Joined: May 30, 2005 Posts: 22 Location: Grosse Pointe
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:20 am Post subject:
So all we have to do is grow and process millions of tons of biomass, and replace 99% of our vehicles? Is that all?
And what about the military, the farm equipment that harvests the biomass, the trucks that deliver our food, and the construction equipment that builds our nuclear power plants (and/or wind and solar farms, etc.)? I imagine that they'll have first claim to much of the biofuel.
Don't get me wrong, I hate SUV's, but I envision a very painful transition ahead.
Because basic ecology says otherwise. In nature, there is no such thing as "waste."
Sigh! Semantics! Call it feedstock if you like.
Quote:
You take away the organic matter that gives the soil fertility and you must replace it with inorganic fertilizers just like we have been doing to almost all farm land across the world.
And it is working pretty well, is it not? Sure, it may not be the ecological optimum, but as far as productivity (bushels/acre/season) is concerned, it's working as well as anyone might have hoped. I agree, we need to have a hard look at how we use those inorganic fertilizers - too much of it ends up in rivers and oceans, and must then be replaced with more fertilizer.
Quote:
Quite simple, for the same reason that we could not, and can not, grow enough rubber trees to meet the demand for tires.
True. So? Who said anything about rubber trees?
Quote:
We are switching from a stock of energy to a flow of energy.
True. And there is plenty of flow.
Quote:
It is innane thinking to believe that we can "produce" energy at the same rate and quality that we can "extract" it from a stockpile that took millions of years to accumulate.
Not necessarily. It is obviously easier to extract from the stockpile, hence our current use of oil. But how much flow is available? Plenty, as I have pointed out earlier in this discussion. For sake of flow of discussion, let me repeat myself: Quoting myself from http://peakoil.com/fortopic5194-15.html
Quote:
But let's look at some numbers. It is estimated that land photosynthesis contributes 120 billion metric tons per year of carbon, according to http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/gmeyer/envsc101/wk14biogeochem.htm In carbohydrate form (C6H12O6) this represents a total biomass of 300 billion t/yr. Let us assume you only collect 10% of that, or 30 billion t/yr. According to CWT, they can convert 1 ton of waste into 2 barrels of oil, so the yield would be 60 billion barrels of oil per year. Global demand for crude is expected to be 81.8 million barrels per day for 2005, according to http://www.axcessnews.com/business_102804b.shtml or about 30 billion barrels for the year. Oops, we have too much biomass.
Oh well, we'll have to take it slowly then...
So while stock happens to be easier to collect than flow, it does not mean that flow is insufficient.
Quote:
There will be "bad years" and weather related losses with biomass production.
Farming is a cycle of good and bad years. Typically a bad year in one area is balanced by a good year somewhere else. A global bad year is almost unheard off. Not to say it can't happen. But thankfully it is rare.
Quote:
With oil, all we ever had to do was open the spigot.
Or more precisely beg OPEC to open it. I'm glad to see the era of kissing OPEC's feet is coming to an end.
So all we have to do is grow and process millions of tons of biomass, and replace 99% of our vehicles? Is that all?
And what about the military, the farm equipment that harvests the biomass, the trucks that deliver our food, and the construction equipment that builds our nuclear power plants (and/or wind and solar farms, etc.)? I imagine that they'll have first claim to much of the biofuel.
Don't get me wrong, I hate SUV's, but I envision a very painful transition ahead.
Once again. Somone who reads other threads! Did all you others not read the "biofuel applications" thread?
I think biofuels are only really useful if they are locally used and embedded in a project intended to change people's behavior.
Take two examples. In Sweden, several towns grow a few acres of rapidly growing trees, that are burned to provide electricity and warm water. It makes sense. This is a local solution, and the tax payers all generously contribute to the project (they subsidize it). Alternatives are importing and burning coal or petroleum. The citizens themselves pushed for the green option, which remains an entirely local affair.
Another example. In the Dominican Republic, thousands of poor farmers produce avocados for the international market. This market demands only the highest quality, which comes down to around 50% of all avocados. The rest are consumed by the local people, who're rather sick of eating avocados all day. Two students from Wagening Agricultural University came up with the plan to turn the excess avocados into biodiesel, and use the presscake as fodder and fertilizer. (See this project - in dutch - here).
This kind of solutions works, and positively contributes to a change of culture.
Mass biofuels production on a plantation scale, with a colonialist logic, intended to make a few individuals rich, is unethical and bad for the environment.
Biofuel in itself isn't bad. Mankind has been using them since it invented fire. But modernistic, industrial scale mass production to satisfy the obscene needs of people whose existence is based on the ruthless exploitation and enslavement of others, must be boycotted by all means.
So all we have to do is grow and process millions of tons of biomass, and replace 99% of our vehicles? Is that all?
Sure. Which part do you have a problem with? Biomass is fairly well understood. And we will replace 99% of our vehicles every 15 years. The auto industry could be making 100% hybrids within 3 to 5 years if it were a priority.
JB2 wrote:
And what about the military, the farm equipment that harvests the biomass, the trucks that deliver our food, and the construction equipment that builds our nuclear power plants (and/or wind and solar farms, etc.)? I imagine that they'll have first claim to much of the biofuel.
No. There is enough to go around. As oil declines 1% to 3% per year, we should be able to transition to more efficient hybrids, smaller vehicles (electric scooters, subcompacts) and biofuels. It will be rough. People will have to accept less than they are used to. People will have to make many changes to their comfortable lives.
Get used to it. Don't fight it. It will be easier on you. Get out of debt. Get a scooter now. Move someplace warm so you dont have to worry about heating oil in the winter, etc.
JB2 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I hate SUV's, but I envision a very painful transition ahead.
So do I. I envision a very painful 10 to 20 year transition. But I see enough progress being made that I have no doubt that the transition will happen.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Alt fuels
BiGG wrote:
There is very little land that is “burnt out” and what is can easily be rejuvenated with a few cover crops & some cow crap for the most part. My neighbor just happens to be one of the foremost PhDs in the world on this subject so you can believe me when I say your biology degree doesn’t impress me in the least here. You can surly bet an acclaimed scientist spending his illustrious career in this field from Michigan State University has an opinion that goes much further with me then a construction supervisor claiming to be a star biologist such as yourself.
Farms using crop rotation & natural fertilizer like those now using ethanol byproduct amongst other things, cow crap and plowed-under cover crops have no need for oil based anything in the fertilizer department and I would think somebody claiming to be biology’s star pupil would know that.
As I suspected, you have no background or expertise in the biological sciences. And as as result, you are woefully unable to discern whether the statements in the articles you parrot are true or viable, or even within the realm of reality.
It is posters like you that have caused us to consider an "approved only" forum, so that we don't have to put up with ad hominem attacks and comments that serve no purpose and muddy threads.
BTW, my farm has always used crop rotation and natural fertilizers for the most part. It is why it is not burnt out. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Alt fuels
MonteQuest wrote:
As I suspected, you have no background or expertise in the biological sciences. And as as result, you are woefully unable to discern whether the statements in the articles you parrot are true or viable, or even within the realm of reality.
It is posters like you that have caused us to consider an "approved only" forum, so that we don't have to put up with ad hominem attacks and comments that serve no purpose and muddy threads.
BTW, my farm has always used crop rotation and natural fertilizers for the most part. It is why it is not burnt out.
{Content edited to remove personal attacks. Content moved to Hall of Flames- jato. Content moved here: Link}
Now stop with your wacky & uneducated personal attacks and thank me for educating you yet again here by showing how real scientists with a clue have clearly debunked your claims like the one saying “In nature, there is no such thing as "waste" right here in this very thread just like you should have thanked me all the other times I corrected your wacky assertions in the past! Are tree farms monocultures by definition? According to MonteQuest they are and in nature there is no such thing as waste! What a joke like usual. _________________ "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil" ............ Former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani,
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Alt fuels
{Let's stay on topic please. Content moved to Hall of Flames - jato} _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:
Reminder for everyone: Please argue your point in a constructive manner and quit making personal attacks. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
I had to scroll up so far to find an actual argument to respond to I gave up.
Jeeze guys...
I thought it appropriate to have a prominent Biofuels thread, since it gets so much interest, and is among the most viable potential hydrocarbon substitutes.
That said, it should be pretty obvious to everyone that biofuel can never hope to replace but a small fraction of oil's applications.
It's the same reason shale, tar sands, clathrates and other hydrocarbons will never replace significant amounts of conventional oil.
No matter how you slice it, you have to go pick up biofuel sources, and oil just comes gushing out of a straw poked into the ground.
Or so I'm told by Richard Smalley anyway.
As I have said many times, much of this argument will depend on the depletion rate.
We get DriveElectric's USGS sanctioned 1% - 3% depletion rate post peak, and biofuels can probably have an important impact.
But since that's a ridiculous pipe-dream, and real depletion will certainly be much more aggressive, biofuels are at best a marginal alternative, and at worst a fatal distraction which perpetuates the myth of eternal growth.
I'm picturing a bunch of wild-eyed, panicked geeks looking around frantically for the next class of crap they think will burn.
Just how many people were you planning to invite to this party anyway?
Cause a few hundred million Chinese guys just showed up and said you invited them. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 132 Location: BA PA USA
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject:
To move this thread back toward the biofuels debate...
Quote:
Farms using crop rotation & natural fertilizer like those now using ethanol byproduct amongst other things, cow crap and plowed-under cover crops have no need for oil based anything in the fertilizer department
I've given this a fair amount of thought and have some experience working on organic farms. The above statement is absolutely true, as are claims that organic farms can develop equivalent per acre crop yeilds as "conventional" farms on a single year basis. The BIG difference is that with chemical inputs the same acre of land can supply the same large amount of [choose grain] every year.
Humans don't eat alfalfa. Cows can though, so a peice of land in rotation isn't a total caloric loss to people. I haven't ever seen a well documented comparison of "conventional" agriculture and organic agriculture on a multi-year basis. Sustainability aside I suspect that the "conventional" farm develops more total available calories over a period of five+ years. I would love to be proven wrong though... please direct me to a link...
This is related to biofuels in my mind because fuel farms are subject to the same limits as organic agriculture. Soil stocks can only take a certain amount of extraction before they "collapse" into a state of lower productivity - still some, just a lot less than originally.
Joined: Mar 04, 2005 Posts: 2571 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject:
Biofuel Increasingly Competitive if Oil Surge Lasts
The IEA renewed its estimate that all biofuels -- ethanol and biodiesel -- had the potential to reach 10 percent of world fuel use for transport by 2025.
Last year the world produced about 30 billion litres of fuel-ready ethanol from fermenting and distilling mainly sugar or corn. In oil terms, that's more than 500,000 barrels per day (bpd), two percent of global gasoline use.
The United States, the world's top oil consumer and No. 2 biofuel producer, set a target of doubling ethanol production to 8 billion gallons by 2012 -- over 500,000 bpd and more than 5 percent of current gasoline use.
Biofuel Increasingly Competitive if Oil Surge Lasts
The IEA renewed its estimate that all biofuels -- ethanol and biodiesel -- had the potential to reach 10 percent of world fuel use for transport by 2025.
Last year the world produced about 30 billion litres of fuel-ready ethanol from fermenting and distilling mainly sugar or corn. In oil terms, that's more than 500,000 barrels per day (bpd), two percent of global gasoline use.
The United States, the world's top oil consumer and No. 2 biofuel producer, set a target of doubling ethanol production to 8 billion gallons by 2012 -- over 500,000 bpd and more than 5 percent of current gasoline use.
You just unitentionally (or maybe not) proved aaron's and montequest's point. 5% by 2012. Help but not as scalable as SOME PEOPLE are making this out to be.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:
We can't even feed our own fellow man much less millions of cars, buses, trucks, airplanes, trains & ships! _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Last edited by jato on Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Mar 04, 2005 Posts: 2571 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:39 pm Post subject:
Yes Cyrus that is the point I made at the beginning of this thread. The analysis is taken from the OICA site.
http://www.oica.net/htdocs/Main.htm
See Fuel Quality and Future Fuels Report.
They envisage a wide range of fuels that will be used in road transportation, biofuels are only an interim measure. They are hopeful that hydrogen will eventually be the only non-carbon fuel generally available for road vehicles after 2012. However, I personally wouldn't rule out EV's as they have done. I like Thetoecutter's thread on electric vehicles
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html
I expect this technology to grow very fast over the next decade or so.
If I can go back to the theme of this thread, I expect biofuels also to continue to be an important though small component of road transportation fuels over the coming decades. Is this argument settled then?
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
