Most U.S. energy practitioners readily agree that a successful nationwide energy program for the next few decades consists of a combination of conservation, fossil fuels, clean coal, and multiple forms of renewable energy. While many experts are deeply compassionate in this debate, there are some lessons to be learned from other parts of the world. Take for example Brazil's 30-year ethanol success story.

After nearly three decades, Brazil has succeeded in developing a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Currently Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol in the world (second only to the U.S.). And according to the World Bank, estimated production cost is approximately $1.00/gal compared to $1.50 for the rest of the world.

Ethanol accounts for over 40 percent of the total motor fuel consumed in Brazil (compared to three percent in the U.S.). Brazil has approximately 23 million autos compared to more than 200 million in the U.S. Brazil says its ethanol exports will likely double from $600 million in 2005 to $1.3 billion in 2010. And since ethanol releases less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, this will help Brazil and other countries meet their obligation under the Kyoto Protocol.

In 1970, they found themselves in a precarious position: the price of sugar cane was going down and the price of oil going up. They import the bulk of their oil (currently 16th on the world's oil producers). Brazilians realized they had to take drastic measures to provide stability, economic growth and a compelling standard of living.

Let's drill down and take a closer look at why (and how) Brazil embarked on such a strategy and what factors contributed to their overall success.

Commonly accepted factors in Brazil's success in ethanol are:

* Sugar cane versus corn -- sugar cane produces more ethanol pound-for-pound than corn.
* Tropical climate -- Brazil grows more sugar cane per acre than Iowa grows corn. Brazil can grow sugar cane year-round while corn production in the Midwest is hampered by cold winter weather. Planting sugar cane in an equatorial habitat is a definite advantage in the competition to raise economical fuel. With an annual rainfall of 40 to 60 inches and the average annual temperature of 65 to 70 degrees F (depending on region), Brazil has ideal growing conditions for sugar cane.
* Location of processing plants -- one of the first things Brazil did was to build their processing plants very close to the sugar cane field thereby reducing transportation cost.
* Brazil has the forethought to develop two tools: one is the manufacturing of automobiles that can run on gasoline or ethanol (seven out of every 10 new cars is flex fuel); and two, fueling stations that can pump either ethanol or gasoline.
* Government vision and leadership as the Brazilian government created a long-term vision for energy independence and provided the leadership to effect the desired outcome.
* The Brazilian government implemented a broad marketing campaign to persuade automobile manufacturers, sugar cane producers, investors and the Brazilian people to understand and support the national campaign. The overwhelming buy-in from the participants exceeded expectations. The campaign was slow to start but picked up support and speed as it demonstrated their ability to exceed their goals.

One of the other breakthrough decisions in Brazil was the decision to power their sugar refineries with bagasse, the fibrous material left over after the raw sugar cane is pressed. By burning sugar cane bagasse to power their refining machinery, they became self sufficient energy-wise but also created a byproduct that can lower the production cost of the ethanol (in this case they used bagasse to power their electric generators) The sugar cane processors were able to sell the excess electricity back to the national grid. Experts estimated that for every 600 megawatts created from burning bagasse, they sold back another 100 megawatts to the national grid.

All of this progress didn't just happen -- it evolved. In the mid-seventies under the oil embargo, OPEC threatened to withhold crude oil from the market to drive up the prices. This also occurred simultaneously with a sharp fall of sugar prices on the worldwide market. Brazil's leaders recognized they must maintain control of their own future, and began implementing a wide-scale plan to move away from fossil fuels. In 1975, the National Alcohol Program was implemented to support the ethanol initiative. The first step was to increase the number of distilleries by offering low interest loans for construction.

The next step in transforming Brazil's foreign oil dependency was to start the mass production of flex cars -- cars that could run on ethanol and/or gasoline. Volkswagen, GM, and Toyota were major first movers. Taxi drivers and fleet managers were incented to convert. Government vehicles were converted. As a result of this very proactive national policy, by 1988, a stunning 90 percent of new car sales in Brazil were ethanol-powered.

It must be said that ethanol production is not without its disadvantages. The choice of feedstock, whether corn, sugar cane or other, is a complicated issue. Land utilization is a much-debated topic and government subsidies always are a source of consternation for all energy sources. As many energy experts have become painfully aware, all forms of energy are going to have their pros and cons.

What must the U.S. do to reach similar success?

* Government leadership, direction and vision. President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu must articulate and communicate the details of a strong go-forward strategy that defines the details of the administration's energy policy. President Obama within his first six months in office should clearly advocate a strong position in creating (finally) a comprehensive energy policy for fossil fuels, clean coal, nuclear, and all forms of renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal). This well thought-out position must be aimed at getting the man on Main Street to understand and buy into the concept and actively support such a program. Any energy program must have decisive action with readily agreeable milestones. Each U.S. taxpayer needs to notify their respective political representatives about their thoughts, ideas and opinions relative to the U.S. energy policy.
* Funding for the Obama energy policy should come from a combination of state and federal funds as well as private investors. It may well be prudent to encourage and accept investment from foreign companies. For example, companies like Vestas, Gamesa, Iberdola and Alstom either already have U.S. operations or are considering same. Even Wall Street must be convinced there is an opportunity for strong financial gains.
* Technology. R & D colleges and universities, think tanks, etc., must be encouraged and incented to initiate and continue the discovery of new technology. Some of these efforts will be successful; some won't. Within the next decade we should see next generation technology in wind, solar, coal, biomass, etc. Some areas of advancement will progress faster than others.
* Communication. As noted in Brazil's success, a massive and comprehensive communication plan must clearly communicate to leaders in the industry, government, research, academia, taxpayers and investors on what the Energy Policy is, what we are doing to improve our energy crises and how we measure and report our success.
* Feedstock Diversity. The U.S. should promote a variety of feedstock including corn, switch grass and sugar cane.

Ethanol may not be the sole solution for our energy crises, but surely the U.S. can take advantage of lessons learned elsewhere in the world to forge a new strategy for clean, renewable, affordable energy. Americans have always responded when a crisis looms at the front door. Americans responded to the challenges during World War II, putting a man on the moon, the Manhattan Project, etc. And we will again. It's time to overcome the stranglehold of fossil fuels (and the auto manufacturers) and start moving toward a cleaner, cost-effective energy program.

A very true article and deserving of thought.

Because the USA has abondoned the values that built this country.

The USA has become a nation of whiners, complainers, and political pundit addicts. The only motivation left seems to be self interest, windfall profits, fruad, greed, arrogant conciet and persuit of an easy buck.

Americans have come to expect someone else to do their thnking for them, instead of mastering the art of independent thinking and hard work that their grandparents used. Americans used to roll up their sleeves and get things done. No matter WHAT the obstacles were. Need a canal in Panama? We built a canal in Panama. So what if the French already tried and failed. We aren't French. Facist dictators need their butt kicked, we kicked their butt! After Pearl Harbor, while his other officers were in jubilation, Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear we have awakened the sleeping tiger." Admiral Yamamoto was right.

So where are the Americans that could do things no one else could do. Where are the Americans who could see a job that needed to be done, and went out and did it. Where are the Americans that took risks, could think on their feet, and again and again defied the odds, and did what everyone else said couldn't be done?

Copyright © 2002-2006, CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved.