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."
So an effort to fix global warming made things worse? How surprising.
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.
Maybe I have a skewed perspective, but in New England 'most' biofuel is firewood. I've been heating my house with it for a couple years and have plenty of trees to burn. But even when I buy a cord from the woodsman a couple miles away the amount of fossil fuel used to generate a cord of wood is probably about five gallons of petrol. I heat the house on two cords a year, and the same heating can be achieved with 1200 gallons of propane. It's not even close.
There is some additional point pollution but I run a catalytic stove from Woodstock Soapstone which reburns the smoke so you can barely smell the woodsmoke outside (and I own enough forestland to eat my share of pollution). Besides that most of that 'pollution' was sequestered from the environment within the past thirty years.
If they want to argue against most fermentation-based biofuels, fine, but most cultures burn wood and have before 1830 when the planet started heating up.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change
Timothy Searchinger 1*, Ralph Heimlich 2, R. A. Houghton 3, Fengxia Dong 4, Amani Elobeid 4, Jacinto Fabiosa 4, Simla Tokgoz 4, Dermot Hayes 4, Tun-Hsiang Yu 4
1 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. German Marshall Fund of the U.S., Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute.
2 Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD, USA.
3 Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA.
4 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
How Green Are Biofuels?
Jörn P. W. Scharlemann and William F. Laurance
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Besides the problem of fertilizer production, irrigation, machines burning diesel fuel, the biofuel craze is increasing pressures on farm land, promoting deforestation, and contributing to global food price rises. But that doesn't mean we won't eventually get a biofuel that has more energy in it than we put into it. Once we reach this point, then the biofuel itself can fuel its production. But in the mean time there are some other intriguing alternatives.
Just today I was listening to CBC's "Quirks and Quarks" talking to Sandia labs about using solar energy to convert CO2 and H2O into H2 and CO, which can be effectively combined to make hydrocarbons. Unlike bacteria or algae, this process uses a special solid substance that, when exposed to the intense light, has its oxygen molecules stripped off, releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Then this substance is taken out of the sunlight, exposed to CO2 and Water, and it rips the oxygen molecules out of those substances, leaving H2 and CO behind, both of which can be fairly economically combined into hydrocarbons like methanol and gasoline. What's intriguing is that the substance they are using to rip the oxygen out of the water and CO2 can do this over and over again. Right now they are using CO2 from sources other than the atmosphere, making this not carbon neutral. However they plan to work towards harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere. In the meantime, though, this is a great way of increasing the efficiency of energy extraction from, say coal. If, someday, we could capture all CO2 from coal plants and convert it to gasoline for use in autos, that would have an overall decrease in our CO2 emissions because the coal could now be used to generate electricity *and* drive cars, reducing the CO2 emissions from refined gasoline. Assuming we can control particulates, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxides from burning gasoline, in the future perhaps gasoline-burning cars will be the cleanest things on the planet! Certainly as the scientist pointed out, gasoline (hydrocarbons anyway) is the best way of storying energy. Generating electricity is nice, but we have to use it as we generate it. Batteries and H2 production aren't really that good at storing energy as densely. The radio program is http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/feb09.html and the Sandia press release is http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html
If we are wise, then I think the push to biodiesel or solar gasoline will ultimately be our ticket.
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.
I'm Joe American and I've never though nuclear power was unsafe or stupid, not even when I had to suffer through my own flirtation with liberalism in college (thankfully I came to my senses).
Nuke power is the most sane, environmentally safe method for us to meet our energy demands and we should be busy building plants now, not debating about it.
Trouble is, you gotta convince all of the treehuggers and pseudo enviros, best start at a Starbucks since that's where they all are -- with their disposable cups and all.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
Me too, but so far I've only had success getting the system to work on downhill journeys. Uphill journeys are still unsolved. I've heard other people have had success using flywheels to capture the energy from braking, but the only solution seems to be to make the hills higher on one side than the other.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
still in development; no current production
Sources of Cellulosic Ethanol:
Energy Balance
Fossil-fuel energy used to make the fuel (input) compared with the energy in the fuel (output)
1 to 2-36
Greenhouse gas emissions (production and use)
Gasoline=20.4, Cellulosic ethanol 1.9 (lbs/gallon)
Sources: U.S. DOE; U.S. EPA; Worldwatch Institute
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
There are a few thing to consider before dismissing biofuels entirely.
First, this study states that the break even point is 93 years. That's a reasonable timeframe when assessing anthropogenic global warming. Most of the time, the warming potential of gasses is measured using a 100 year potential. As a long term investment, biofuels still pay off.
Second, the study looks at corn as a fuel. Nobody except Iowans and pandering politicians think corn is a good biofuel. The technology for cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner. Biodiesel far more energy efficient than ethanol. Sugar is a far more viable alternative than corn, where it will grow.
Finally, it looks like the study considers only a monoculture. Multiple crops on the same area of land is more efficient. Of course, far too much of our agriculture is monoculture.
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
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.
Would solar energy as an alternative be somewhat effective? I always pictured a worldwide solar grid connected all around the world. (the Sun would be shining somewhere)
(I know I'm super-simplifying the idea --but I'm just asking; and you seem like you know what you're talking about)
What percentage of the world's energy could possibly come from solar?
(And what percentage after most of our cars are electric?) (if that ever happens)
Mever nind the typos.
The key discussion is the current primary biodiesel production is on crop land. They're right. We're going to be needing all our crop land to grow food to feed a rapidly growing population.
Biodiesel production from high oil content algaes doesn't need to use crop land. From a University of New Hampshire study...
"...NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL ended.
NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.
The algae farms would not all need to be built in the same location, of course (and should not for a variety of reasons). The case mentioned above of building it all in the Sonora desert is purely a hypothetical example to illustrate the amount of land required. It would be preferable to spread the algae production around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in transporting the feedstocks. Algae farms could also be constructed to use waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from animal farms) as a food source, which would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae production around the country. Nutrients can also be extracted from the algae for the production of a fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous. By using waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human sewage) as the nutrient source, these farms essentially also provide a means of recycling nutrients from fertilizer to food to waste and back to fertilizer. Extracting the nutrients from algae provides a far safer and cleaner method of doing this than spreading manure or wastewater treatment plant "bio-solids" on farmland.
These projected yields of course depend on a variety of factors, sunlight levels in particular. The yield in North Dakota, for example, wouldn't be as good as the yield in California. Spreading the algae production around the country would result in more land being required than the projected 9.5 million acres, but the benefits from distributed production would outweigh the larger land requirement. Further, these yield estimates are based on what is theoretically achievable - roughly 15,000 gallons per acre-year. It's important to point out that the DOE's ASP that projected that such yields are possible, was never able to come close to achieving such yields. Thei
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/
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.
A company called Solazyme was on NPR Science Friday last Friday talking about their next generation biofuel that is low net-carbon. They feed agricultural and industrial waste products or cellulosic sugars to algae to grow transportation fuels or food oils. Net carbon emissions come from the fossil fuels used in the biofuel production process (tractors, distillers, etc.) and the land use changes mentioned in the studies here. However, since Solazyme makes fuels that can be used in the tractors, etc. that part can be net zero carbon (the fuel gives off CO2 like fossil fuels do, but that carbon is taken out of the atmosphere during the growing process). Since Solazyme's algage can eat non-food crop sugars, that also will be net-zero carbon (as long as forests aren't cleared to grow the non-food sugars). They said they expect their fuels to be cost competitive with fossil fuels in 2 to 3 years.
Come on guys. The politicians love the entire biofuel train and will disregard the negative consequences for as long as possible. The entire thing was so quickly accepted NOT because it will reduce emissions, but because it is a way to pump agricultural subsidies without actually saying you do.
Agri subsidies have been a major problem between Europe+US vs. rest of the world. Due to subsidies, it is cheaper for people in Nigeria to actually buy corn and wheat from US/Europe than to actually grow it themselves. Agri subsidies are essentially screwing the third world for monetary, political and strategic reasons (ie. country can feed itself without imports - strategic advantage).
The only problem is that all this is anti-WTO. Anti global free-trade. So, how can politicians fix the problem? How can they continue to subsidize agriculture without being contrary to the WTO agreements they want? They subsidize "new technology" called biofuels. Then the agri-subsidies take an extra step to get to farmer, but end result is the same. Subsidies continue while WTO is happy.
The only problem is that this is again at the cost of the environment. More land cleared. More jungles and peat bogs destroyed to make "environmentally friendly" fuel. Subsidies are why bio-fuel from corn, sugar cane, wheat, even grass. But no bio-fuel from oily algae grown on treated sewage lagoons. No, that fertilizer is just dumped to kill lakes instead.
Bio-fuels are just a cover to continue with agri subsidies in US and Europe. That's why politicians love it.
Biodiesel from algae is not new, and algae doesn't use up land resources like converting farmland for ethanol production does. In fact growing algae utilizes waste water streams from sewage plants, making the water cleaner in the process. On top of that, the yield of oil from algae (and hence biodiesel yields) can be up to 200 times more per acre than the best performing vegetable oil crops. Biodiesel from algae isn't without it's faults: it is expensive to set up the infrastructure to produce it (although that is a one time cost), and extracting the oil can be difficult. However new technology in systems using supercritical fluid extraction (using a superfluid CO2 of all things) has been nearly 100% efficient. There are companies already doing this: http://www.aquaflowgroup.com/technology.html
The problem is that people are still focussed on ethanol as the solution, being a quick and easy replacement for gasoline. Ethanol production from crops is nowhere near as efficient as producing biodiesel from crops, and ethanol production is expensive from both an economic and energy point of view. Many of the crops used to make ethanol only grow well in specific climates, meaning farmers outside those climate ranges who convert to ethanol crops can expect very low yields per acre. An eventual solution would be to move to diesel/biodiesel engines over gasoline/ethanol engines, and use ethanol is only an intermediate step to cover that conversion. Jets already make use of biodiesel blends with jetfuel, and progress is being made to jets using biodiesel only fuels. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4218411a10.html
The problem I have with these studies is that they treat ethanol as the only biofuel available. There are other biofuels, from straight vegetable oil to biodiesel. They claim that it is more destructive than commonly made out, yet the do not mention it is nowhere near as destructive to the environment as fossil fuels (and related fuel processing). Once the infrastructure is in place, it is far better for the environment. The studies also make out that biofuel production has resulted in massive deforestation, yet massive deforestation has been happening for decades before biofuels became mainstream. The real culprits are primarily demand for wood, farmland (and not just biofuel crops) and resource mismanagement on an extreme level. While the studies have raise some important issues that must be considered, I can't help but feeling that somewhere along the funding chain for these studies is an oil company. On top of that oil companies' PR agents are having a field day, making sure these studies get published everywhere.
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.
Here's the real math from the UK where government contractors face a real threat of jail time if they are caught intentionally lowballing a cost estimate....
"Total cost of closing down nuclear sites rises to £73bn
The cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear power sites has risen from an estimated £61bn in 2005 to £73bn as the "start-stop" nature of the work is creating significant uncertainty for contractors, Whitehall's value-for-money watchdog reveals today.
The report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will prove particularly uneasy reading for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who earlier this month gave the green light to a new generation of nuclear power stations - albeit that none will be built in Scotland because of the anti-nuclear stance adopted by the Scottish Government.
As well as reporting to the UK Government via the Department for Business, the authority also reports to Scottish ministers who agree its strategy and plans for sites in Scotland. By December 2007, 14 of 19 facilities across Britain had already shut down and were in the process of being decommissioned, which includes cleaning up the sites.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2003619.0.Total_cost_of_closing_down_nuclear_sites_rises_to_73bn.php
That's 150 BILLION DOLLARS... ON JUST 19 UK reactors. That means the REAL US cost of decommissioning US nuclear reactors is going to be well over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!
i work at ADM we burn coal to produce the steam we need to make ethanol, and the corn syrup that you eat and drink to make us all fat. so dont forget to add that to the equation. also as a side effect of making the syrup we also burn carbon granules regenerating the carbon to filter the syrup. add that up too.... ya i have a little bit of guilt, but like any other blue collar person, its the best paying job wi9th or without an education. i make as much as a person with a bachelors there. (so does go to college to get a good job really mean anything? :D )
but i'll add anyway. David Tilman from U of MN has worked quite extensively with mono- and polycultures of plants/grass for purposes of productivity. his paper here talks about using switchgrass in combination with other plants to use degraded/poor ag. lands and still get better, even carbon negative, output than corn or soy beans for ethanol, without a lot of input. i don't know why this didn't get more press.
"To stop the terrorists."
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
Many non-top fuel racing engines are starting to use ethanol, partially due to the low cost (a gallon of nitromethane is pretty expensive) and ready availability (seen a nitro pump at the local gas station recently?). A gas engine can basically run a higher compression ratio and replace a few fuel fittings, and subsequently make more power on E85 than it could on gasoline. The growing commonality of turbocharging gives a pretty easy way to raise compression (or change the pulley on the supercharger already on that race car, whichever), and alcohol-compatible fuel systems have been common in racing for years.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
A very good talk on this was given last Friday, 02/08/2008 on NPR's Science Friday.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
No, the point is that Europe has reacted to higher costs by reducing consumption.
You're more wrong than right to point out that Europe hasn't responded by producing a very specific solution at your command.
Europe is not a command economy, in respect to energy it may even be a LESS socialistic economy - which opens a very interesting discussion.
If you place the US - with its Universal Gasoline Plan and largely private pay-as-you-go Health care system, next to Europe with its Universal Health Care and pay-at-the-pump fuel system, it begins to explain the concentration of innovation in bot economies. We tend to innovate in health-care, while our energy and transportation sectors are third-world; while Europe has a largely second-rate health-care reputation - but many more leading energy companies and public transportation manufacturers.
AIK
next to Europes more of subsidized pump prices in a continuum with Europe