The signing of an alliance between Brazil and the US on Friday to cooperate in the promotion of ethanol has greatly boosted the prestige of the Latin American nation, but at the same time it has raised a number of tough questions such as, "if Brazil can do it, why can't we?"
Many believe Brazil's example in promoting ethanol demonstrates to the world what a determined nation can do to reduce its dependence on petroleum. But the fact is, there are many yet-to-be-resolved questions or myths about ethanol, even though it does have an important part to play as an alternative energy source of the future.
Certainly, Brazil deserves credit for its leadership in biofuel development. Its sugar cane-based ethanol production began as a large and costly government project in the early 1970s. It has now grown to support a sizable number of jobs at home and has made Brazil the world's second-largest ethanol producer -- after the US -- and the world's only major exporter of biofuel. Brazil has more than 30,000 stations nationwide to provide pure ethanol fuel and gasoline that is blended with 20 percent to 25 percent ethanol. Eight out of every 10 new cars in Brazil are capable of running on ethanol.
Brazil's example is encouraging, but it does not mean that nations like Taiwan can rely solely on alternative fuels like ethanol when seeking to greatly reduce reliance on oil. Ethanol is certainly a valuable part of the mix, but when you consider that Brazil still consumes far more petroleum than it does ethanol, while in the US ethanol currently only comprises about 4.2 percent of gasoline supply it is obvious that ethanol is not the panacea to the world's future fuel needs.
But Taiwan does need to accelerate its development of alternative energy sources in view of continued high oil prices, stricter restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and the important issue of energy independence.
The government has acknowledged the desirability of biofuels and earmarked NT$300 million (US$9.1 million) for work in this regard. Government-run laboratories have researched the use of grain-based additives in gasoline and have found that producing ethanol from sweet potatoes is cheaper and more energy efficient than sugar cane and rice straw. Meanwhile, a scheme that will see government vehicles in Taipei City run on ethanol gasoline is set to go ahead this year, before the fuel becomes available to the public in 2011.
But this is way too slow and close scrutiny of the development of the nation's energy industry shows that any potential ethanol industry in Taiwan appears risky. The government has still not canvassed opinion from the business sector on the possibility of establishing a commercial ethanol industry and it has yet to work out plans with automobile makers to produce vehicles that can run on gasoline and ethanol mixes.
Before jumping on the ethanol bandwagon, the government needs to consider how to prevent any possible increase in demand for sweet potatoes for fuel production from driving up the price to the disadvantage of consumers. It also has to investigate the possible environmental pros and cons, for example whether grain-based ethanol production releases more greenhouse gases than gasoline usage.
The story of Brazilian ethanol shows we in Taiwan still have a long way to go. It will be many years before we can use alternative energy to replace oil.
In the meantime, if the government is really serious about improving the nation's energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what it should do is further liberalize the energy market as Brazil has done, and most importantly, begin serious energy conservation moves now.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS