Biofuels - Great Green Hope or Swindle
BROOKLIN, Canada - A raft of new studies reveal European and American multibillion dollar support for biofuels is unsustainable, environmentally destructive and much more about subsidising agri-business corporations than combating global warming.
Not only do most forms of biofuel production do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, growing biofuel crops uses up precious water resources, increasing the size and extent of dead zones in the oceans, boosting use of toxic pesticides and deforestation in tropical countries, such studies say.
And biofuel, powered by billions of dollars in government subsidies, will drive food prices 20-40 percent higher between now and 2020, predicts the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute.
“Fuel made from food is a dumb idea to put it succinctly,” says Ronald Steenblik, research director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Biofuel production in the U.S. and Europe is just another way of subsidising big agri-business corporations, Steenblik told IPS.
“It’s (biofuel) also a distraction from dealing with the real problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” he asserts.
Making fuel out of corn, soy, oilseeds and sugar crops is also incredibly expensive, Steenblik and his co-authors document in two new reports on the U.S. and the European Union that are part of a series titled ‘Biofuels at What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel’.
Their analysis shows that by 2006 government support for biofuels had reached 11 billion dollars a year for Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) countries. More than 90 percent of those subsidies came from the European Union and the U.S.
These subsidies will likely climb to 13-15 billion dollars this year the report estimates.
“More subsidies are coming as the biofuel industry expands,” says Steenblik.
In fact, countries will have to spend more than 100 billion dollars a year to get biofuel production levels high enough to supply 25 or 30 percent of transport fuel demands.
And those levels of annual subsidies will have to continue because the industry is dependent on them, he says.
It might be worth it if biofuels resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) but Steenblik calculates the amount of subsidies that goes into making enough ethanol to reduce emissions equivalent of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) is between 2,100 to 4,400 euros (2,980 to 6,240 dollars) depending on the support programmes.
However, the European carbon trading markets sells a similar saved or sequestered tonne of CO2 for less than 25 euros (35 dollars) through various projects like planting trees or installing solar panels.
Various analysis that take the full environmental costs of growing, shipping and processing maize into ethanol show there is only a small reduction in GHG emissions over burning fossil fuels. Newer research shows some biofuels could even be far worse.
Rapeseed biodiesel and maize ethanol may produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more GHG emissions respectively than fossil fuels, according to work published in September by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and University of Edinburgh colleague Keith Smith.
They found that growing biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought. The N2O results from using nitrogen fertilisers.
About 80 percent of Europe’s biodiesel comes from rapeseed and in America the vast majority is maize ethanol.
“What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse,” Smith has said in media reports.
Last January, U.S. President George W. Bush set a biofuel target of 35 billion gallons per year by 2017, more than five times the current production of less than 7 billion gallons.
However that target would leave some U.S. waterways polluted and some regions with severe water shortages the National Research Council (NRC) said in a report released this month. The NRC is the research arm of the US National Academy of Sciences.
The additional fertilisers used to grow all that maize will contribute to the overgrowth of aquatic plant life that produces “dead zones” like those in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere, the report said.
Similar water warnings were issued by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka regarding India and China’s growing interest in biofuels. IWMI, part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, recommends in its October report that the two countries invest in cellulosic biofuel the so-called second generation biofuel technology that is still a number of years from commercialisation.
“Subsidies for ethanol are more about securing votes from the powerful agricultural lobby than bringing environmental benefits,” says Walter Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, an environmental NGO based in New York City.
Simple and cheap programmes like a congestion charge - an extra fee for driving in city centres - and the widely successful Paris, France free bike programme reduce air pollution and GNG emissions immediately at very low cost, Hook said in an interview.
Launched in July, Paris put thousands of low-cost rental bikes - the first 30 minutes of use are free - at hundreds of high-tech bicycle stations. A million trips were taken in just 17 days. “Absolutely amazing, every city should be thinking of doing this,” he said.
In Paris, an advertising company provides the bikes for free, runs the system, gives all the revenue to the city and pays 4.3 million dollars a year in exchange for exclusive control of the city’s advertising billboards.
Mobility - getting from A to B - with the minimum of GHG emissions is the core problem we should be addressing not finding greener fuels, says Steenblik.
Indeed, Canadian transportation analyst Todd Alexander Litman has demonstrated greener fuels and improvements in fuel efficiency result in people driving more because they can afford to. And that just makes “traffic congestion, accidents, road and parking facility costs, and the lack of options for non-drivers worse,” said Litman, director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, in British Columbia, Canada.
In his ‘Win-Win Transportation Solutions’ report released in September, Litman documents a variety of cost-effective transportation strategies that could reduce motor vehicle travel by 30-50 percent, produce substantial reductions in GHGs and bring a range of economic developments. His simple solutions include making urban areas more walkable, creating bike lanes, improving the quality of mass transit and a dozen more ideas. None involved producing more biofuels.
“Subsidising biofuels is just about the dumbest way to go,” Litman told IPS.
Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, uses stronger language: increasing biofuel production is a “total disaster” for starving people, he told a Swiss media outlet last week.
“There are serious risks of creating a battle between food and fuel that will leave the poor and hungry in developing countries at the mercy of rapidly rising prices for food, land and water,” Ziegler warned the UN General Assembly last August.
On Oct. 25, he will ask the UN General Assembly, to adopt a five-year global ban on the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.
Despite the growing evidence that biofuels are a huge mistake, governments will continue to pour billions more tax dollars into boosting production levels.
“Governments rarely phase out subsidies,” laments Steenblik. “We’re hoping that countries will come to their senses in the next few years.”
© 2007 Inter Press Service
This is old news to me. Hienberg (Power Down, The Party’s Over)and Kunsler (The Long Emergency) laid out these arguments years ago.
All the bio-fuel hype is just that. Hype. A game to placate the drooling masses into thinking that the corporations who created this oil dependant nightmare were actually doing something to help.
Bio-deisel is a lie. The Hydrogen economy is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. Wind power can’t do it. Solar is too inefficient.NONE of these ‘alternative energy technologies’ will be able to meet even a FRACTION of our insatiable thirst for energy.
We are staring down the twin barrels of global warming and resource depletion, especially oil. It has passed the point for governments to ‘do something’. It is now time for the individual communities to plan how they will adjust to the coming shortages. Goods and services that we take for granted will wither away. No more California avacados in winter. No more air conditioning in summer. No more car nation. Air travel? A thing of the past for all but the uber-wealthy elite, and for them only for a short time.
This is the first day of the fall of our Rome. The new Dark Ages are upon us, and twilight has started to fall…
The time has come to abandon the oil driven technocratic society. All of Bush’s hype aside, technology will not Technology as we use it today is the CAUSE of the problem. You don’t put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
It’stime to step back and adopt appropriate low tech solutions. No more overseas vacations. No more freeways. No more buying food from Chile. We must live closer to home, closer to the earth,in harmony with nature, not attempting to dominate it.
In stead of trying to bring the rest of the world up to North American standards of living, why not step back to theirs? Whats wrong with having a family garden? Or with cottage industry? Yes, I know it will be hard to go back to what your great grand parents lived with, but do we really have any other choice?
So say good-bye to your cellphone-camera-mp3 player. Say good-bye to your SUV. Say good-bye to the vacation in the Bahamas. Say hello to a slower, saner more human world, smaller in scope, but healthier and more content in the long run.
Bio-fuel, Carbon Sequestration, and Soil Enhancement
It is not necessary to use food crops, or destroy natural habitat to supplement our addiction to oil.
It seems counter intuitive, but making bio-char from crop residue creates energy, sequesters carbon, and enhances soil.
Research the links below for Terra Preta ‘technology’ for potential to alleviate climate change and aid sustainable development of food and fuel.
Terra Preta is Portuguese for black earth. “Rich black soil – terra preta – was created by humans up to 4000 years ago in infertile regions of the Amazon. The high nutrient content of terra preta is recreated today by low-temperature slow burning pyrolysis of biomass. The resulting product, black carbon, known as bio-char, reduces the need for fertilizers. It can also be used as a fuel.” (1.)
“Inspired by the fascinating properties of Terra Preta de Indio, bio-char is a soil amendment that has the potential to revolutionize concepts of soil management. While “discovered” may not be the right word, as bio-char (also called charcoal or biomass-derived black carbon, recently in context of agricultural application also named agri-char) has been used in traditional agricultural practices as well as in modern horticulture, never before has evidence been accumulating that demonstrates so convincingly that bio-char has very specific and unique properties that make it stand out among the opportunities for sustainable soil management.
The benefits of bio-char rest on two pillars:
1- The extremely high affinity of nutrients to bio-char
2- The extremely high persistence of bio-char
These two properties (which are truly extraordinary - see details below) can be used effectively to address some of the most urgent environmental problems of our time:
1- Soil degradation and food insecurity
2- Water pollution from agro-chemicals
3- Climate change
‘Soils with bio-char additions are typically more fertile, produce more and better crops for a longer period of time.’” (2.)
“Important lessons can be learned from the recalcitrance of black carbon and its effects on the biogeochemistry of soils. Given the apparent ubiquity of black Carbon established by several authors (Schmidt and Noak, 2000; Skjemstad et al., 2002), refinements of global Carbon models and sequestration estimates may be necessary. Further, the potential for enhancing sequestration by active management of black Carbon could be established with important linkages to energy production and land use.” (3.)
“Eprida offers a revolutionary new energy technology for sustainable fuels and sustainable income while producing co-products which also allow us to remove greenhouse gases from the air. We mimic nature’s methods for biomass conversion and build a sustainable food and energy production.” (4.)
(1.) http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/February/20020601.asp
(2.) http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm
(3.) http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm
(4.). http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4
Galen’s comment appropriately illustrates the level of hysteria exemplified by the article itself.
This is a complicated issue and it isn’t such a clear call. It isn’t all or nothing. Biofuels may be good in some ways, not so good in others. Ethanol is used in the US mainly as an octane-booster, for which it is a relatively green alternative to MTBE or lead. It is used in Brazil mainly because that country can grow sugar cane more cheaply than it can buy oil. What Europe is doing may or may not make sense in the long term, but they are being relatively proactive in supporting a variety of approaches and will be sorting out later which are the most sensible.
For biofuels to have a substantial impact on the US energy economy, we will need switchgrass or another crop which does not require as much water or fertilizer as corn, and we will need better engineered enzymes. This article and its sources appear to be driven in part by ideological opposition to biotechnology in general, and when I use the word “ideological” in this context I can barely resist the temptation to change that to “religious.” It is not based on science, that’s for sure.
Lots of smart people have looked at this question in great depth and have not come to such stark conclusions. I don’t think many people would say that biofuels are a singular solution to our energy problems, but they can make a contribution, and I don’t think they are perfectly free of environmental and other issues, such as the impact on the cost of food, but all other options have such costs as well.
The energy problem is not going to be the doom of civilization, but it is going to require lots of investment, new ideas, willingness to try out new ideas, and some level of sacrifice or adjustment from most of us.
Galen___ Good ideas there and I am in agreement with some of them. However, our society has raised a generation or two of young people that are accustomed to having everything they see or want and are not prepared in any way to give up all of the wonderful new products and lifestyles. We will have to have an absolute disaster in this country before most people would even consider going back to previous methods of living. Even if they tried, how many are prepared to live a simple life and raise their own food, make their own clothing, etc? We have to face the facts and get it across to our children that if our society cannot continue it`s wasteful and extravagant ways, we need to be prepared for some enoumous downward adjustments in our living standards.
Mark Abram: Read Richard Hienberg. Or Howard Kunsler.
Trying to grow either enough switch grass or high sugar corn to meet the demand for fuel would mean growing NOTHING but those two crops. And the amount of ethanol you produce is nowhere near the amount of petroleum that you would have to use to farm it…
Using Ethanol as a fuel additive is a swindle, a shell game played by the oil companies to persuade the public they are ‘green’.
The energy problem WILL be the end of our technological civilization. The call for ‘new technology’ is nothing more than another delaying tactic, as any ‘new’ technology will take a MINIMUM of 20-30 years to develop and implement. Those numbers by the way are from industry insiders. I suggest you read up on the work of M. King Hubbard, and the explanation of Peak Oil.
There will be adjustments. Like going from 55mph in a Hummer to 10mph in a horse drawn ‘Bennet Buggy’ (look it up…).
Kernel: Waht do you think I’m doing with my freinds and family? The plan is to find a bit of land in an out of the way place, go off the grid, go low tech, and live quietly…
Perhaps a Biotransportation system is in order. It’s worked since the dawn of time providing jobs as porters and work for the cartmaking industry.
We just had arch neocon, James Woolsey go through town (Colorado Springs) trying to pass off biofuels as being the Green wave of the future. He is co chair of the Committee on the Present Danger and and a big advocate of fighting a multi-generational war against the Muslim world. He also is pushing Ethanol, which he believes he can profit off of through government and military sales from a company he heads up.
Unfortunately, he largely went unchallenged here. In fact, many in the liberal community bought into him being sold as a Green warrior!
Thanks for publishing this article, Common Dreams.
You want a bio-fuel vehicle?
Get a horse.
it’s been a while since I’ve seen canola called rapeseed.
“Fuel made from food is a dumb idea to put it succinctly,” says Ronald Steenblik, research director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) in Geneva, Switzerland.
That’s putting it stupidly, not succinctly. The ideologues of destruction have a field day discrediting the whole progressive movement when progressive media quotes such statements. Some resources are bad all around - fossil fuels are like that. Some resources are good when done right - biofuels are like this. Actually, free market capitalism is the problem. It abuses and destroys with every tool it picks up - fossil, bio, whatever.
But the PEOPLE NEED BIOFUELS precisely to help eliminate their dependence on free market capitalism. The way forward is: 1.) resource/energy conservation/efficiency, 2.) land, food, water rights, 3.) local production by small farmers, craftsmen, merchants, 4.) research performed and knowledge disseminated in the public interests.
We do not have these things today because the beast capital controls our society. Individuals may do their part by shifting their individual exchange/association away from the power centers and toward the local economies. It’s our choice - we can stop blaming the tool being abused and help stop the abuse, the abuser, our oppressor, the beast capital.
A model system: Rail public transport serving most people most of the time. Biofuels can supply personal transport on a modest scale, e.g. 1500 miles/year per person, at 15 gal of biofuel/year per person. The biofuel is produced at 600 gal/acre per year in a sustainable way. There are right and wrong production methods. The progressive left could do better by constructing a policy and implementing it, instead of squawking aimlessly.
Galen-
When someone tells me to read the book by some particular author who apparently takes an extreme view on an issue that lots of people are looking at carefully, I tend not to bother.
But since you offer a citation, for present debating purposes, here’s a counter-citation: “Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals,” Farrell, et al., Science v.311, p.506 (27 Jan 2006); also, from the same issue, “The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials,” Raguskas, et al., p.484.
But again, these are only two more studies, and the literature is huge. Farrell, et al. conclude that, in fact, ethanol production even in its present inefficient form in the US is a net energy-producer. However, they review many other authors who have claimed the opposite.
You write, “The energy problem WILL be the end of our technological civilization.” So apparently you feel very strongly about this. However, a lot of smart and thoughtful people wouldn’t agree with you, and I don’t, either.
I do think the energy problem is a very serious challenge, though. I don’t think it is very helpful to say there is no way to overcome this challenge. That tends to discourage people from trying.
Mark Abram: A challenge is climbing a mountain. Disaster is digging yourself out from under a landslide. Guess where we are?
The time to adopt alternative energies was back in ‘72, during the first oil shock. Too late to do much now but find a quiet place to wait it out.
Modern technological society is a statistical blip, an anomaly dependant on cheap plentiful energy supplied by petroleum. Once it’s depleted, the party is over.
What biofuel crop produces no global warming? Hemp. Better yet, grow marihuana.
“Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot”
Gilbert Sheldon’s “The Furry Freak Brothers”
With today’s world population, the idea of growing food to make fuel is troubling because it raises the price of food everywhere–and perhaps we’ve only seen the very small beginning of that big trend worldwide.
I’m also troubled that just as people in America’s rural-land SHOULD be sick to death of Republican economics and ready to vote Democratic, that the current farm-belt boom mentality over corn to make ethanol could fool some of them into temporarily thinking Bushonomics was okay.
We need the vote shift in 2008, not some other decade.
Galen said:”You want a bio-fuel vehicle? Get a horse.”
Sure. One better? Get a bicycle. And use it.
Chlorocardium: Bikes are great. But they are still reliant on petroleum derivatives, eg. ‘rubber’ tires and lubricants, not to mention the fossil fuel deived energy to smelt the metals the bike is made of.
Whither goes the oil, technology follows.
And you can’t eat a bike…
Although Solar / Wind power seems incapable of meeting our needs - I firmly believe that of any “alternative fuel” available currently they are where our only hope lies.
We’ve got to get off the whole “Grow, Harvest, Process, Ship, Dispense (Biofuel) Locate, Mine / Dig / Pipe, Ship, Refine, Ship again, Dispense (Petrol)” way of thinking.
There’s no reason that our government couldn’t be subsidizing Solar / Wind power and providing truly sustainable energy to the masses while allowing entrepreneur’s stateside to profit and develop higher capacities.
Galen, horses consume fuel even when standing in their stalls.
The current attempt in the US to further exploit the massive investments made into corn/soybeans over the decades for expansion into this “lucrative” biofuels market completely fails to serve the society’s better interests.
We have the tail wagging the dog - you know - the corn/soybean production serving not the public interests but serving the interests of capital - to maintain very large, profitable industrial systems that are largely unnecessary and highly destructive.
First, the fossil fuels that drive it all - exploration, shipping, refining. That in turn drives the military - ships and submarines, missiles and “intelligence”. The military lobby works to maintain its raisons d’etre. Next you have the fertilizers and pesticides produced in large part from the fossil fuels - it’s all very heavy - requires lots of energy to cook up and ship all around this 3000 mile wide continent. Then you have the machinery to apply it and plow it into the ground, plant and harvest - there’s no effort to make this process efficient, because the more fuel consumed the better.
Eating meat consumes ten times the resources than if we ate plant food. This is why the capitalists promote meat/dairy - it helps keep the much wider industrial system running full tilt. The capitalist game is to continually expand production, ok? As you might expect, the capitalists look at biofuel as their next big game as fossil reserves decline. They don’t care what they are producing as long as they control/expand production.
There are plenty of plant species that are far more productive than corn/soybeans. We can count on the Brazilians to select sugarcane as the most efficient ethanol species for their climate but we can’t count on US capitalists to select for efficiency because efficiency means economic contraction- and and end to capitalist domination/oppression of people.
Wild carob production per acre equals three times capitalist corn production. Wild carob trees require ZERO unnatural inputs, thrive in arid climates, and contribute greatly to the health of the environment. Capitalist corn relies on MASSIVE unnatural, highly destructive inputs, require high quality soil, and destroys the soil and the wider environment. It employs huge amounts of research and development - the university system is highly indentured. What is the cost to society for all this wasted effort in “green revolution” agriculture?
The polyculture approach to food/fuel production mostly preserves the natural growth of indigenous species in each region and simply enhances their productivity by modest amounts. The extra work involved, perceived as undesirable in cultures of convenience, is actually good for our health, body and soul, and places a natural limit on our consumption.
The industrial maturation of US society that should have occured after WWII features fewer but smarter applications of industrialization. Facing all the facts allows us to formulate the correct policy - suporting the natural production of biofuels, limiting our consumption in general, especially the expensive stuff such as meat & private transport, taking individual responsibility in exchange (keep it local/small), and taking our destiny back from the capitalist.
Daniel: I can think of one reason why the government wll not subsidise masive solar/wind alternative energy strategies… money. There’s more money in petroleum and its derivatives than there is in conservation.
Galen - I hear you bro. That doesn’t mean I can’t wish .. it’s the obvious choice. However if it’s easy enough for the petroleum industry to hijack political officials there’s no reason we can’t play the game and hijack for good!
If your for sale .. your for sale. We just need some richies to see the potential $ signs.
Rtdrury: I agree with all your points. But you can eat a horse. If you have to. And it is for those very reasons I have recently decided to become vegetarian.
Daniel: Good luck with trying to hijack you government back to the people. You’ll be facing Blackwater goons and Microwave Area Denial systems.
Me? I’m planning to bug out. Take some freinds and family and go off grid and low tech.
The average calorie of plant food energy produced by industrial agriculture requires about 9 calories in inputs. Mass-produced biofuels are a great example of inefficient systems. But, as long as you have lots of energy and subsidies, you can make it happen. Over-abundance of energy creates pretty demented systems.
That said, very small-scale production of biofuels can be sustainable. Tree based systems such as olive or Korean pine (to produce pine nuts) could create enough biodiesel in one year to meet that year’s diesel needs for things that are actually important like woodchippers for soil creation, tractors to put soil-creating Yeoman’s plows, etc. No energy for recreation or conspicuous consumption, though. (Thank god.)
Rather than invest in windmills and solar roofing etc. …we use food for fuel.
A sin worthy of it’s retribution.
Duh! Tell me something I don’t already Know !!!
ezeflyer,
You can thank the vested business interests cooperating with Big Oil/Coal/Chemical/etc … along with their handpicked representatives and FDR for BANNING HEMP. Ralph Nader is the man who brought this up and I learned all about it from him followed by others who told of the beauty of hemp. Yeah, hemp may require more labor although it doesn’t deplete unlike other bios but in a world of overpopulation and peak oil, this wouldn’t hurt a bit. And don’t forget solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc …
GALEN___ I know very well what you will be doing on your small piece of land living like your grandparents did and I respect your choice of lifestyle. I grew up on a farm in the Midwest after the great depression___ no running water, no radio, no electricity, coal & wood heat, milk cows, pigs, chickens, an old cranker car, garden, a 2 mile walk to school, etc. It was not such a bad time, though, and I am not sure today`s kids are better off with all of the progress. However, it would be very hard for me to give up my fast computer, 200 channels of TV, electric heat, any kind of music 24-7, cell phone, modern auto and truck, modern banking and investment opportunities, and all the other creature comforts of our society. My generation could go back and survive if necessary, but I worry that my grandkids would not make it if our country crashes, which is a possibility thanks to the last seven years.
Kernel: It is the youth of today who will suffer the most when all of our creature comforts go thew way of the dino.
Rtdrury, you seem to know a heckuva lot more than most on these posts and much more than the MSM which dutifully reports on massively negative press on ethanol which whether the stories mean to or not,they end up endorsing oil companies and their policies. In many instances, the press reports what oil companies say because so many ads are bought on their editorial pages (gee, what paper could I be thinking of here?)
BTW, shame on IPS as it had always produced balanced reports in the past.
I think people who flee to the countryside and get a little land for themselves are going to find it hard sledding without fuel of any kind. Never mind the INternet and 200 channels. Also, if the world around them is collapsing and people with guns show up their places, what will they do? Shoot back, I guess.
With PROPERLY MANAGED permaculturally based ethanol production, on a small but wide scale,say with one plant in every county in the US, and even worldwide, with countries meeting their own energy needs first, using crops with high yield per acre, not necessarily those grown on arable land either (or land for that matter, algae and cattails in water), we can reverse global warming. We can produce much more GOOD food and we can tell big oil and big ag to take a hike. But we gotta do it together.
permaculture.com tells how.
It’s not about filling your SUVs with unlimited fuel. It’s about taking control. Anyone can make ethanol. Can anyone make gasoline?
Best wishes to all
The numbers are staggering and this is precisley why biofuels are not the answer. Today, America burns through roughly 146 BILLION gallons of gas per year. Bush’s plan is to produce 35 billion gallons of biofuel per year by 2017 as opposed to a measley 7 billion today (and the problems are already becoming apparent); it can’t be done. The land that would have to devoted to this would be immense, the cost of food would go through the roof and the related crap that comes with this kind of effort would be overwhelming. It’s pointless anyway because at current consumption rates we will be burning about 180 billion gallons per year in 2017. There has to be another way but I fear noone will find it in time. Consumption has to fall, period.
No matter what program for alternative energy we promote, it would be a REALLY good idea to consider the unintended consequences. I believe that sustainablility is a huge factor. As is decentralization. In Mexico, GMO corn is being used for ethanol, which is contaminating the indiginous corn. These are the “people of the corn”. In the last year they had totilla riots because of the increased price of corn.
I believe that there should be a balanced approach. Conservation is a MUST! That means a change in life style for industrialized countries. Also, wind and solar will meet the needs of most individuals households. There are an awful lot of roofs out there. With consumer incentives instead of corporate welfare, this is doable in less than ten years. “No Food for Fuel” as a base line for biofuels is also a must. And NO NUKES! Period.
With the current drought in a lot of area’s of the country I was reading and article that said it takes something like 1700 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethenol. That includes the irrigation and processing.
Ya, another farce by Bush and another transfer of wealth.
The bridge is out and the train keeps picking up speed. It has been for years. It’s to late already kids, you woke up too late. The best we can do is to try to move in the right direction. Let’s remember the ones who got us into this situation when the hammer falls.
The hippies had the right ideas. But they were ridiculed, demonized and murdered by Mammon worshippers like they persecuted Jesus, the original hippie. They were made to hate themselves and to dress and act like the suits to avoid job discrimination and persecution.
Many hippies were back to the landers who invented and found ecological ways to live. Or built community gardens in the cities. They were beaten and jailed for using natural herbs to get in touch with nature and for advocating peace and love instead of war and hate.
Hippies learned to live well without much money. And they sought to live free and naturally without the plastic and oil, producing their food and recycling their waste. They founded experimental communities, learning centers of organic farming, created arts, crafts, green energy sources and ways to live softly and take care of mother Earth.
Our systemic dysfunction is spreading. Who or what is going save us when all we know is to consume?
There is a way to live with earth and a way not to live with earth.
You can’t beat earth by rearranging it’s molecules. You can exist within an artifical scientific paradigm but the natural world does not work that way. How far you venture from what you are as natural beings only means you have a longer journey back. That is, unless you burn the bridges you cross.
It is a sad world with so many species being lost to techology. People that act with impunity that have no understanding of nature will probably never know what they are missing. Sad.
Mr. Leahy’s article implies that either he did not do all of his home-work, or he is a shill for big oil et al. I must agree that using food for fuel is not only ill-advised, but also, it is UNNECESSARY. Bio diesel can be made from many non-food entities. It is my understanding that ethanol burns hotter and drier than bio-diesel, is more corrosive to engine parts, and is negligibly better than bio-diesel in reduced hydrocarbon emission, requires too much water in it’s production etc. Bio-diesel made from the tuba tuba (jetropha) plant, IS the answer.
Yeah, I think Mr. Leahy is shilling for big oil, and it’s not only good to see that they must be very concerned about legitimate competition to their scam..they should be.
ezeflyer October 20th, 2007 3:24 pm , yes, hemp is a very versitile ‘benefactor’, Plus, if indeed water becomes that much more of a precious commodity….the alcoholic beverage industry my have to kiss it’s *ss good-bye; here again to be surplanted by ‘natures bounty’.
An article in ‘Science’ almost 30 years ago did the math on ethanol for energy. By the time you synthesize the fertilizer, till the soil, harvest the grain, distill the ethanol from the water, dry the leftover solids for animal feed, treat the waste water… you come up with a net energy loss. The laws of thermodynamics don’t change. Heaven help the local estuaries if these ethanol plants in Brazil (or wherever) are not cleaning up the discharge. Oxygentaed gasoline additive, maybe, but its a loser for primary fuel.
Fuel (imported) is still cheap and the pork subsidy money is there, so we have ethanol for fuel programs.
A good start might be a moratorium on new fossil fuel electric generation and new oil refining capacity. Let the prices fly and provide tax incentives for home and building superinsulation, more efficient fuel burning technology, mass transit, and maybe even the dreaded “nukes”.
There are too many of us to return to the horse and buggy days. Horse carcass disposal was once one of the great environmental problems of big cities. Not to mention the unbelieveable, by today’s standards, accident and fatality rate of horse based transportation.
It seems to me big oil set up ethanol to fail. They, along with the corn lobby were right there pushing for it. Big corn because they want the $$$$, Big oil because they know ethanol as we’re producing it today won’t work.
Now we’ve got “proof” biofuels are a losing proposition, (to the masses) and we’ll wind up not pursuing them.
What we need to shout from the rooftops, is that we are producing our biofuels incorrectly. The technology is there to produce from non-foods. (algae, garbage, waste plant material) (Hemp will still use up our farmlands) We also need to make clear that liquid biofuel is a small piece of the puzzle.
Today, the energies of choice should be solar & wind. That said, the #1 thing we need to be pursuing is efficiency.
Ethanol as fuel is a terrible-farce and con. That’s not to say that many forms of bio-fuel aren’t viable on small-scale — particularly when recycling surplus/waste veg-oils/greases for Diesel-use (what Mr. Diesel designed/promoted his engine-for — to aid poor-farmers at mercy of JDR’s-monopoly/Trust — no-doubt why he was killed before petro-Diesel was foisted-off on the world). [I know many who obtain ‘free’ restaurant-grease that would otherwise be costly for pick-up/wasteful-disposal, and who then easily filter/’doctor’ it for use in slightly-modified Diesel cars/trucks]
Yes, better-processes/enzymes in combination with recycled bio-wastes and more-efficient plantings/’crops’ (hemp/grass-clippings/crop-waste/leaves/whatever) refined towards bio-Diesel makes ’sense’ — but the vast-needs of this Western/technological-society require the abundance of cheap-Oil (and it is ‘cheap’ [for the Industry — costing under $1.-per-barrel, pumped], versatile and easy to mass-refine as-needed, and all-too ‘plentiful’ — by more-than-enough to destroy the Environment twice-over IF the rest of the world begins to live as the ‘privileged-few’ do today).
The above, in ‘happy’-combination with diverse/other reasons of shared-Interests and rapine of Resources, amount to Prime-Rationale for why the Developed-world has deliberately held-back the development of most of humanity (and may come to massively-reducing their numbers).
There is at-least one viable/technological-alternative to these Petro-Poisons — that being nuclear-fusion reactors — but no implementation of such will be sought before a single World-government/agency can insure their complete control/profit/regulation of that-Bounty (and its expected social-repercussions). Nor until the last/’safe’-nickel can be wrung from all current Oil-holdings/Interests (and the seeking-of-same carries and facilitates the ‘right-people’ into instituting these positions of leadership/consolidation, using both the covert/Mythic ‘Oil-shortage’ supposedly-requiring a “War of Civilizations” while also elevating the involved profits/costs — denying-’Development’ to that 3rd-World — while insuring famine/profits from fuel-conversion/GM/other-enhanced ‘Food-shortages’).
Solution: INDUSTRIAL HEMP
FUEL….
Hemp biomass as a source of fuel is the most under-exploited use of hemp, due to the fact that it is economically unfeasible at this time. Hemp stalks can be used in the generation of energy through a process called “chemurgy” which is a cross between chemicals and energy. The hemp stalk can be converted into a charcoal-like substance through a process called pyrolysis, and used for power generation and to produce industrial feed stocks. Auto giant Henry Ford was a pioneer in the pyrolysis process, and operated a biomass pyrolytic plant at Iron Mountain in northern Michigan.
Hemp as an auto fuel is another potential use. Almost any biomass material can be converted into methanol or ethanol, and these fuels burn cleanly with less carbon monoxide and higher octane. In fact, the diesel engine was invented to burn fuel from agricultural waste, yet ended up burning unrefined petroleum. Hemp seed oil can also be refined to produce a type of biofuel. Woody Harrelson recently toured the west coast with a diesel bus run on hemp biofuel, and a hemp-powered car toured North America a few summers ago, demonstrating the environmental benefits of biofuels.
http://www.votehemp.com/
INDUSTRIAL HEMP…YOU DON’T SMOKE IT!
Love,
MOM
I’ve read a lot of good comments here today but most of you seem to be missing the point. It will take many different methods/technologies to reduce our energy needs.
For bio-fuels, hemp and switch grass is the proper choice. Neither of these plants require the quality lands that food crops require and don’t need much water or nutrients to grow.
Farmers have already started using methods to reduce energy/water/fertilizer usage in their growing cycles. One of the methods is zero tillage farming which actually improves the soil and reduces the need for fertilizers.
We need to expand the use of recycling. I remember a time when we paid an extra nickel when we bought a soda pop. The containers were made of glass and could easily be refilled and reused. Plus the delivery truck would not be going back to the bottling plant empty. An added benefit is beverages actually taste better out of a glass bottle then a plastic or aluminum container. Going back to this method would also require local bottling instead of shipping the finished product in from hundreds of mile away. The materials would still have to be shipped in but they would take up far less space in shipping than finished product would.
Speaking of shipping products from hundreds of miles away in my mind is just wasteful. When a cattle rancher sells his steers for market they are shipped hundreds of mile for processing then shipped back to be resold. We need to get back to a locally produced food system. One of the ways we can do this is by supporting the expansion/development of our farmers markets. The one we have in our area is growing larger every year and you can get almost anything you want from leaf lettuce to T-bone steaks and pies.
We need to change the way we build homes. I know families of four who live in houses capable of supporting twenty people. I’ve been in these homes and I couldn’t see any more creature comforts than I have in my modest four-bed room house. Plus I don’t have to spend as much time on maintenance/cleaning either. As far as energy efficiency goes we need to start building our houses out of straw bales/adobe. Both of these materials are by far superior to wood framing in comfort/energy efficiency and maintenance. Another major benefit is either one or both of these materials are locally available in most of the country.
We need to go back to paper packaging a far superior material than plastic bags plus paper can be made from hemp far cheaper than from wood. Paper is also easier to recycle and in the end can be composted and returned to the earth.
Speaking of plastics there is no reason in the world that we can’t re-engineer plastics for recycling. Plastic in my mind is a product that we should be able to reuse time after time. If there is a limiting factor for the number of times plastic can be recycled than in the end turn it into plastic lumber. In that way we can father reduce the need for us to destroy one of the most important carbon sinks we have, our trees.
We also need to end the practice of design obsolescence for some products. Take the basic bicycle for example; they could be made more durable/maintainable so they last longer. This would make the ideal of public accessible bikes more practical. One of the biggest complaints I hear about public transportation is the distance people have to walk to catch a ride. Public accessible bicycles with cargo baskets seems like a viable solution to me.
There are many other ideals that when added together would make a big dent in solving our looming energy crisis. I recently re-shingled my house. I had to make four trips to the landfill to get rid of my old shingles. Every trip I saw three of four large trucks dumping old shingles. In my mind there is no reason we can’t be recycling shingles. It appears to me it would be a simple process to heat them up and reclaim the asphalt. Then use the left over sand particles mixed with rock to pave roads with.
WHY NOT SMOKE IT?
rickster469 above explains the issue very well.
If we’re going to have sustainable biofuel production, we need sustainable fossil-fuel free agricultural systems - meaning that we need tractors that are powered by renewable energy (sunlight, wind, or biofuels), we need fossil-fuel free fertilizer production, and so on.
This is where the government and academics should be involved - but unfortunately, all the agricultural schools in the U.S. are more or less dedicated to the industrial agriculture approach that was instituted after World War II, and which has resulted in huge profits for petroleum and petrochemical interests.
We need fossil fuel free agriculture - it should be a primary concern as well as a discussion topic in every news article that addresses biofuels - yet there’s zero mention of this fundamental need in the above article.
Now, why is that? Could it be that the fossil fuel industry is mounting a massive PR campaign against the use of renewables as replacements for fossil fuels, just as they have mounted a massive PR campaign that attacks climate scientists? Of course they are! They want to protect their market share and their “shareholder’s interests”, don’t they?
Galen - A question. Up above you say that you agree with all of Rtdrury’s points. But Rtdrury made the point that there could be a good use of biofuels on a small, local scale. Doesn’t this contradict your leading post when you said that you think biofuels are nothing but hype?
I’m curious because I agree with what you’re saying, and I also agree with Rtdrury, and somehow it seems like a contradiction - or not? Maybe it’s just that the biofuel hype, pushed so much now by politicians, is a completely different beast from truly using local, small scale biofuels.
Dan
For Jobson: In the United Kingdom, you never hear the word “canola.” It is always called rapeseed, and as you probably know, the fields are gorgeous.
Ethanol is the dumbest idea ever promoted, inasmuch as it costs more natural gas to produce it than what you reap in ethanol. Further, ethanol cuts gas mileage, which means you fill up many more times than before, using more gasoline than ever.
What a con!
International Energy Developing New Technologies for the Production of Biofuels from Algae.
Vancouver, BC – October 1, 2007 – International Energy, Inc., today announced that it has entered into a collaborative research agreement for the development of new technologies for the production of biofuels derived directly from the photosynthesis of green microalgae, which can accumulate up to 30% of their biomass in the form of valuable biofuels.
As a result of high oil prices, depleting fossil oil reserves and growing concerns about increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, algae have emerged as one of the most promising sources for biofuel production.
International Energy’s technology seeks to convert water and carbon dioxide into useful long chain hydrocarbons from the photosynthesis of unicellular microalgae, which offer advantages in the production, storage, and utilization of renewable biofuels, as they can be harvested easily, stored in liquid form and do not require special containment systems.
The process of industrial scale algae growth in photo-bioreactors is non-toxic and non-polluting, can be scaled up, offers a renewal energy supply and aids in carbon sequestration and the mitigation of climate change.
In contrast to food crops or cellulosic materials, certain algae produce and accumulate oil naturally and can, in the process, clean up waste by absorbing and utilizing nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. Additionally, raw algae can be processed to make biofuel, the renewable equivalent of petroleum, and refined to make gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks for plastics and drugs.
“Unlike ethanol from traditional fuel crops, such as corn and soybeans, which require considerable time to grow, use large amounts of herbicides and nitrogen fertilizers and consume just as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces, algae can grow in wastewater, even seawater, and requires little more than sunlight and carbon dioxide to flourish,” states Mr. Harmel S. Rayat, a director of International Energy.
Mr. Rayat continues, “While each acre of corn produces around 300 gallons of ethanol each year and an acre of soybeans around 60 gallons of biodiesel, each acre of algae has been estimated to produce upwards of 5,000 gallons of biofuel annually. Also, in contrast to corn or soybeans, which are harvested once a year, algae grows considerably faster and can be harvested every few days.”
Algae to Oil Algae have the unique capability of taking a waste (zero-energy) form of carbon (CO2) and converting it into a high-density liquid form of energy (natural oil). Additionally, oil yields from algae are orders of magnitude higher than traditional oilseeds. As a result, much research has gone into using algae as a potential source of fuel and for the biological mitigation of atmospheric CO2, including the $25 million program funded by the DOE at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (“NREL”).
http://www.internationalenergyinc.com/index.php
Dan: Small scale ethanol production is fine. Called ‘moonshinein’. To use ethanol as a replacement for mass motoring fuel is still a netloss.
Nothing, hemp included, can be grown on an industrial scale without massive soil degradation and massive energy inputs. There is no biofuel solution to industrial society (thank god).
All of the expensive food in the groceries that gets thrown away is enough to power the world.
RE: Kernel October 20th, 2007 8:05 pm
Kernel/Colonel, thanks for putting reality back into the discussion. I appreciate your depression age mentality, and see many similarities in the hippies who were of a desire to be self-sustaining. The initiative to conserve by rebuilding & refurbishing the old, rather than a philosophy of “throw it out and get a new one”, is admirable & ultimately necessary. Few people realize how precariously we are perched on extinction, or that the years of turmoil leading up to such an event could be filled with anarchy on a massive scale, leading to self-sufficiency (even on a community-wide scale) being a trait sought to permit the accomplishment of the prime directive…survival.
I’ve spoken & written of this ‘resources are running out’ many times in the past, but it seems numerous people just don’t ‘get it’. Raised in a state of mind that ever-increasing consumption is sustainable, that a sizable income grants a moral superiority enabling them to ignore the reality of a looming catastrophe, which will not only consume & degrade their lifestyle, but by a factor of many times severity those positioned less fortuitously on the income food chain.
I firmly reject the notion that size of bank account is indicative of individual worth (or intelligence). Oh, but the worm is soon to turn. Soon the value of a person will not necessarily be based on what they have, which is transient, instead on what they can do, fix, create, paste together from previously supposed waste materials, and find innovative solutions to personal & social problems using the fewest resources. My take on this reverts back to a comment I remember my mother stating when complimenting my father’s ability to keep the family car & other appliances in working order, “The best mechanic can get the job done using the fewest tools.” Conservation will become a key skill of survivability.
All indications point to a massive gleaning of the human gene pool in the immediate or very near future (isn’t this what years ago Kissenger stated should be the most important feature of US foreign policy?). Those who can ‘think’ and ‘do’ will replace those who only ‘have’ or ‘talk’…eventually, but I am more inclined to believe we need to move forward on a new energy policy…immediately.
John Edwards was a guest on Bill Maher tonight, and while I agree completely with his position that we shouldn’t have any new nuke or coal fired power plants I was a bit perplexed that he would sanction a large increase in ethanol production, until he stipulated it was just to be a transitional fuel between oil and renewables, that is. Then again, I’m not certain of his voting record that contrasts what is really good for the majority of the American (or world) citizens, and what is good only for Big Agriculture.
There is ample evidence to show that the Cheney/Bush energy policy is a complete disaster, though. It still pisses me off that we haven’t had disclosure about the Cheney Energy Task Force meeting a few years back, or at very least who the participants were. Don’t we deserve more respect than that?
RE: Rebel Farmer October 20th, 2007 11:08 pm
“In Mexico, GMO corn is being used for ethanol, which is contaminating the indiginous corn. These are the “people of the corn”. In the last year they had totilla riots because of the increased price of corn.”
Hey Rebel Farmer, always good to see your posts.
An article I read recently also points out another of the ‘unintended consequences’ you mentioned. It seems that a recent decline in the Mexican birthrate (not linked to illegal immigration) has been directly linked to GMO corn, because it reduces the male sperm count. What an insidious way to de-populate a region, and maybe this is also one reason farmers in the middle-east are being forced to purchase GMO seedstock. Between an illegal war, mandatory GMO seedstock purchase, and contaminating that region with massive quantities of depleted uranium, those people are in big do-do. Is the American populace next on the Kissinger backed ‘hit list’ of world de-population?
RE: Tarry_Faster October 21st, 2007 4:27 pm
“International Energy Developing New Technologies for the Production of Biofuels from Algae”
Absolutely great information, Tarry_Faster, and something more people need to be aware of. Keep posting…5,000 gallons? WOW!
RE: evelyna October 21st, 2007 10:25 pm
“All of the expensive food in the groceries that gets thrown away is enough to power the world.”
The skeptic in me causes me to doubt your claim, evelyna, but you make a very good point about the massive waste in the American food chain. Personally, I believe the fear inducing confusion about ’sell by date’, as opposed to ‘consume by date’, causes even more waste from end consumers than what grocers actually dispose of by law. Frankly, I trust my nose (or my cat’s) more than I do a stamped on date, and have never gotten sick once from disregarding the date. A good rule of thumb is “The nose knows”. At any rate there are likely untold billions of pounds of foodstuff that are un-necessarily trashed each year, that are perfectly safe & edible, and each pound represents an investment of oil. Why are most Americans such chicken-shits?
If you have any basis for this claim you made I would be very interested in reading it. Thanks.
This column doesn’t surprise me. You are reading the commentary of a lackey for Big Oil. The corporate media has ignored bio-diesel as much as possible, and now that viable bio-fuels are becoming well-known (Surprise! surprise!), we are going to hear from “experts” who will claim that growing soybeans and peanuts for fuel “damages” the environment and accelerates global warming.
By my calculations, a Florida farmer who had one acre of solar collector operating at 20% efficiency could generate 75 times as much energy per year as an acre of sugar cane converted to ethanol. Since an acre of corn produces about half of the ethanol of sugar, solar collectors could be expected to yield 150 times the energy of an acre of corn.
150 times the energy yield every year for thirty years without lifting a finger: no planting, plowing, fertlizing, pesticides and no use of water or undocumented workers.
So tell me once again why we want to subsidize corn ethanol production.
I think biofuel shouldn’t really be a discussion until people are ready to discuss hemp.
Good for many of you here on Common Dreams to mention it. Now, if only the industry and those who make the decisions will come to grips with it…
Hemp can be grown at every locality without fertilizer and with very little water. It’s known as ditch weed in many areas because it grows in the ditches on the sides of roads. No fertilizer and only rain irrigation (in areas with adequate rainfall). It can be grown on land unsuitable for farming foodcrops, so it won’t raise the cost of food. In fact hemp seed is more nutritious than soybeans, so it would add to food stores instead of depleting them.
Hemp stalks require very little drying before the ethanol conversion process, so it is much more efficient than corn or sugarcane, but I’m not an advocate of ethanol. I am a huge advocate of biodiesel. Hemp can be a huge resource for biodisel, pulp for papers, clothing, building materials, and much more.
Henry Ford originally planned on creating all of his cars out of resin from hemp instead of metal, but Hearst, DuPont, and Rockefeller nixed that in order to capitalize on their profit machines. Now Big Pharma and Big Oil still want hemp illegal. They spend billions in lobbying and media control to fill the masses heads with crap about hemp being marijuana and marijuana being a dangerous drug that causes addiction and death. Why do you think that BushCo has relaxed all the rules of media ownership? When the the majority of media outlets are owned by a few corporations, the masses can easily be manipulated. That’s how Hearst got marijuana/hemp outlawed in the first place.
Well…for the time being (till things get sorted out) you could try this as i have and AM using.
http://www.moremilesforfree.com
bbr-001 wrote:
“An article in ‘Science’ almost 30 years ago did the math on ethanol for energy. By the time you synthesize the fertilizer, till the soil, harvest the grain, distill the ethanol from the water, dry the leftover solids for animal feed, treat the waste water… you come up with a net energy loss. The laws of thermodynamics don’t change.”
The “laws” of thermodynamics haven’t changed, but major advances in agricultural technology have been made within the last 30 years!
Also, claims that ethanol yields less energy than what is required for production are technically correct, but misleading. For example, if it requires two energy units to produce three energy units of ethanol, there is a net gain of one unit. But one could say the net energy produced is less than the energy consumed! The same is true for gasoline!
I suspect that many of the authors of articles like that above are shilling for Big Oil. Big oil seems to have no problem with misleading people about anything that could get in the way of profits. (That said, I do not believe that corn ethanol is the solution to all or many of our energy problems).
Furthermore, people have been using food for fuel since the beginning of our species. There is nothing inherently wrong with using food for fuel (i.e. it is not “dumb”). The problem is using food for fuel in a way that is unwise.
I agree with others here: bio-fuels are the major agri-corps going for a handout. They require monolithic crops, probably they further the practice of GMO’s, fertiziliers, etc. And — insult to injury — the still need to be picked, refined, etc.
And, in the end, biofuels are an inefficient form of solar power. The power of the sun causes organic chemistry to bond, etc. from water, soil, minerals, etc. Organic is demonstrably an unnecessary middle-man with too much carbon.
Again, any plant monocropped, hemp included, cannot be grown without massive inputs in energy and without causing serious soil degradation.
And hemp, yes hemp, is demanding on nitrogen. The reason it thrives in ditches is that ditches are not cultivated and thus have healthier soils, and ditches get good sun exposure.
Any plant you can name will be harmful if you try growing broadacre monocrops of it.
There’s another problem with bio-fuels…
Ref: the temp/CO2 chart from IPCC/Gore in the movie and the book (recommend),
we see from the chart that temperature triggers a weather phenomenon that defeats and reverses the spike of the GHGs and temp, not CO2. If it was CO2, it would have already happened.
Theory that seems obvious from the chart is that ice age starts suddenly, is amazing, and ends just as suddenly, the ice grinds south, melts and recedes even as the temp DECREASES to below mean T, all in a measly 100,000 years.
So, what’s the problem? It’s not WHAT you’re burning, but the fact that you ARE burning — adding heat to the ecosphere, moving us closer to the trigger point, after which we will be coping with what might Nature’s biggest cycle.
Nuclear, geo-thermal, bio-fuels, clean coal, oil, and even fuel cells all add massive heat.
If we are to mitigate this ice event, we must use solar and wind and water/tide power to sequester heat and CO2, as well as for electricity.
And the stage of the discussion is only just past denial. We wonder, “Can we save ourselves and still make a profit?”
(at the moment, it seems the operative question is: “Can the elite make a profit and save themselves?”)
What do you think?
Good article, and many interesting points. Many here have raised the call for solar, etc. to help step in and reduce both the petro-fuel need and the need for biofuels. I’ve been solar-powered since 1990, and living on a family farm since 1995. Solar, while wonderful in the tropics and desert areas, is NOT sustainable in northern latitudes without some type of suplementation…there’s just not enough sun in the winter. In theory, you can supplement with wind, hydro, etc., IF you’re lucky enough to live in a place where this is possible. (We don’t.) In practice, we use a lot of diesel fuel in the winter. We do have bio diesel available for twice the rate of regular, but it’s still an energy intensive business.
We are working on converting our waste to bio-diesel, but it still requires fuel…sort of a never-ending loop. We try to consider the next generations in our decisions and are teaching our son to do the same. We live as simply as possible, but we love our technology too. Here in Mendocino County, we are aiming for ‘amish with internet’.
Having said this, perhaps if we use our remaining fuels wisely we could perhaps collectively use our desert areas and wind corridors to generate enough power to transport to more northern climes—assuming, of course, that we as a nation are capable of such collective action.
only HEMP is the answer for the america farmer
all farmers with any land need to revolt and grow hemp
and shoot any and all wanna be rambo DEA[they always have the best coke and heroin] and any others attempting to tell them they cannot
read the facts BACH has lots of true data
wake up ’sheeples’
Biofuels…is it really about saving our planet Earth? Or is it more about preserving a destructive western way of life? My car vs. my planet???