Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
Quote:
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of plants and animals.
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
Huzzah for Monbiot indeed, but lets not get too carried away. He's not demonstrating that biodiesel is a bad idea, just the palm oil is very bad way of supplying its feedstock.
And lets not forget that they've been clearing south E. asian rainforest for palm oil for decades to supply cosmetics (stick that to the next over-groomed 'greenie' you meet) and food processors.
Its also unjust to blame small landholders for deforestation-for-palm oil, if the experiences of Sumatra and E.Timor are anything to go by.
Such 'Development' too often works like this:
1. private capital (local or intnl) proposes 'development' to govt
2. central govt grants tax breaks, resumes or forcibly purchases land, 'resettles' locals (usually to periurban slums). In good old Suharto days the army would just run the locals off, but today a fig leaf or two is deemed advisable (and tax deductible).
3. investors hire local managers to clear and plant, locking them into lowest-commodity-price supply deals and returning sweet f.a. profit to locality.
Its too funny how often the peoples of the majority world get the blame for eg. oil demand or deforestation. Yes they play a role, but their purchasing power and land ownership are usually so marginal as to be trivial. Quit trying to duck responsibility, people.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
bobcousins wrote:
It looks like the future of the Earth is a giant farm, with wildlife confined to "nature theme parks" where a selection of cute animals will be kept in a pastiche of their former habitat, existing largely for our entertainment.
You don't get it, Bob. There is no farm. We're yeast in a vat, eating our own wastes to survive just a little longer. We're top predators with no idea how to husband ecological resources. Our magical mystery money system is just a fancy way of collectively cutting our own throats, and turning a buck at the same time. In short, as a species, we're stupid and we'll die.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: Defeatists?
I agree that clearing rainforests for palm plantations is a terribly misguided idea...much better to use jatropha on marginal lands instead. I've been lurking for a while but had to jump in here; it seems as if most on this site actually want to see society fail.
Despite all the problems we're having with getting renewables adopted on a grand-scale, there is still hope and we must maintain that hope. At least for me, getting up every morning to go work on government renewable energy programs helps me to keep going in the face of adversity. I appreciate a challenge. Responsible biofuel development is one of those challenges. Either you support its promotion in a sustainable manner (as well as drive on reclaimed waste oil) or you use fossils. Take your pick. To simply give up or point angry fingers at those at least attempting to make a change is asinine and irresponsible.
BTW, I support biodiesel, even that made from soybeans. The soy on my farm (like much of the U.S. production) uses no nitrogen fertilizers and is sold as presscake for chicken and cattle feed. The oil is a secondary product, so why not use it to produce fuel? Nobody is starving because of this...there's a VAST food surplus in this country. Please stop promoting fallacies. The reality is that those in power want to control all of our resources, and will probably even infiltrate and subvert intelligent dialogue to achieve their means. Some of these "posters" probably aren't even real.
Sule in Washington, DC (visiting from energybulletin.net)
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
sule wrote:
I agree that clearing rainforests for palm plantations is a terribly misguided idea...much better to use jatropha on marginal lands instead. I've been lurking for a while but had to jump in here; it seems as if most on this site actually want to see society fail.
Despite all the problems we're having with getting renewables adopted on a grand-scale, there is still hope and we must maintain that hope. At least for me, getting up every morning to go work on government renewable energy programs helps me to keep going in the face of adversity. I appreciate a challenge. Responsible biofuel development is one of those challenges. Either you support its promotion in a sustainable manner (as well as drive on reclaimed waste oil) or you use fossils. Take your pick. To simply give up or point angry fingers at those at least attempting to make a change is asinine and irresponsible.
BTW, I support biodiesel, even that made from soybeans. The soy on my farm (like much of the U.S. production) uses no nitrogen fertilizers and is sold as presscake for chicken and cattle feed. The oil is a secondary product, so why not use it to produce fuel? Nobody is starving because of this...there's a VAST food surplus in this country. Please stop promoting fallacies. The reality is that those in power want to control all of our resources, and will probably even infiltrate and subvert intelligent dialogue to achieve their means. Some of these "posters" probably aren't even real.
Sule in Washington, DC (visiting from energybulletin.net)
Sule, just to reassure you that although my name isn't actually 'Mr Untothislast', I am indeed 'real'!
Yes, there are a number of individuals who want to see society fail - and for probably very good reasons. One of the main ones being that there seems no viable prospect of continuing as a species unless we radically redraft the current model - which seems to be based totally on rapacious squandering of natural resources, at the expense of every other living organism on the planet. In that respect, society has already failed. We're now just having to face up to paying the price.
Where I do take issue, is with the neo-Malthusians, who seem to take some sort of perverse pleasure in the promise of imminent, and violent, social upheaval. Particularly, if the bodycount (but not theirs, of course) is likely to be high.
All Monbiot is doing, is drawing our attention to the deficiencies he perceives in an alternative energy solution currently touted as being one of the answers to our prayers. There is no perfect solution. Whatever source of energy we turn to, the hidden and obvious costs will be significant. The only real answer is to reduce our energy requirements across the board - and we can start by eliminating all forms of pointless travel.
Thanks for your contribution - both as a correspondent, and as someone obviously trying to make a sincere contribution to our technological future.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:31 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
sule wrote:
I agree that clearing rainforests for palm plantations is a terribly misguided idea...much better to use jatropha on marginal lands instead. I've been lurking for a while but had to jump in here; it seems as if most on this site actually want to see society fail.
Despite all the problems we're having with getting renewables adopted on a grand-scale, there is still hope and we must maintain that hope. At least for me, getting up every morning to go work on government renewable energy programs helps me to keep going in the face of adversity. I appreciate a challenge. Responsible biofuel development is one of those challenges. Either you support its promotion in a sustainable manner (as well as drive on reclaimed waste oil) or you use fossils. Take your pick. To simply give up or point angry fingers at those at least attempting to make a change is asinine and irresponsible.
BTW, I support biodiesel, even that made from soybeans. The soy on my farm (like much of the U.S. production) uses no nitrogen fertilizers and is sold as presscake for chicken and cattle feed. The oil is a secondary product, so why not use it to produce fuel? Nobody is starving because of this...there's a VAST food surplus in this country. Please stop promoting fallacies. The reality is that those in power want to control all of our resources, and will probably even infiltrate and subvert intelligent dialogue to achieve their means. Some of these "posters" probably aren't even real.
Sule in Washington, DC (visiting from energybulletin.net)
[QUOTE]
Sule: You've hit the ideological bump on the PO highway. Any argument for a sustainable future will be hung high and bled white.There is indeed a potent bias to self destruction on the board.Peak oil is only a springboard,a prop,for a good number of intelligent people to flay the moral monsters that beset us: environmental and political disintegration,infinity addiction,ignorance,greed,ugliness,the whole menu of industrial horrors.For many,the solution is an apocalyptic aspirin.The current Monbiot thread is a good example.Monbiot is a local tin god,a kind of mini Chomsky without the credentials. At least a year after serious biofuel supporters warned of the dangers of palm oil plantations,he stumbles on the fact that carpetbag capitalists are busy burning much of southeast Asia to enrich themselves.Horrors! Stop the biodiesel presses! Out with the baby AND the bathwater. Particularly revealing was his elitist poke at people actually making the stuff from used grease.UGH!Much nicer to lunch at the club,no?
But stick around.Doomers serve a purpose like locusts on a prairie.They sharpen and focus our instinct to survive real danger.Chicken Little serves
necessity even if it doesn't realize its antidote is worse than the disease it fights.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
hotsacks wrote:
Monbiot is a local tin god,a kind of mini Chomsky without the credentials.
Hotsacks, he's writing for a mainstream readership, most of whom (like me) may not subscribe to 'Scientific American', and therefore are only grappling with the subject for the first time, thanks to journalists like him taking the trouble to bring it to our attention.
He may not be in the front rank of groundbreaking analysis (as I'm sure he himself would be at pains to admit) but he does an absolutely first-rate job of bringing the disparate strands together in a form that even the layperson can readily understand.
And be fair. I don't think a rational discussion about the downsides of a suggested process, in this case biodiesel, equates fully with being part of some sort of doomer deathwish.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
untothislast wrote:
hotsacks wrote:
Monbiot is a local tin god,a kind of mini Chomsky without the credentials.
And be fair. I don't think a rational discussion about the downsides of a suggested process, in this case biodiesel, equates fully with being part of some sort of doomer deathwish.
[QUOTE]
I agree.
Biodiesel has its share of downsides,palm oil being only one of them.The whole issue of carbon sequestration is even more serious.
There is no perfect fix.BD in the big picture can only serve as part of a bridge towards a more benign and sustainable future.
But it is an important band aid;and the opinions of myopic news columnists like Monbiot wreak huge damage in the pop culture we're in thrall to.
Also,I think it's important that newcomers like Sule hear that we're not all sleeping with an H bomb up our ass.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
hotsacks wrote:
I agree.
Biodiesel has its share of downsides,palm oil being only one of them.The whole issue of carbon sequestration is even more serious.
There is no perfect fix.BD in the big picture can only serve as part of a bridge towards a more benign and sustainable future.
But it is an important band aid;and the opinions of myopic news columnists like Monbiot wreak huge damage in the pop culture we're in thrall to.
Also,I think it's important that newcomers like Sule hear that we're not all sleeping with an H bomb up our ass.
What worries me, is that we're clutching at band-aid solutions while we're actually haemmorhaging from every orifice.
Monbiot does have his faults, to be sure, but in the generic dross that is the UK celebrity-obsessed press, he's like a compellingly sane voice in the wilderness. I think the only real damage he's likely to do, is to cast a spotlight on assertions the agenda merchants would like us to accept uncritically. If he's right, he's been worth hearing. If he's wrong, then this will only have been determined by his detractors putting up their own persuasive counter-arguments for open discussion.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Defeatists?
untothislast wrote:
What worries me, is that we're clutching at band-aid solutions while we're actually haemmorhaging from every orifice.
Monbiot does have his faults, to be sure, but in the generic dross that is the UK celebrity-obsessed press, he's like a compellingly sane voice in the wilderness. I think the only real damage he's likely to do, is to cast a spotlight on assertions the agenda merchants would like us to accept uncritically. If he's right, he's been worth hearing. If he's wrong, then this will only have been determined by his detractors putting up their own persuasive counter-arguments for open discussion.
All in all - not a bad thing.
[QUOTE]
There's irony here,isn't there? We're both defending'second best' ideas because of the lack of alternatives. But when they're the only game in town...
Celebrity obsessed? At least the UK has a history.Ours is mostly packaged in coked up in Californian rumour mills.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
I decided not to intervene on this one, till people displayed their cards.
I continue to be disappointed by energybulletin.net for staying on the surface of various issues and never going into the numerical details. I hope this story makes people there rethink their approach to quantitative details.
This was actually an easy one to pick up - it appears that Monbiot did not read the study he was quoting from or he deliberately misquoted it. This is the oldest trick in the propaganda book: start with a true statement but quote it out of context and present it in such a way that it paralyzes the reader. In fact if it had not been for that statement, the rest of the article would not have been published inspite the valid points he makes about BF (long live short-termism).
Note how the statement is used once at the beginning of the article - which fails to ask the $1M question: what is the efficiency of sunlight capture of biofuels? Monbiot does not answer the question; in fact the way the study finding is presented leaves the reader with the impression that this figure also holds true for biofuels. But is this the case?
I decided to do a little bit of internet search and a pay a visit to my institution's library website. People without academic library access can read the study by Dukes and a
Eureka Alertthat did review Dukes publication a couple of years ago on their own.
Jeff Dukes is an Assistant Professor in Stanford now. His personal webpage
features a free copy of the article that Monbiot misinterpreted (Dukes, J.S. 2003. Burning buried sunshine: human consumption of ancient solar energy. Climatic Change, 61(1-2): 31-44).
Salient points :
1) Dukes tried to calculate the thermodynamic efficiency of Solar Radiation->Plant->Coalification/oilification due to the geological processes that rockdoc has been trying to explain to us. His numbers reflect the "efficiency" of the whole process. He tried to quantify what every college student should know: i.e. that this whole natural process is extremely inefficient.
The following was copied from Eureka Alert:
Quote:
Dukes calculated ancient plant matter needed for a gallon of gasoline in metric units:
* One gallon of oil weighs 3.26 kilograms. A gallon of oil produces up to 0.67 gallons of gasoline. So 3.26 kilograms for a gallon of oil divided by 0.67 gallons means that at least 4.87 kilograms of oil are needed to make a gallon of gasoline.
* Oil is 85 percent carbon, so 0.85 times 4.87 kilograms equals 4.14 kilograms of carbon in the oil used to make a gallon of gasoline.
* Since only about one-10,750th of the original carbon in ancient plant material actually ends up as oil, multiply 4.14 kilograms by 10,750 to get roughly 44,500 kilograms of carbon in ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas.
* About half of plant matter is carbon, so double the 44,500 kilograms to get 89,000 kilograms – or 89 metric tons – of ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas. In U.S. units, that is equal to a bit more than 196,000 pounds or 98 tons.
Dukes made similar calculations for oil, natural gas and coal to determine that it took 44 million billion kilograms (97 million billion pounds) of carbon in ancient plant matter to produce all the fossil fuel used in 1997. That includes 29 million billion kilograms of prehistoric plants to produce a year's worth of oil (including gasoline), almost 15 million billion kilograms of buried plant matter to make all the natural gas used in 1997, and 27,000 billion kilograms of dead plants to produce all the coal used in the same year.
2) Dukes applied the same methodology to plant biomass.
Quote from the Eureka Alert article:
Quote:
Dukes then divided the 1997 fossil fuel use equivalent of 7.1 trillion kilograms of carbon in plant matter by 31.6 trillion kilograms now available in plants. He found we would need to harvest 22 percent of all land plants just to equal the fossil fuel energy used in 1997 – about a 50 percent increase over the amount of plants now removed or paved over each year.
Quote from the publication by Dukes:
Quote:
This should be considered a minimum requirement; a dramatically larger share of NPP would be needed if the efficiency of energy generation from biomass remained lower than the efficiency of energy generation from fossil fuels (Table III), or if biomass were to be converted
to ethanol or other liquid fuels (Giampietro et al., 1997; Kheshgi et al., 2000).
Isn't this interesting? It appears that Monbiot either did not understand Dukes paper or he deliberately misquoted it.
Let me repeat it once again ... after reading dozens of biofuels articles myself ... and doing the numbers myself, there should be no doubt that the EROIEs are small but positive (in the 4s for BD) for BF like BD, Switchgrass/miscanthus-ethanol. If one were to do a similar energy accounting for gasoline, one would find that the EROEIs is somewhere between 6-8 for gasoline refined from SA oil (I did them in a thread here, a couple of months ago)
Dukes calculations should have stopped the stupid statements usually made alongside the "die-off" meme around here: that we cannot capture sunlight in the form of chemical bond energy in a real time fashion. The calculations do suggest otherwise ... the reason for not doing so should not be based on energy calculations (because they are (+) ) but on other considerations. I will let Dukes describe the aforementioned considerations himself . The following quote is taken from the discussion section of the original publication and should illustrate both Monbiot's error and the non-energy considerations that argue against us (humans) turning this planet into a "gasoline" plantation.
Quote:
Ancient organic matter generated fossil fuels through inefficient processes. Calculations in this paper suggest that the formation of coal from plants is less than 10% efficient, and the formation of oil and gas from phytoplankton is less than 0.01% efficient. These estimates imply that the fossil fuels used by humans in 1997 were generated from ancient organic matter that contained approximately 44 × 1018g C, which is >400 times the current global NPP. As fossil fuel stores are depleted, modern solar resources are likely to supply an increasing fraction of societal energy demands . Fortunately, these resources are more efficient than fossil fuels in terms of solar energy capture (Table III). However, to the extent that a shift away from ancient solar resources increases human consumption of modern NPP, this shift could place additional burdens on the myriad species that depend on the sun’s energy for life (Cook et al., 1991; Giampietro et al., 1997). By minimizing society’s future energy demands and carefully selecting energy capture and generation technologies, we can limit human impacts on many other species.
I hope someone writes a nice letter to Guardian and fry Monbiot's ass ...
If he is concerned about the impact on other species, he should make the relevant argument and not lie about it. This is the same problem I have with all the fallacious studies that Prof Rascist - Insect/I sleep with African-American/Latino haters has been circulating from journal to journal for the last 10 years now. By lying about the subject, they will never let the debate move to the really important arguments against widespread adoption of BF. These are not to be found in the energy calculations - but on all the other things that Dukes and sule and hotsacks exposed in their previous posts.
I believe that hotsacks made the best assessment of BF I have seen so far ... BFs are a stop-gap measure towards an electricity based sustainable society. Thinking that we can attain this goal without techno-fixes is as fallatious as thinking we can have our business as usual with techno-fixes.
I will give an example which is inspired from my work: a person whose kidneys are not working has to go on dialysis. Dialysis is an imperfect techno-fix which serves as a bridge (a really long one in some cases) towards a more sustainable fix (which is a kidney transplant). In the future the second techno-fix will be replaced by organ/tissue engineering (a permanent solution). There is no way to reach the permanent solution without a leap of techno-fixes; in the particular case, the medical profession has been working and improving the technofixes since WWII. The only reason to work on the permanent solution of a given problem is the existence of imperfect techno-fixes ... they spur us to look for the best solution.
I suppose we could follow the meme which says that dialysis is un-natural and we should let people die. But such an approach will never spur solutions. I leave it to people to connect the dots and carry the analogy over to our energy problem. _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
EnergySpin wrote:
Isn't this interesting? It appears that Monbiot either did not understand Dukes paper or he deliberately misquoted it.
Well, I agree that he perhaps he misapplied Duke's calculation, but you are misapplying it just as badly. He is saying, in essence, "biofuels can't be made any more efficiently than by allowing plants to naturally turn into petroleum, therefore the planetary capacity is 400 times less than what we need." You are saying "We can make biofuels with the same efficiency that we get when cutting trees down to make firewood. Thus we can sustainably power all of our toys by burning a mere 22% of the biomass on the planet annually." I think his point still stands. The planet simply does not have the biosynthetic capacity to power all of our toys. The ONLY workable solution is conservation. Unfortunately that too is completely unworkable because humans are mostly stupid, lazy, and uninterested. We, most of the time, react only to the most primative of stimuli. Until we are experiencing significant pain as a result of our actions, we will continue to focus on breeding, food, booze, and sparkly trinkets. By the time the reality of our stupid actions hits us, it's going to be too late to do much about it. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
That's a mistatement. His own words:
EnergySpin wrote:
I believe that hotsacks made the best assessment of BF I have seen so far ... BFs are a stop-gap measure towards an electricity based sustainable society.
He argues that biofuels are a "stop-gap" measurement. I can't find anything in his post advocating a sustainable, substantially biofueled future.
BTW, brilliant post EnergySpin. It was a good read.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
Parannoyed wrote:
bobcousins wrote:
It looks like the future of the Earth is a giant farm, with wildlife confined to "nature theme parks" where a selection of cute animals will be kept in a pastiche of their former habitat, existing largely for our entertainment.
You don't get it, Bob. There is no farm. We're yeast in a vat, eating our own wastes to survive just a little longer. We're top predators with no idea how to husband ecological resources. Our magical mystery money system is just a fancy way of collectively cutting our own throats, and turning a buck at the same time. In short, as a species, we're stupid and we'll die.
nice handle. nice introduction. you'll fit in fine here _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
So as Monbiot predicted, its gloves off and boots in for him daring to criticise many peoples favourite saviour. I'm grateful to EnergySpin for being the first to step off the rhetorical soapbox and actually make some points.
If ES's point is that Monbiot errs in this 2nd para
Quote:
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.
because Dukes really said
Quote:
Dukes then divided the 1997 fossil fuel use equivalent of 7.1 trillion kilograms of carbon in plant matter by 31.6 trillion kilograms now available in plants. He found we would need to harvest 22 percent of all land plants just to equal the fossil fuel energy used in 1997 – about a 50 percent increase over the amount of plants now removed or paved over each year.
then it seems he has a point. Does that point mean palm oil biodiesel is a good thing? No. Does it mean the EU's new blind-to-source biodiesel policies are great? No. Does it mean Monbiot is producing "propaganda" (ES's word)? No, i don't think so.
Also, where does Monbiot say we can't capture EMR in realtime? And why is the efficiency of sunlight capture the $1m question, surely such monocular information is of limited use - what about arable land upon which to perform capture, water & nutrient supply, and of course the opportunity cost of the land use (sequestering carbon, making rain, housing biodiversity, providing food and fuel to locals...), which is the main point of Monbiots article, and one i think nobody has addressed.
I agree with
Quote:
Thinking that we can attain this goal without techno-fixes is as fallatious as thinking we can have our business as usual with techno-fixes.
, but of course one mans more-sustainable technofix is anothers intergenerational terrorism (hey if we're going to chuck around emotive words..).
-
EnergySpin wrote:
..I continue to be disappointed by energybulletin.net for staying on the surface of various issues and never going into the numerical details.
Ah, you want Energybulletin to be quantitatively error checking the huge and growing volume of related news and research on a daily basis? I think they're three guys with unrelated jobs and lives, not forty guys with salaries and offices - you get what you pay for. Or what you do yourself - why not send them a succinct publish-ready criticism of Monbiots article?
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
