A recent survey shows strong support among U.S. consumers for reducing oil consumption and increasing fuel economy in vehicles. Conducted before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one wonders if it would be even stronger if conducted today.
My colleague, Holly Jessen,
wrote a news report on the survey released by the Consumer Federation of America, where Jack Gillis, CFA director of public relations comments: "Our survey data strongly suggests that the American public is getting very close to the point, if they're not already there, where they are prepared to support radical measures to break our nation's dependence on oil and oil imports."
Attitudes towards ethanol weren't part of the survey, but the question arises whether the industry can make use of this information to strengthen the case for continued support of alternative fuels as an important part of energy policy.
Note that I said a part. I think part of the problem is that the industry is perceived by some as saying ethanol is the ONLY solution, although in most of what I read ethanol promoters almost always say ethanol is an important part of a needed multi-pronged renewable energy policy. I'm beginning to see more clearly that the way our political/media system works right now, complex arguments aren't successful—driving everybody to reduce their core argument to a simple, compelling statement, a 15 second sound bite.
Last week I wrote about my response to a question about "what is the most efficient source of ethanol?" by suggesting corn ethanol makes sense in the Midwest, while other feedstocks make more sense elsewhere. I was responding to a question emailed through the Web site. I sent a link to that column as a response to that email, and learned the writer was with a national church organization (inferred from the email address). He thanked me for helping him understand the issue a bit better.
The blog elicited a comment from another reader who said "the better question is which feedstocks yield the best energy returned on energy invested. Oil started at a 100:1 yield, now it hangs at 50:1 due to more difficult extraction and refining factors. Last I saw the best claim for yield making ethanol was 3:1, and 5:1 for biodiesel. Of course the issues of coproducts makes all of this more complex. I seldom see EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) even discussed on this list, nor do I see any serious effort to get the public up to speed on this or the other issues related to the steady energy supply decline we face as a nation and world as oil production peaks and declines."
He has a valid point, energy in, energy out is an important consideration. Biofuels don't come anywhere close to the EROEI that he reports for oil, but they are positive, and work is being done to make them even more so. However, one can't look at just one measure. Environmental risk is another important consideration. The environmental and economic impact from the Gulf oil spill appear to be huge, and long lasting. Consumers are ready to get serious about reducing oil consumption. Will that translate into the personal choices that need to be made? Buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Driving less and using public transportation more. Practicing energy conservation in all aspects of daily living.