[Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon

Werbos, Dr. Paul J. paul.werbos at verizon.net
Tue Sep 14 23:39:58 UTC 2004

At 09:29 PM 9/13/2004 -0600, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote:
>Why isn't biodiesel the preferred next step? Small diesel engines are all 
>over Europe now, and biodiesel requires no new delivery technology. A 
>crash program - driven by tax incentives, etc. - would bring about a 
>greatly reduced dependence on fossil fuel. The biodiesel should not 
>increase CO2, since it is from living plants already in the CO2 - O2 loop. 
>Government could mandate a switch to diesel in all new cars, unless they 
>were hybrid. Eh?
>Lynn Johnson


Biodiesel is not the same as diesel.

I can imagine an argument that the "externality payment" per Btu should be 
exactly the same
for all biofuels. That's for the fuel producer, for whom we can tell when 
it's bio.

But to require all cars be diesel wouldn't work so well. For one thing, a 
shift from
IC gasoline to diesel is much BIGGER than a shift to GEM flexibility in new 
Diesel is hard in smaller cars.

And above all... we can't afford to limit ourselves to small steps. We need 
to move fast before they get us...

ADDING small steps that are CONSISTENT with critical big changes is fine. But
if we take small steps as an ALTERNATIVE to big impacts... we're dead.

On the CAR side... GEM flexibility is a SMALLER change, with BIGGER IMPACT
than diesel cars.

But on the fuel supply side, yes, a level playing field for biosubsidies is 
logical, more or less.

(Biomethanol does have the additional value however of easing future 
transition to
methanol fuel cell cars, a benefit that the other biofuels do not have.)



More information about the paleopsych mailing list