Vw Calls For Preferential Status For Second-generation Biofuels

07 September 2006
VOLKSWAGEN CALLS FOR PREFERENTIAL STATUS FOR SECOND-GENERATION BIOFUELS
BERLIN, Germany - As part of its fuel and powertrain strategy, Volkswagen is backing innovative second-generation biofuels and is calling on politicians to develop a sustainable tax model providing a secure framework for investing in the development and market launch of these new fuels.

"The present assessment regarding the sustainability of first and second-generation biofuels is entirely unsatisfactory, both in economic and environmental terms. One biofuel is not the same as another: some first-generation biofuels can best be described as a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. Some of them have a worse CO2 balance than conventional gasoline fuels, but nevertheless still bear the name of ‘biofuel’", Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of Management of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, commented in Berlin on Thursday. "First-generation biofuels receive tax incentives from scarce budget resources and consequently constitute a bad investment. That cannot be considered sustainable in either the ecological or the economic sense of the word."
Volkswagen has for many years been working intensively on concepts for reducing fuel consumption and substituting fossil energies. "Our fuel concept is based on second-generation biofuels which can be produced from biomass, are to a large extent CO2 neutral and do not compete with food production," Pischetsrieder added.
Second-generation biofuels are now on the threshold of commercialization. "In technical terms, second-generation biomass fuels are easy to blend with other fuels and thus help to reduce CO2 levels in the short term", said Pischetsrieder. Relatively high manufacturing expenditure means that second-generation biofuels cannot yet be produced economically on a large scale. Production costs alone for the cellulose ethanol process are currently higher than the costs for both mineral oil-based gasoline and conventional bioethanol. Long-term conditions that also provide a financial incentive for greater CO2 efficiency are needed in order to bring these second-generation fuels to market despite these obstacles and to encourage the further development of the process to bring costs down.

"With a sustainable, holistic tax model offering market-oriented incentives, second-generation biofuels can establish itself on the market," Pischetsrieder said. Apart from taking CO2 efficiency as a yardstick, he also called for further sustainability criteria, oriented for example to factors such as the use of fertilizers and pesticides, the protection of rainforests, social standards, employment potential and security of supply, to be included in fuel taxation. "Excessive subsidization and the misallocation of politico-economic resources must be avoided," Pischetsrieder commented. Volkswagen has developed a tax model catering for both CO2 efficiency (primary criterion) and the sustainability criteria he outlined. Volkswagen believes that such a system could encourage tax harmonization in Europe.
"Volkswagen is already working on concepts for the industrial production of second-generation biofuels and is willing to encourage their production through substantial investment," Prof. Dr. Jürgen Leohold, Head of Group Research at Volkswagen, said. He added that Volkswagen welcomed the German government’s plans for a lower tax rate on Biomass-to-Liquid and cellulose ethanol fuels until 2015. "However, we doubt this is sufficient for the long-term planning security needed for major investment, "Leohold added.

New biofuels bring significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions

Second-generation biofuels include SunFuelâ , a synthetic Biomass-to-Liquid fuel, and cellulose ethanol, which can be produced from whole grains or various kinds of agricultural residue such as corn stover. First-generation biofuels, such as biodiesel or bioethanol, are mainly produced from the grain kernels only. Second-generation biofuels triple the yield per hectare and, unlike first-generation biofuels, do not compete with food production.
Volkswagen cooperates closely with other automakers, bio-tech companies and mineral oil corporations in developing fuels. Volkswagen supports the development of promising processes and is already working on powertrains that can run on biofuels: Volkswagen has developed the fully synthetic SunFuelâ diesel fuel together with CHOREN Industries GmbH and other partners. By using biomass, the CO2 cycle can be almost completely closed and greenhouse gases cut by approx. 90 percent. With regard to gasoline fuels, Volkswagen is cooperating with partners such as the Canadian Iogen Corporation, whose process for producing cellulose ethanol offers a similarly high CO2 reduction potential.

Volkswagen has developed the fully synthetic SunFuelâ diesel fuel together with CHOREN Industries GmbH and other partners. By using biomass, the CO2 cycle can be almost completely closed and greenhouse gases cut by approx. 90 percent.

Click to expand...

You'd think something that elemental could even sink in on politicions and govt regulators.

Maybe when the C02 has melted the ice shelf and California's coastal cities are half submerged they will start worrying about NOX less and start encouraging cars that can help get rid of, maybe some day, 90% of the C02.

..... The tree huggers will never win.....

Why doesn't VW allow more of a percentage of biodiesel in their vehicles before it voids the warranty then?

"Global Warming" ....... Repeat after me...."I believe, I believe".

The truth is we can't(at the present) MAKE enough biofuels to make even a small dent in the about of fuel we use. Is it a start? Yes. Do we need to keep heading in that direction? Yes. Is the sky falling? No.

DRbillZ said:

Why doesn't VW allow more of a percentage of biodiesel in their vehicles before it voids the warranty then?

"Global Warming" ....... Repeat after me...."I believe, I believe".

Click to expand...

Are we to interpret that as you indicating that you think global warming is a myth?

The truth is we can't(at the present) MAKE enough biofuels to make even a small dent in the about of fuel we use.

Click to expand...

The reason we can't make enough is because the government is giving far more support to policies that keep us dependent on fossil fuels, and giving little or no support to moving technologies for mass production of biofuels from the lab to commercialization (historically, in almost every research field, government funding has been the critical factor in bridging that step. When it comes to fuel, it's even more critical that government fund that process, since without it, it just won't happen. Also, the government NEEDS to do something to make sure petroleum companies can't easily force out any new competition from renewable fuels by temporarily dropping prices, only to raise prices again once the competition is bankrupt (i.e. it costs Saudi Arabia $3 per barrel to extract oil, which they now sell for $60-70 per barrel. If we could make all the biofuel we want for $25 per barrel, we wouldn't become independent of oil. Why? Because as soon as a couple companies build plants to start producing it, and eat up some of the petro market, OPEC would drop oil prices to maybe $15 per barrel, which would bankrupt the companies producing biofuel for $25 per barrel. Then they'd be free to increase prices back up). That's why no company is interested in financing the R&D and commercialization stages for biofuels, since they know quite well that without any form of petro tax, the oil companies hold a trump card.

The simple reality is that our government is run by oil companies - as are many other governments around the world. And while our oil dependence results in adding to global warming, continuing conflicts over oil, inciting hatred between groups around the world because of the use of force that's often required to maintain oil supplies, etc., most politicians aren't *really* interested in getting us off of oil, because they make too much money from us being dependent on it. They're only interested in giving the appearance of getting us off of oil. SO, they lend verbal support to whatever they think the public will be easily duped into believing *might* be a solution - such as hydrogen (ha!), corn based ethanol, soy based biodiesel, etc.. Yet when it comes to allocating funding for things that might actually make a difference, they're nowhere to be found.

Is the sky falling? No.

Click to expand...

Are you a scientist who has any idea what he's talking about? No.

Biofuels are only a small part of the overall answer. And the current model of using corn and soybeans as the supply for biofuels falls way, way short of being able to replace the current consumption of petroluem products even if all corn and soybeans were converted to biofuels. There are a lot of incremental solutions like switchgrass, improved efficiencies in biofuel processing, waste oil recycling, hybrids, etc., but even all these together are still only a dent in conventional oil dependence.

Much more research in alternative energies (or shortage in oil for some reason) is needed before economical solutions arise.

- socks

nh mike said:

Are you a scientist who has any idea what he's talking about? No.

Click to expand...

Are you?

I seem to remember people frothing at the mouth about the coming ice age during the 70's.

Global temperature is enormously complex, and worldwide economic suicide to use biofuels is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to change global temperatures drastically. Here is a great (though long) article on the topic.

If economics prefer biofuels, then you won't need legislation. No one wants to speak to the reality of switching the worlds fuel supplies to biofuels - deforestation, high food prices, higher fuel prices, and fertilization runoff problems.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

After you read Steven Milloy's thesis, check his biography in wikipedia. Then read it again and look for any mention of the ice-core temperature record or of a climate model that he accepts. I value the introduction to climate science that his article provides, but find that he is employing a skewed presentation of available information to support his thesis, more charateristic of his juris education.

I'm curious about the "coming ice age" phenomenum. I don't recall that, but I will check on it.

NextExit said:

After you read Steven Milloy's thesis, check his biography in wikipedia. Then read it again and look for any mention of the ice-core temperature record or of a climate model that he accepts. I value the introduction to climate science that his article provides, but find that he is employing a skewed presentation of available information to support his thesis, more charateristic of his juris education.

I'm curious about the "coming ice age" phenomenum. I don't recall that, but I will check on it.

Click to expand...

I read the wikipedia article. I'm not sure who wrote it, but obviously folks don't like the fact that he has the audacity to challenge science based on politics. I just love the fact that as far as the left is concerned, scientific debate is not allowed. They take something as complex as global climate change and try to condense it into a bumper sticker slogan. I'm not saying that either side is conclusive, the truth probably lies in between the hysteria of the environmentalist, and the callousness of cold hard business bent on making a quick buck. I'll give an example, I personally believe biofuels will play a role in the final energy mix. I asked a question here a while back about the environemental impact of biofuels, and the I was scathingly attacked just for asking the question.

As far as ice core data, that too has tons of anomolies and biases. The debate is healthy, especially if they are going to impact policy decisions that could be ruinous to economies with farther ranging environmental impacts.

Let me give you an example. I lived in a rural region that felt it would be nifty if everyone recycled more. To make this happen, they charged $2 a bag of garbage to be landfilled but recylcing was free. So, folks did recycle hard components (metal, cans, bottles) and fired up burning barrels for everything else including paper, food, plastics etc. A bit of environmental heavy handedness ending up having a terrible effect on air quality. This is just an example of how these things need to be thought through and DEBATED!!!!

How do YOU know its science based on politics? Why do you assume that scientists are left-ward biased? Debate is fine, but you have to know the subject and the have the background knowledge to engage in a serious way. Otherwise its second-hand opinions, and anecdote.

octotatt said:

Are you?

I seem to remember people frothing at the mouth about the coming ice age during the 70's.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Click to expand...

Yes, and all feminists burned their bras on the street..... yeah, right. All of those scientists......frothing...... where do you get this stuff???????

Raybo

There is nothing novel about a "coming ice age." It isn't "coming," we're in it. Or, rather, we're in what would formally be referred to as the fourth interglacial period of the Pleistocene. The Pleistocene is roughly the last million years. During that time there have been four warming, or interglacial periods. We are still in the fourth, which started when things thawed out, around 12,000 years ago. Looking at the geological / climatological record, it is a perfectly defensible thesis that it's going to get colder again, and if you live as far south as, say, Effingham, Illinois....without getting technical, let's just say you ain't going to have to go to the refrigerator for your ice cubes.

The huge assumption in the current debates over "global warming," etc., which may or may not be true (and I don't know, and neither do you, nor does anyone else), is whether or not the radically increased human activity of the past three centuries is going to change the way it's going to go. Unfortunately, with real long-term data still incomplete, we just don't know.

It's rather like a high-wire act: if we do nothing about current trends, and are wrong, we risk falling off. And if we take drastic action, and are wrong, we may also fall off. Given the information I have, yes, I think that steps need to be taken to reduce greenhouse gases. I THINK that, that is my opinion, but I have no idea whether it is the correct one.

I am no scientist either, but many of them are noting that the rate of temperature increase is higher than at any other time. It is the rate of change - not the absolute temperature - that is the issue. The earth may not be able to adapt to such drastic temperature changes over such a short period of time.

Ray

octotatt said:

Are you?

I seem to remember people frothing at the mouth about the coming ice age during the 70's.

Global temperature is enormously complex, and worldwide economic suicide to use biofuels is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to change global temperatures drastically. Here is a great (though long) article on the topic.

If economics prefer biofuels, then you won't need legislation. No one wants to speak to the reality of switching the worlds fuel supplies to biofuels - deforestation, high food prices, higher fuel prices, and fertilization runoff problems.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Click to expand...

Complex....sure is....if melting permafrost and release of methane that has been locked up in ice since the Pleistocene doesn't convince you that we are facing a major warming event then nothing will.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060907102808.htm

A study co-authored by a Florida State University scientist and published in the Sept. 7 issue of the journal Nature has found that as the permafrost melts in North Siberia due to climate change, carbon sequestered and buried there since the Pleistocene era is bubbling up to the surface of Siberian thaw lakes and into the atmosphere as methane, a [COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]greenhouse [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]gas[/FONT][/color][/FONT][/color][/color] 20 times more potent than [COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]carbon [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]dioxide[/FONT][/color][/FONT][/color][/color].


In turn, that bubbling methane held captive as carbon under the permafrost for more than 40,000 years is accelerating [COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]global [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=green ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]warming[/FONT][/color][/FONT][/color][/color] by heating the Earth even more --- exacerbating the entire cycle. The ominous implications of the process grow as the permafrost decomposes further and the resulting lakes continue to expand, according to FSU oceanography Professor Jeff Chanton and study co-authors at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

Or this one complete with excellent refs/footnotes/sources

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6412/abs/361520a0.html

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Recent change of Arctic tundra ecosystems from a net carbon dioxide sink to a source[/FONT]

ARCTIC tundra has been a net sink for carbon dioxide during historic and recent geological times1−4, and large amounts of carbon are stored in the soils of northern ecosystems. Many regions of the Arctic are warmer now than they have been in the past5−10, and this warming may cause the soil to change from a carbon dioxide sink to a source by lowering the water table11−12, thereby accelerating the rate of soil decomposition (CO2 source)3,13−15 so that this dominates over photosynthesis (CO2 sink). Here we present data indicating that the tundra on the North Slope of Alaska has indeed become a source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This change coincides with recent warming in the Arctic, whether this is due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere or to some other cause. Our results suggest that tundra ecosystems may exert a positive feedback on atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse warming.


I think its safe to say that at this point anyone that doubts we are looking at a huge warming event has a lot of sand in their ears, mouth, nose etc....

Back to the original thread topic one of VW's major issues with BioD (1st gen) is that ANYONE can make it an as such consistent quality control is a problem.

Second Gen Bio fuels will require significant investment and along with that usually comes fewer backyard low/inconsistent quality products.

Personally I disagree but VW's response is understandable from Big Businesses viewpoint

nortones2 said:

How do YOU know its science based on politics? Why do you assume that scientists are left-ward biased? Debate is fine, but you have to know the subject and the have the background knowledge to engage in a serious way. Otherwise its second-hand opinions, and anecdote.

Click to expand...

Historically Science has been Science...not Politics, not Religion.....just Science. I'd personally like to keep it that way but too many Politicians are butting in.

OK, I admit I feel like I fell asleep in class: Can we rewind to the top?

Can somebody please fill me in on what precisely Pischetsrieder means by "first-" and "second-generation biofuels"? I suspect he isn't even talking about diesel!

bluegraphite said:

OK, I admit I feel like I fell asleep in class: Can we rewind to the top?

Can somebody please fill me in on what precisely Pischetsrieder means by "first-" and "second-generation biofuels"? I suspect he isn't even talking about diesel!

Click to expand...

"Put the lighter down and step away from the bong...."

Reread the last par of the first post.

I don't think we need any scientific predictions to notice that the Earth is warming. Things have definitely changed since the 70s (my childhood). I can tell a difference in the seasons, temperatures, tropical storms, and most obviously sun intensity. I remember folks using SPF 4 sunscreen and feeling comfortable that it would keep you from burning. Now you would end a day at the beach pretty damn crispy if you wore SPF 4.

So we are warming up.

Is it a man made phenomenon or a natural weather pattern? I don't want to get into it. The general concensus among Americans is that we have caused or contributed to some changes. However, I think that if we made some drastic changes in how we fuel our cars, and we hurt the economy to do so, we will make shortcuts in other areas that will do more harm than good.

For example, we make the huge leap to hydrogen at some point in the future. If we need to drastically ramp up our production of electricity to support the necessary hydrogen production and infrastructure, I could see us increasing surface coal mining. One fossil fuel for another...

One thing I like about this forum is that everyone here is in agreement that it will take a large combination of alternatives to ween us off oil, and reduce pollution.

justpaddlek1 said:

Historically Science has been Science...not Politics, not Religion.....just Science. I'd personally like to keep it that way but too many Politicians are butting in.

Click to expand...

If you believe that, you are horribly naive. I am in fact a scientist myself. I catch myself biasing work every day, every scientist does. Ethical scientist work diligently to remove these biases. I am NOT an atmospheric scientist, but have taken Meteorology, Earth Science, Natural Disasters, and have a degree in Chemisty. I count as VERY close friends atmospheric, solar, and geophysic scientist that work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, UC Boulder, and the National Renewable Energy Lab. Every one of them is very liberal, and they feel they are working toward supporting there position, not an unbiased collection of data.

I'll give an example. One friend recently authored a paper on measurements of the loss of mass of the Antarctic continent using satellite measurements of gravitational fields. The conclusion of the data was that the continent lost the equivalent of 30 cubic miles of ice per year. Immediately, she goes on network TV proclaiming this as evidence of man made global warming. I don't doubt her data or methods collection, but there was no discussion about statistical relavence of the loss, other possible causes of loss of mass (subduction???) or any other sources to explain this. This was a loss of mass, it did NOT measure loss of ice. We had to have about 3 - 4 assumptive leaps to correlate magnetic anomolies with man made global warming, but she did not concern herself with that little issue.

Those are my two cents. Unfortunately, I can't debate this ad naseum, I have work (hopefully unbiased) to do

Agreed justpaddlek1. Its when they butt in and change the scientists reports, to suit their own agenda, that it gets really murky....)

octotatt said:

If you believe that, you are horribly naive. I am in fact a scientist myself. I catch myself biasing work every day, every scientist does. Ethical scientist work diligently to remove these biases. I am NOT an atmospheric scientist, but have taken Meteorology, Earth Science, Natural Disasters, and have a degree in Chemisty. I count as VERY close friends atmospheric, solar, and geophysic scientist that work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, UC Boulder, and the National Renewable Energy Lab. Every one of them is very liberal, and they feel they are working toward supporting there position, not an unbiased collection of data.

I'll give an example. One friend recently authored a paper on measurements of the loss of mass of the Antarctic continent using satellite measurements of gravitational fields. The conclusion of the data was that the continent lost the equivalent of 30 cubic miles of ice per year. Immediately, she goes on network TV proclaiming this as evidence of man made global warming. I don't doubt her data or methods collection, but there was no discussion about statistical relavence of the loss, other possible causes of loss of mass (subduction???) or any other sources to explain this. This was a loss of mass, it did NOT measure loss of ice. We had to have about 3 - 4 assumptive leaps to correlate magnetic anomolies with man made global warming, but she did not concern herself with that little issue.

Those are my two cents. Unfortunately, I can't debate this ad naseum, I have work (hopefully unbiased) to do

Click to expand...

I've got a few friends that work/have worked at NIH here in DC......they have had Politics FORCED on them.....everything from influencing conclusions to shutting down one project in favor of another b/c of Political BS.

don't buy the CO2 crap

rcnaylor said:

You'd think something that elemental could even sink in on politicions and govt regulators.

Maybe when the C02 has melted the ice shelf and California's coastal cities are half submerged they will start worrying about NOX less and start encouraging cars that can help get rid of, maybe some day, 90% of the C02.

Click to expand...

If it happens, i won't be our fault. The earth warms and cools anyway. Don't believe the Global warming crowd.

We need a poll. I'd do it, but I've never taken the time to learn how to do one.

What will happen first?

1. Global Warming melts enough ice caps that a US city becomes submerged.
or
2. We run out of oil. Or at least oil become scarce enough to make it unfeasible to run automobiles on fossil fuels.

Oil will be plentiful, Fiji Islands and Bangladesh will have disappeared as nations under the waves, northern polar ice cap will be renamed Great Northern Ocean. Ford and GM (subsumed as quasi governmental operations like the Post Office) will introduce their new line of floatable SUV's with powerful v-12 engines capable of crossing the Hudson River (which is now fifty miles wide) from the five remaining counties in north west New Jersey to the diked city of Manhattan (the dutch had great foresight) to avoid idling in the gridlock on the pontoon bridges. As floatables they will no longer be required to post mile per gallon EPA ratings and will be hailed as the new green solution.

Global warming will be finally disproved by a congressional panel citing evidence gathered by interested citizens that the flooding is the result of excess water and NOT global warming. Plans will be drawn up by NASA at the direction of President George Herbert Walker Clinton Kennedy Bush the IV to send the excess water to Mars where it's really needed.

DRbillZ said:

Why doesn't VW allow more of a percentage of biodiesel in their vehicles before it voids the warranty then?

"Global Warming" ....... Repeat after me...."I believe, I believe".

The truth is we can't(at the present) MAKE enough biofuels to make even a small dent in the about of fuel we use. Is it a start? Yes. Do we need to keep heading in that direction? Yes. Is the sky falling? No.

Click to expand...

One biofuel is not the same as another: some first-generation biofuels can best be described as a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. Some of them have a worse CO2 balance than conventional gasoline fuels, but nevertheless still bear the name of ‘biofuel’

RT1 said:

Oil will be plentiful, Fiji Islands and Bangladesh will have disappeared as nations under the waves, northern polar ice cap will be renamed Great Northern Ocean. Ford and GM (subsumed as quasi governmental operations like the Post Office) will introduce their new line of floatable SUV's with powerful v-12 engines capable of crossing the Hudson River (which is now fifty miles wide) from the five remaining counties in north west New Jersey to the diked city of Manhattan (the dutch had great foresight) to avoid idling in the gridlock on the pontoon bridges. As floatables they will no longer be required to post mile per gallon EPA ratings and will be hailed as the new green solution.

Global warming will be finally disproved by a congressional panel citing evidence gathered by interested citizens that the flooding is the result of excess water and NOT global warming. Plans will be drawn up by NASA at the direction of President George Herbert Walker Clinton Kennedy Bush the IV to send the excess water to Mars where it's really needed.

Click to expand...

Hahaha. Trained Space Monkeys will be the next.

RT1 said:

flooding is the result of excess water

Click to expand...

That is the only flaw in your argument.

excess water

Actually it's not so much that the increased water in the ocean from melting ice caps that could raise ocean levels as the increase in volume due to warming of the oceans. Water is most dense at, I think, 4 degrees Celcius and there's a lot of cool water in the ocean. It warms and MN gets ocean front property.

EVERY scientist is biased (I am one and I am)......because every human is biased and scientist are (for the most part) human......Problem is a lot of scientists won't admit that they are biased-and like to claim that they are only influenced by "the facts." But how those facts are interpreted-is influenced by the person's bias(es)......and for that matter bias even determines what a person will even accept as "the facts."

And which bias you have depends on many things......upbringing, experiences, education, religion, what you read, watch on tv etc. etc. etc.......But EVERYONE is biased......

the ocean is not going to overtake the coasts. scientists have been and will coninue to be wrong in the future.

theory of global warming, not fact.