Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels Make Greenhouse Gases Worse
vortex2.71 sends us to the Seattle Times for an account of two studies published in the prestigious journal Science pointing to the conclusion that almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account. "The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example. These studies... for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development."
The article cites no references nor names any of the "eminent" scientists. I smell political propaganda.
Just callin' it like I see it.
While I've always thought that using cropland to produce biofuels is unethical and ineffective. On the other hand, small scale production can make a huge amount of sense.
For example, the biodiesel I run in my Jetta is made locally at a rendering plant out of waste fats. So, not only am I being a little more carbon neutral compared to buying fossil fuels that have been transported long distances, I'm also keeping what would otherwise be wastes from going into the landfill.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
so, either we kill ourselves by burning coal and oil, or we kill ourselves chopping forests.
you know what ? fuckit!!!
if we're so stupid we can't find a stable balance to ensure the survival of the specie, so be it. let mass extinction come. and in 60 million years from now, some form of land dweling squid will be unearthing our bones, just like we do with the dinosaurs.
What ? Me, worry ?
Yes, corn ethanol has a very low yield and has no business being used for fuel - this is very well known. As the article states, "Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel." which is entirely unsurprising to anyone who's looked at this stuff before. Corn is only popular in the US, and only because it's subsidized.
How about a discussion on SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) from crops like Chinese Tallow, and the newer algae production processed instead.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The closer to perfect something is, the easier to mess it up when you try to improve it. No wait...
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
we'd be selling fuel to the rest of the world by cracking H20 into H2 and O2 via nuclear power. While the initial construction costs of a reactor are large, it pays for itself in the energy it produces. Also, over half of our budget goes to defense. If we were to spend just a fraction of that , heck a fraction of the cost of the "war" in Iraq which is projected to reach into the *trillions* , we could spend it on research and development of modern advanced reactor designs to fasttrack the deployment of safe efficient high temperature gas reactors, while at the same time having enough money to build conventional reactors at a regular rate. All the nuclear "waste" that we've produced , mostly in the form of depleted fuel elements , could be exhumed and reprocessed at some remote site using a fast breeder reactor. In the future, the investment in research would produce much safer versions. But oh wait, I forgot, plutonium ( at least the fissile type ) is a no-no in the U.S. although other nations have no problems. Oh, and then there's that problem of Joe stupid American ( by the way, I'm American ) who thinks that "nucular" power is so dangerous when in reality you get more radiation in the vicinity of a coal plant because of trace amounts of U-235 or even when you eat a banana because of the abundance of radioactive potassium isotopes in nature. Nuclear power has been available since 1938-- that 70 years! We could have built thousands of them by now, but due to corruption and ignorance, which unfortunately is a self sustaining cycle ( unless there's a major shock to the system, like, uh, the planet going to hell ) I'm afraid the status quo will remain for the foreseeable future.
jdb2
Both papers are published in Science Express rather than the regular journal yet. Here are the abstracts:
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt
Joseph Fargione Jason Hill David Tilman Stephen Polasky, Peter Hawthorne
Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to lowcarbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential lowcarbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change
Timothy Searchinger, Ralph Heimlich R. A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, Amani Elobeid, Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot Hayes, Tun-Hsiang Yu
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
While this work is very useful, the immediate concern would seem to be that grain carryover stocks are becoming quite low as a result of ethanol production. They are now at about 54 days worth of world consumption compared to over 100 days in 2000. Much lower stocks would mean making a choice between starvation of people or reducing feedlot operations and meat availability.
It's not as though people who actually considered the overall impact haven't been pointing this out for years.
You know....I'm willing to do this anyway...if it will still get us OFF the 'teet' of middle east oil.
If we could just remove our dependency from oil and quit throwing money and worrying about the situation over there because of it....let that place dry up, and let them all do as they please over there. At the very least, it would be worth it in order to quit making peoples and countries wealthy that hate us in the western world.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That is biomass rather than biofuel. The issue in the US is that taking up cropland here means plowing up marginal land elsewhere. This disturbs soils which hold carbon and thus that carbon is released. With your firewood, this is not the case. The soil is not disturbed and your use of the wood is not causing others to be hungry. You should mention the benefits of excercise in splitting and hauling wood as well.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
...that basically starts with a pre-conceived conclusion and looks for evidence to back it up, I suspect.
The problem is that the net emissions from biofuel production cannot ever be determined accurately---it is totally impossible ot absolutely quanitfy it because it is always a moving target.
The article goes on about rainforest being clear-cut to make way for the production of fuel plants. That kind of land makes really poor land for growing and there is no evidence at all that shows biofuel production has been cited as a reason for clearing a significant amount of new land. The "biofuel lobbyists" are right about one thing; the study is too simplistic to be an accruate assesment of the real net impact of biofuel production. What if the farm equipment itself was powered by biofuels? What if the waste biomass from preparing farmland and growing the crops was recovered and used for power generation? What if we used biomass from the ocean (this is already done on an experimental scale)? Have there been studies on the efficiency of biofuel-powered engines and on the overall emissions (sulphur, particulates and things that not only afect the climate but actually harm our health)? What about the impact of making fuel out of tarsands vs middle-east light sweet crude vs. crude drilled in the Gulf of Mexico? How can they put a number like "92 years of emissions"? It all smells pretty fishy to me.
It's like the argument that biofuels threaten foodstocks. Well, we used Soybeans extensively for food products...and it makes a good biofuel...and plastic...and industrial lubricants...and a host of other things. What is wrong with doing that using corn too? Corn production in the US actually exceeds what the world NEEDS for food by quite a margin, as do the production of many other crops (wheat, etc). These crops have been very cheap since the depression (in fact for decades they went down significantly when adjusted for inflation) and only in the last few years have grain prices been coming up to where they really should be. Sometimes I wonder if there are lobbyists out there for the processed food undustry putting resistance out to any competing demand in order to ensure they can name their own bargain prices for high-fructose corn syrup, bleached and enriched white wheat flour and hydrogenated vegetable oil and keep the margins on twinkie sales up.
Anyways, what is the big surprise here? Burning fuel creates emissions...surprise surprise! When you drive an electric car you are indirectly burning natural gas, or coal, or splitting uranium atoms. When you are using biodiesel you are burning soybeans or canola, along with whatever the equipment used to grow it uses. Same with ethanol except it's corn or switchgrass or sugarcane. Hello...if you want to reduce emmissions DON'T DRIVE SO DAMN MUCH! Get rid of your suburbans and buy a hatchback (a VW Golf diesel is better than a Prius if you don't live in a big city). Better yet, get off your ass and WALK once in a while.
Actually having worked in power plants and refineries and such...I have a hard time believing ANY sort of fuel doesn't have a significant environmental impact. These guys obviously haven't seen how tarsands ar mined, or how much fuel an oil tanker uses, or how much power an offshore drilling platform uses.
You've apparently never studied any economics, or even arithmetic. This is how it works: America requires X amount of oil. We can replace that with biofuels; however, to produce 1 gallon of oil equivalent for ethanol requires inputs of, say, 1.1 gallons of oil. This means, in order to have an entirely ethanol-based fleet, I need inputs of 1.1X amount of oil. This means by converting to an entirely ethanol-based fleet, I AM INCREASING MY DEPENDENCY ON OIL. There are two ways to do this: either (1) you reduce your oil consumption outright (by, e.g., promoting efficiency of your vehicles), or (2) you develop a sound alternative energy source. Changing your fuel vector (ethanol, hydrogen, etc.) does not cut it. P.S. I'll throw in some obligatory caveats - obviously inputs into ethanol production won't overlap entirely with oil - it'll require some natural gas, some coal, etc., but these things don't come any cheaper or less dear than oil.
It is not the 'dependence on middle eastern oil' that is the problem. It is 'installing dictators and propping up theocracies' that is the problem.
If America is willing to let countries own their oil fields and do what they please, oil prices would be sky high (loons like Hugo would make sure that happens) and people would've invested money in alternative fuels - money that is going to 'protecting oil interests' now.
But, if we hit the problem with multiple alternative fuel methods....we can do it. We can at least get down to levels of oil we in the US produce ourselves. We have a great deal of natural gas, we have lots of coal, and if we went more nuke, especially with breeder reactors, raise oil producing algae, etc....we'd start on the path towards energy self-sufficiency, and rid ourselves of that middle east monkey on our backs.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, if that had been the path taken years ago, ok. But, there is absolutely no way we could let that happen now...realistically. It would throw the US economy into a death spiral, which would of course have the same effect on pretty much the rest of the global economy.
Man...can you imagine what life would be like, if energy were shut off? The death, destruction and pandemonium would not be something I'd like to see in my lifetime. I heard a bit of a George Carlin rant about something like this....
If the power went out...and suddenly, the prisons and the psych wards were suddenly all opened. Think about the carnage as all those 'nifty' people came out...all ready for a good time with YOU or your wife and kids? There would be no police....they'd be doing their best to care for their families? How many people do you know could survive without grocery stores....hell, in the south...no AC...in the north, no heat during winter....we dont' know how to be pioneers anymore.
No....with things like that...there IS no way to do what you said...and let the oil market go and be managed as some dictators would do.
That paints a very scary picture...and I don't think there is a western politician/leader in their right mind that would entertain the thought of letting that happen on their watch. People might bitch and moan about this war or that.....or meddling in the wrong place, but, I'll bet you everyone's story would change immediately if you cut the power for a few days.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1) Nuclear power
2) Fully electric vehicles
Nucler power technology has matured in Japan and France while we've sat on our butts for 25 years. Solar thermal is also a promising new technology.
Electric vehicles are just waiting on batteries which should be just a year or two away.
Cellulosic ethanol, wind power, and particular fuel cells, are pipe dreams.
About a year ago Science also had a long analysis examining the impact of various plants to create biofuels. It concluded, essentially, that corn was the worst while natural weeds and crop waste was the best. This initial analysis did not effect US policy which is based on year over year profit rather than long term costs. The overcapacity we currently see in ethanol facilities is not a result of good analysis or market forces, but by the subversion of those market forces by government regulations, such as subsidizing the oil companies, for instance through the reduction of oil taxes, and the subsidy of corn as a biofuel over more advantageous plants.
It is unlikely that greenhouse gasses are going to fall without a reduction of consumption. We are talking a higher fuel economy in all vehicles, and a large tax on those vehicles that do not meet those fuel efficiencies, as well as a loss of other tax benefits for such vehicles. We are talking large tax benefits for small businesses that meet rigorous emission standards. We are talking a reduction in consumption of product made in factories that have no concern for efficiency, and a willingness to pay more for products that are made in more environmentally friendly patterns.
The only reason that such an article seems controversial is that consumers want a free lunch. People were hoping that corn would be a panacea, like nuclear power, too cheap to meter, with no negative consequences. It is like how some people drive on the freeway. With no regard to Newton's laws of motion. I guess they believe they drive fast enough so to be out of the domain of where such laws are valid.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
And ON to a treeless North and South America. Yay!
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I also find it interesting how the article kept talking about how biofuels were responsible for rainforest destruction, when they need not be, and they weren't talking about the most efficient biofuel methods. Also, of course, biofuel techniques are far from perfected at the moment, so even if it really is worse right now, I don't think the technology's potential shouldn't underestimated.
there are a lot of factors involved, but actually in brazil they don't use close to 1 gallon of oil to produce 3 gallons of ethanol. for one thing, brazil has a large manual labor workforce. low paying, that means, brazil can hire on hands to plant, and harvest the cane. the only fuel used is the transport machinery.
furthermore, the cane is burned to produce the ethanol, as well as electricity, the electricity created helps cover the cost of fuel to transport the cane, and ethanol around.
but there is still tragically a huge negative, the burning of cane has caused a huge increase of smog in brazil, you see when you burn the cane a lot of small particulate gets into the air. that's why in the us, they burn natural gas to make bio-ethanol, instead of the stalk and husk.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Solar technology is about as good as it gets at this point and there are some really exciting developments coming out of it. Wind and sea-based power sources are all promising as well. But the problem with all these solutions is that they are treating the symptoms of overconsumption by reducing the impact of that behavior, rather than reducing overconsumption in its own right.
I think the fundamental question is that if we were to find the hypothetical perfect clean, cheap, local, and renewable source of energy, would we be able to stop worrying about our energy consumption? I frankly have no idea and I think there is a lot of room for debate there. However, I'm becoming increasing convinced that even if our energy source was perfect, our species would still run into numerous other choke points, such as raw material shortages, food shortages, and so forth, not to mention the fact that many energy-consumption-facilitated activities can be seriously harmful to our health: driving (accidents), tv (sedentary lifestyle), etc. Plus, diminishing returns says it's going to be harder and more expensive to use technological means to reduce our energy consumption in the future.
When I look at it that way it makes a whole lot more sense from a practical point of view to modify my behavior to simply use less energy. I could spend a few hundred bucks on a super-efficient water heater, or I could take shorter showers. I could invest in a fuel efficient car, or I could just drive less. I'm constantly amazed at how much energy I can save just by completely turning off my devices. Doing this is cheaper and easier than upgrading to newer technology, and fights the root of the problem of overconsumption. It's even better if I can do both.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
The only way that nuclear power production can be considered cheap is if you leave out the costs of building the reactors AND the cost of decommissioning the reactors after the facilities eventually they lose their licenses and have to be decommissioned. The cost of decommisioning nuclear reactors is ALWAYS left out of the equation by nuclear power advocates. ALWAYS.
Including the multi-billion dollar cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors makes burning US currency to generate power look like a better idea.
The nuclear power industry never pays this cost, either. The decommissioned reactors get spun off into separate corporations with only the shut-down reactor in the portfolio of assets, leaving the US Gov't to pay the multi-billion dollar price tag every single shut down nuclear reactor costs to decommission.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
The vast majority of the billions of animals grown for food out there are NOT fed by allowing them to freely graze "in forests and other areas". Most of them live out their lives in intensive factory farming operations. They are mostly fed vegetable and grain based diets, designed to make them grow quickly. So if you were to eat only meat, you would not avoid the need to grow vegetables. In fact, to grow a pound of beef in north america, it takes at least 2.6 pounds of grain (if you take the numbers from the beef industry at face value). And all this grain is not grown anywhere near the feed lots, either. It is shipped to the cows from all over the world, again requiring large amounts of fossil fuels. And I haven't even mentioned the methane that is produced by cattle in enormous quantities, or the methane produced by their manure. And this is just for cattle. You also need to factor in the billions more pigs, chickens, etc.
Your only valid point is that too much of the vegetables we buy comes from too far away, and that is why it is not only important to eat less meat (note I didn't say NO meat), but it is also important to purchase as much seasonal, local produce as possible. One criticism you missed, however, is the popularity of heavily processed meat substitutes (eg: "Tofurkey"). They probably consume far more energy per pound than most meats.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation
http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/mythmeatproductioniswasteful.aspx#Sixteen%20pounds%20of%20grain
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=asj
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h307k69711m5nh00/
What about the danish studies that show that global temperatures are tied to solar cycles, and that the sun is in a cool cycle currently?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
You know you're a hopeless academic when you think a book can save your life in the face of a severe famine. No, my friend, a book can not tell you how to survive and live off the land. This is something you must learn in person.
The problem with liquid biofuels (what the article is alluding to) is not so much the actual production of the fuel itself since that is dependent on the Sun and the quality of the soil or media that is used grow the product, it is the overall energy equation from the actual production to delivery verses the energy that the fuel produces and if you look at ethanol which the Article covers, the cost to produce and deliver in some countries is more than what the energy of the fuel produces. Biodiesel on the other hand has a more positive energy equation and should have been covered, however even biodesel like ethanol requires land to grow the appropriate crops and this can be a major problem in some countries which have limited land to grow food much less biofuels.
There is no easy "one size fits all" liquid energy solution and each solution must weigh all factors and come up with a professional (ie. try to keep politics out, which is impossible) and appropriate policy with regard to alternative energy. It may be possible that ethanol is appropriate in some countries and for other counties biodiesel is better, however for these type of fuels land is needed and then you have the problem of land required for food verses land required for biofuels. For some countries that is not an issue but for many with large populations it is.
One thing the article did not cover is the pollution that each liquid energy source produces and that should also cover the petroleum industry as well. If you take that into account all fuels pollute and you need to weigh all factors.
The debate on biofuels is only going to get hotter and it pays to have a basic understanding of the realities of the topic. For a good start point try here , but be warned this is just a primer. As for other energy solutions such a gas, coal, nuclear, wind, water (the list goes on) that is a major topic for another time and again "one size does not fit all".
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
which is in fairly tremendous domestic supply.
And mined by equipment that's lubricated with graphite and runs on coal, right?
That's the failure of people who won't do anything now because they think that "someday" we'll have alternative fuels when oil gets to be "too expensive to use". They never seem to "get" that the more they wait, the more expensive switching becomes.
There's no such thing as overconsumption. What you're really concerned about are externalities. Have the consumer pay correct cost for the impact of the behavior.
Maybe that will save everyone on whatever planet you denialists are living on. But back on Earth, we have to play the cards we've been dealt.
Here. Take your pick.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
First off, the concerns raised by the original article only apply to some biofuels, not all. The corcerns only apply to some biofuel crops and to some farming practices.
Secondly, the original article had a 'might' in it and was of the form "Biofuels might make greenhouse gases worse". Deleting 'might' combletely changes the meaning and esculates the threat.
Slashdot editors are getting to be like regular journalists ((hint: this is not a compliment) and looking for a new inflammatory headline where they can. Junk journalism!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No offense, but most people don't understand economics. So I don't see how having a lot of people agree with you is relevant.
First, because the externalized damages at issue are the result of... guess what... overconsumption of resources. Saying that overconsumption doesn't exist is like saying that chickens don't exist, only eggs.Bad analogy. "Overconsumption" is a conveniently vague term. It could be a chicken, could be an egg. How much consumption is too much consumption? Who gets to decide? The point is that the current markets already allocate scarce resources in a sensible manner. In a market without externalities, we don't need to care if someone consumes more because they automatically have paid for the cost of the additional consumption. It doesn't even make sense to speak of "overconsumption". There's no rational criteria for deciding a certain level of consumption is too much.
Second, if there really isn't enough to go around, then the "correct cost" is starving to death. At that point, civilized society breaks down, and you can forget about whatever regulatory mechanism you're using to internalize the externalities.What do you mean "enough to go around"? That's the key problem here with your claims. Humanity has plenty of room for feeding itself. So "starving to death" isn't an issue. As I see it, if things did get that close, then there will be mass starvation due to the inefficient societies of the world that are already starving many of their citizens.
But what about land not suitable for growing crops? Say, african scrubland. Not enough rain to make a good consumable, but goats will "collect" a lot of grass and other poor nutrition and turn it into concentrated meat.
Or marginal land, where you'd have to drain it. Feed birds on there and eat the birds.
How about steep valley slopes like in south wales? Can't plough and the soil is too thin anyway, so let goats and sheep eat the crappy grass and get them to turn that grass into meat and walk it back to the farmer?
I have to agree with you about overconsumption. However, I have learned that the word overconsumption is not well received by a large number of people (see one of your replies). It has the implication that people are doing something morally wrong. It's possible that you meant this, but reading your post, I doubt it.
;-) ). When you find something that makes your life better, invite your family and friends to try it with you (go shopping together by bike, go to a movie together on the bus, invite people over to your cold house with a cosy fire in the wood stove drinking hot chocolate, etc, etc.)
Instead of talking about how we over consume, I try to explain that life can be as good (or even better) if we use less. There's a sweet spot somewhere on the consumption curve where our life enjoyment is maximized. This is kind of a strange concept for a lot of people. If some is good, more is obviously better. But it's like eating candy. Eating a little bit of candy can really improve your day. Eating a lot of candy just makes you feel sick.
I have made a lot of changes to my life that were a win-win situation. I started taking the bus instead of driving. Now instead of madly trying to rush around and get a million things done (stressing me out), I read a book. I intentionally say to myself, "I'm going to relax today. I'm not going to go shopping on the way home to pick up that one last thing. I'm not going to pick up the dry cleaning. Because I can't. I'm taking the bus today and reading my book." It turned out that virtually all of the things I did with the car were unimportant to me. In the very rare case where I absolutely need a car, I get a taxi. Doing this has improved my life, improved my finances and improved the environment (or at least not degraded it as much).
Not every change is good for every person (some people really can't deal with mass transit for instance). But I think it's good to encourage people to find areas in their life where less is more. As more and more people do this, our society will change. It will become easier and easier to reduce and win. For instance, in many cities bicycle paths are becoming a useful part of the infrastructure. In the town I'm living in now I can do all my shopping on my bike, without having to compete with cars. And on a nice day one of my most hated jobs (shopping) has become an extremely pleasant activity. 20 years ago, this town had *no* bicycle paths and it would be extremely difficult/dangerous to go shopping on your bike.
I think the very best thing to do to get people thinking is simply to try stuff yourself. Experiment. Have fun. Find out what you *really* need and what you don't (TV is always a good option to do without
Poor comment.
Gasoline is $8 in England (and much of Europe) which is why they:
1. Have great trains, buses, trams & subways, walkways, pedestrian bridges and tunnels and bicyclists.
2. Less issue with obesity.
3. Neighborhood grocery stores.
4. Neighbors they meet regularly at Neighborhood stores.
5. About half the energy consumption per person.
I'm a huge advocate of studying and reducing carbon emissions, I even work for one of the IPCC lead authors. But biofuels have never sat well with me. Something about burning our food for fuel makes me nervous and for some reason I start thinging about Easter Island. And now it looks like subsidised corn ethanol is one of the factors jacking up beer prices. Thanks jerks.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
You can build thousands of new nuke plants, and eventually, all that past "trapped" heat in "fossil uranium" that is released in the fission process makes its way to the atmosphere as it is used in electrical devices all over. Uranium energy is just as much sequestered now left in the ground and ignored as coal or oil are, if they were left in the ground. And a lot (most of them?) of the nuke plants use water cooling, and guess which is a stronger greenhouse gas, even more than CO2? That's right, H2O, water vapor, and the hotter the water, the more it evaporates. So at point of origin for the water cooled nuke plants you get both massive heat release at either the cooling towers or at their downstream cooling water source, a river or ocean pipe, etc., plus extra "unnatural" water vapor release, a "greenhouse" gas, then downstream all the various devices that use the electricity produced dump heat by the ..x-megawatt, whatever the plant puts out that supplies them (do a conversion to a thermal equivalent). More heat + more greenhouse gas. Even the air cooled plants will still cause warming as the entire natural structure of the earth that already exists despite of any human additions works to trap in heat, the way the atmosphere is anyway.
So unless they can come up with a way to make nuclear "cold" or even "heat-neutral" electricity, you'll still get a significant rise in global temps from using nukes, on a direct linear scale, as you add one, more global warming.
You forgot that
6. Half of their passenger cars are diesel
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
There is no causal relationship there, and you know it. The effects you describe are because of England's urban environment and existed long before gas was at $8.
England has 10 times the population density of my home state of Missouri. You have subways because you can easily divide the cost among your population. Gas prices are artificially high in Europe, and artificially low in the US -- in both cases for political reasons. The US middle and lower class depend on gas, and must have it cheap, so it isn't taxed much. The European economy just uses it for shipping goods, which makes it a good way to tax transportation.
While I agree that the urban lifestyle is much better for both the environment and human health, it costs at least 3 times as much to live in that environment here. If you find a solution to suburban sprawl (good luck), then maybe we can have all the benefits you mention in the US, and save the planet in the process.
Only a small part of the European Urban Transportation systems predate the industrial revolution, or more particularly, they advent of the automobile.
Subways, trams, and electric trains are all recent adaptations.
1. You have subways because they are an excellent hedge against cold weather. (and perhaps nuclear war according to FSU)
2. Uncosting or subsidizing a resource doesn't lower its cost, it merely moves the cost in odd ways, for example, a person riding a bicycle to work in the US will end up paying for fuel even though they aren't using any - because certain fuel costs are folded into the general tax.
3. In Europe, Bicyclists are fully entitled to the fuel savings they incur.
4. Subsidization is a means of robbing consumers of the savings they could realize by being efficient.
5. The real costs of living in a city, even in the US, may well be less, but the US taxes efficient living by subsidizing consumption and obesity.
If you read through the article they make almost no mention of BIO-DIESEL which is significantly different in it's manufacturing methods and land use. This article is largely focused on the failures of Ethanol being a suitable fuel.
Bio-Diesel can be grown from a variety of plants ranging from palm trees (Southern), Soy Beans (Norther) and Algae (non-land use) which gives you a extremely wide range of climates available for the production of Bio-Diesel and a variety of farm land as well. This doesn't even take into account the potential for reusing cooking oils to convert to Bio-Diesel. This flexibility allows you to intelligently work around the rain forests rather than cutting them down. Clearing rain forests for Palm trees was an economical decision and was not a good one.
I think this story is accurate in it's assessment of Ethanol being largely a loser-fuel that is powned by Archer Daniels Midland, The Bush Administration, and a bunch of overly eager but short sighted farmers. However, it's completely unfair to lump ALL BioFuels into the same camp as Ethanol.
One thing that needs to be understood about BioDiesel is this: It's not driving around on vegetable oil. It's vegetable oil that has been converted into diesel fuel via trans-esterfication of the oils. This process gives you diesel fuel that you can use today in todays diesel engines without refit. It's compatible with todays distribution, storage, and pumping systems for diesel fuel. Ethanol has little or no compatability with gasoline.
I look forward to the day when someone actually looks into biodiesel as a real alternative. It's better because:
- It's compatible with any diesel technology. So there is no new technology to develop for engines etc. Diesel technology is ubiquitous across the planet (economy of scale), is over 100 years old (proven), and used for transportation of vehicles, trains, ships, and electricity generation (diversified). Gasoline and Ethanol are not.
- It's available from a wide range of sources, allowing for greater climatic and agricultural variances than corn. Wouldn't it be interesting if you took Ethiopia and converted it into a biodiesel plant growing nation. They could use the economy. The point is, production of bio-diesel is viable for many areas of the planet.
- It's available today. Nothing needs to be invented or brought to market for it to work. Just scaling. Switchgrass doesn't do this.
- It's flash point is so low it's approximately non-flammable. Ethanol is extremely volatile and nasty in this regard.
- It's non-toxic. Really. It smells like fries and you can actually ingest it without death or illness. Ethanol it technically toxic and certainly not suitable for everyone.
- It's biodegradable. If you spill it on the ground you don't have to call HazMat. It will clean up and if it doesn't, it will degrade gracefully into an environmentally friendly substance. Again, Gasoline and Ethanol don't do this very well.
Unfortunately, BioDiesel doesn't have ADM pumping billions into the government trying to force the issue.Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Actually I think most of those machines run on propane or methane. The real price of oil is plastics.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I know you're joking, but in all honesty I've tried being rich and I've tried being poor. Poor is actually better IMHO. Well, I lie. Because "poor" in the Western view isn't really all that poor. Right now I'm living on about $1250 a month US, which is $15000 a year. That's probably near the poverty line around here (Japan). But I've got a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear. I've got a laptop computer and an internet connection (luxury!). So, it's hardly what real poor people would call "poor" -- I'm not starving or freezing or whatever.
And if I compare my life at $15000 a year to my life at $100000+ a year, I'll take less any day. As long as you aren't in debt, or hungry, or freezing to death, having not very much money is totally fine. And it forces you to try things that you might not otherwise try. Sure, you *could* do it with extra money, but the fact that you can pay someone else to cook your food or clean your house or whatever means that you probably will. And I've found that life is infinitely more interesting if you live it rather than pay someone else to live it.
I'm not explaining this very well. But it was quite a surprise to me to learn that I was happier with less. Now I'm trying to reduce even more. $15K per year still seems pretty fat to me. What else can I learn by cutting back more?
I didn't mean to imply that public transportation predated gas... just that it predated $8 gas. I think that's safe to say.
Other than Ethanol, I'm not aware of gas subsidization in the US. Not taxing something isn't the same as subsidizing it; although I suppose you could argue that it has the same effect.
When you talk about raising the price of gas as a solution to 'consumption and obesity', keep in mind that most Americans travel more than 20 miles to work and don't have access to public transportation. Raising gas prices doesn't force the average American to ride a bike to work. Best case: those who can afford to, will buy more fuel efficient cars. If the increase is too dramatic, many in the lower class will simply quit their jobs (many jobs wouldn't pay enough to cover travel expenses). Eventually many people would move to cities, but not before devastating the rural middle class. Far too many people depend on being able to drive to suburban factories from their low-cost rural housing.
Before thinking that you can simply apply European solutions to American problems, you should consider that we are in a different situation. We aren't stupid. We are aware of what you're doing over there. It just isn't an option for us.