by the GLs. Point me to a site, please.

Posted by: jones at August 8, 2004 09:32 PM

Bio Diesel? Ethanol? I’m not talking bio diesel or ethanol. The TDP process makes light crude. It’s the same stuff that they’re pumping out of the ground in the mid east. Petroleum. That’s one of its biggest selling points… we can use 100% of the pre-existing petroleum distribution infrastructure. Are you perhaps responding to the original post?

As for coal conversion… I don’t know, I think the “People pay us to turn this crap into stuff we can sell” factor is too important to their bottom line. I’m guessing, but from the way they’re behaving, I’m feeling pretty good about that guess. So, yeah, coal conversion might be more efficient, but they’d actually have to buy the coal to convert, instead of being paid to “remove” the feedstocks as in the turkey situation.

The plant in Carthage is up. It was producing 100-200 barrels of oil per day back in May, but that was due to “breaking the plant in.” http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040519/nyw186_1.html
I don’t pretend to be good with heavy industry, but apparently you just don’t go from 0 to 100% operating in just one day… you have to ramp up slowly. They’re expected to be producing 500 barrels a day by the end of the year.

That’s why I’m harping on this. It’s not “promising.” It’s “working.” It’s here. It’s now. Al Gore could claim he invented it… If J Kerry gets elected, J Kerry will claim to have invented it about two years into his term when more plants start cropping up, “See what my policy of investing in invention caused!” Just the thought torques me off a little, like Al Gore inventing the internet.

Posted by: TBox at August 8, 2004 10:53 PM

Tbox

I wouldn’t get super excited just yet. The companys web site has some info, not a lot. They are using high heat and high pressure to get the job done. This costs money to produce. It will be interesting if it is at breakeven at full capacity. Operating expenses of the plant look like another unknown. High heat and high pressure also generally mean high wear. I’m no expert on the process and not trying to be a downer. However, if the technology works you can bet it will be adopted.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 9, 2004 11:41 PM