Politics suck, or why I’m annoyed with Prop 87
I’m rather annoyed with politics at present, but then, it’s that time of the year. What I’ve noticed most in California is the flurry of support for Proposition 87, the so-called “Cleaner Energy” bill having to do with the funding of alternative fuel programs, research, etc. It’s not that I don’t think the concept is a good one, but upon examining the actual language of the bill itself, I’m less than enthused.
The proposed legislation is much too broad. What, after all, are these “Clean Alternative Fuels” being talked about? The bill’s definition lists,
…fuels for use in transportation including, but not limited to, hydrogen, methanol, natural gas, ethanol blends consisting of at least eighty-five percent (85%) ethanol, and biodiesel blends consisting of at least twenty percent (20%) biodiesel that, when used in vehicles, have been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the authority, to have the ability to meet applicable vehicular emission standards and that, relative to petroleum use, produce no net material increase in air pollution, water pollution, or any other substances that are known to damage human health, and reduce global warming pollution considering the full fuel-cycle assessment.
Ok, so that’s a very nice list. But which are we leaning toward? Nothing but hydrogen yields what I would consider completely “clean” energy, and that’s only once we have the hydrogen to utilize. Hydrogen is not a source of energy on this planet, but rather a means for transporting it, meaning more conventional methods must be used to create it before we can consider a hydrogen economy. That and the underlying physics issues with the storage and cooling of liquid hydrogen (which is about ten times less dense than gasoline with only about two and a half times the energy per gram) make this a questionable route.
Biodiesel, ethanol, et al., all have their respective negatives. Competition with the food supply is one problem, as is transportation of the food to processing plants (for we don’t grow a lot of corn in California compared to midwestern states), and perhaps most poignant is the need for an entirely new infrastructure of processing, storage, etc. If we’re willing to go it all the way, sure, but $4 billion, while a lot of money, still seems too little to accomplish such a major shift in this state’s fuel economy, much less this country’s.
Of course, there’s always solar power, but that’s not a viable option for cars. Hybrids are great, but we’re already working on those. And other renewable sources aren’t really viable for use with automobiles, such as wind or water power. The point I’m trying to get to is, this bill is scattered. It has heaped every kind of alternative energy possibility on its plate, thrown some money into the mix, and seems to be hoping that some sort of concrete resolution or progress will come of it.
But I am not so optimistic. We need direction in our energy legislation to effect real change. Let’s get a bill that specifically aims to grab some large plots of land in the middle of California, coat them in high-efficiency solar panels, and tie this to a hydrogen storage system, utilizing excess energy from the sun to drive hydrogen creation during the day for later use during the dark hours. Hell, the extra hydrogen could even be used as a stepping stone toward a hydrogen economy, one which might not make its way into automobiles anytime soon but would certainly have other uses.
Will I vote for this bill? Probably. It aims to reduce petroleum usage, which is good, and looks to be a step in the right direction. I’m just miffed that this bill isn’t better. This is someone’s job, and yet all that can be cobbled together is a haphazard piece of legislation sorely lacking in direction. Politics these days seems to be a process of selecting the lesser evil, but I can’t help but wonder what happened to the good.
Comments
No comments yet.