The LA Times has a long story about the growing conflict over coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel. This is the most important paragraph in the piece, though it is inexplicably buried at the bottom:
A new study has concluded that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. If the carbon dioxide is captured and permanently stored, liquid coal emits 20% more greenhouse gas than diesel but 11% less than conventional gasoline, according to the study to be released next week by Argonne National Laboratory, a research arm of the Energy Department.
In plain English, this means that best case scenario -- all new CTL plants are accompanied by CO2 sequestration facilities -- you come out with a fuel that's barely better on greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline.
With regard to global warming, the very best we could do with CTL is stay on the same disastrous trajectory we are on now. Does that sound like something that deserves taxpayer subsidies?
Yes, if your job depends on remaining in the good graces of the coal industry:
A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including one presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), is pushing to provide federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies to spur the production of fuel from coal.
If that's not enough to sour your Obamamania, get a load of this:
Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production.
"If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then it's not going to be a credible strategy," he said.
The bill does not require that the fuel be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, though it does offer tax incentives to encourage the use of technology that captures carbon dioxide. [my emphasis]
Let's review what we know:
- To slow or stop global warming, we need to drastically reduce the emissions from the transportation sector.
- CTL would increase emissions from the transportation sector, unless every CTL plant was accompanied by a (massively expensive, technically unproven) CO2 sequestration facility, in which case it would keep emissions on their present course.
- The bills being proposed to funnel taxpayer subsidies to the coal industry for CTL do not require that they be accompanied by CO2 sequestration facilities.
The coal industry has done more than any other to degrade our atmosphere and threaten our future. Now coal barons want to further degrade the atmosphere by creating liquid fuel. And Barack Obama wants taxpayers to pay them to do it.
This CTL issue is a clear dividing line for legislators. Are you serious about global warming -- about our collective future, and our kids' future -- or are you more concerned with the parochial corporate interests of your home state?
Montana's Jon Tester has chosen to be serious about global warming. Obama has made a different choice.
Another coal plant bites the dust
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Threaded
feonixrift Posted 6:55 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:39 am
11 May 2007
Inventors, engineers and designers have proved that the technology works, and that it is economically feasible. And now there's a big market for it. All that's needed is for people in power, like Obama, to stand behind it. Too bad he's got his head stuck in the coal bucket.
Maybe he would see things differently if he saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:52 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:09 am
11 May 2007
While Barack Obama is engaging and interesting, no one should be surprised that he is more interested in being elected than doing the right thing. Also, no one should be surprised by the reality that these are two different often conflicting modes of behavior.
In fact, Obama is placing himself well to move up in the corporate oligarchy, political branch. To do so, he has to suck up to Big Coal, and to Hi-Tech.
This same comment could just was well apply to any of the Presidential candidates, so it should not be seen as applying uniquely to Obama.
The revolution will have a hard time getting started until Campaign Finance and Lobbying laws are completely overhauled, to return choice to the people. Throw in being able to vote and knowing how your vote was recorded for good measure.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 2:16 pm
11 May 2007
All hat and no cattle. I think Edwards has the best environmental ideas (next to Gore) of anyone running.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:29 pm
11 May 2007
Obama never expected to win the presidency, all he wanted was a megaphone to speak for Illinois's interests. (i.e. Corn and Coal)
For instance, his "Low Carbon Fuel Standard"
5 percent reduction in lifecycle CO2 by 2015
And a 10 percent in lifecycle CO2 by 2020.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48 ...
A TEN percent reduction in 13 years?
Thats pathetic.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:32 pm
11 May 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 3:19 pm
11 May 2007
Plus, the grid is getting cleaner with more green energy every year.
He also cosponsored the MCain/Clintobn climate change bill that is not as good as the bOxer bill, but its not bad.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:47 pm
11 May 2007
That's why the agribusiness interests are pushing him to be Hillary's VP -- so he can ensure that they get their cut.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:33 pm
11 May 2007
We Gristmillers eagerly await Grist's interviews with the candidates. The history of the 2008 election will not be complete, without taking into account the influence of Grist.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:52 pm
11 May 2007
For instance, The Edwards Plan on energy calls for the nation to be producing 65 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2025. Besides funding research into developing new methods of producing and using ethanol, including cellulosic ethanol, he would offer loan guarantees to new refineries.
His plan says nothing about whether he would veto any attempt by Congress to extend the $0.51/gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) past 2010. Assuming the VEETC does get extended (which is what the USDA assumed in its latest projections);
that 7 billion gallons of ethanol will be consumed in the USA this year;
and that production grows linearly (exponential growth at current rates of expansion would get to 65 billion gallons a year even sooner)
the cumulative cost over the next 19 years of just that one element of his plan can be easily calculated:
19 years x (7 billion gallons + [65-7 billion gallons]/2) x $0.51/gallon = $348.8 billion
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:24 pm
11 May 2007
I happen to like John Edwards a lot, and voted for him, rather hopelessly, in the NY primary in 2004. Nevertheless, all candidates who talk seriously about "corn ethanol" are questionable. They are appealing not only to Iowa, but also to voters who respond to the idea of "energy independence."
Which is OK, I guess, but hardly wonderful.
Is DR's dark horse, Al Gore, going to come on board, in September, talking about "cellulosic ethanol"? Would that he will! But my take on that is, he, i.e. Al, realizes already that that is something of a red herring, or anyway a subject of secondary importance.
And I think John Edwards thinks as much as well. At this point, he wants us to know he is thinking seriously about these matters. But by no means is he locking himself into an inescapable policy.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:22 am
12 May 2007
It will look just as patriotic and actually solve the GHG and oil war problems. If Obama could only get the message he would leave the rest in the dust. Hillary could do it too. She doesn't need farmstate ethanol vote scams like obama.
Or Edwards could do it too. Gore would be the most likely to go for it though.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:47 am
12 May 2007
The question to ask yourself is once in power, who do you think will really do something to combat climate change? If the answer is no one, well, then you can go crawl away in despair. And this may be a possibility. But I think any of the major Democrats and even a Republican or two would likely do something serious once elected given the shifting consensus.
Also, those of you who think that any politician is going to enact precisely what they talk about on the campaign trail need to have your heads examined. There is so much wheeling and dealing and Congressional input that telling the public what you want to do now and any legislation that would be passed in 09 are going to be very different.
Finally, I hope that people on Grist aren't single-issue voters- we have women's rights, education, income inequality, and that thing called jihadist terrorism to worry about, so I hope your votes aren't simply based on who has the best CO2 cap and trade program. The environment is important, but it's not the only serious issue. And Obama is near the top when it comes to just about all of them.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:13 am
12 May 2007
Will it come down ultimately to personality? If so, I most like Bill Richardson, and I least like Hillary. But of course I would unquestioningly and unhesitatingly vote for her, if she goes up against Rudy.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:03 am
12 May 2007
The voters and candidates need to hear the facts for a change. Propaganda just won't do it this time around.
Once commited to these huge blunders, like ethanol and liquid coal, it will have its own momentum. Like the Iraq War. And we will blithely go from one disaster to the next disaster.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:16 am
12 May 2007
That said, there are certain stances that make good litmus tests. When a candidate says something general like, "America needs more renewable fuels", that is politicking, and everybody understands that. When they start proposing very specific, very expensive policies, they are either deadly serious, or talking up their sleeves. If the latter, they are playing a very dangerous game.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:43 am
12 May 2007
I think Obama will hit a major "scandal" before the primaries even...he seems like a book of matches ready to catch fire.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:50 am
12 May 2007
It is rather spooky, actually, to learn that there are some participants in these Gristmill conversations who are limited, bound and censored by certain "professional commitments."
What brings this community together, in Gristmill, is indeed a rather narrow, easily defined set of values which can conveniently be called "environmentalist." But by entering that community, we are by no means obliged to ignore all our other ethical, social and political values.
By the way, just about all of Ron's second paragraph, in his latest comment, makes sense to me, and I agree with it. But nevertheless, I am confused still by how he is using the term "litmus test."
Is there a "green" "litmus test"? I.e., must a candidate say something explicitly, or explicitly promise to do something, before a committed environmentalist voter will consider voting for him/her?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:15 am
12 May 2007
It's fine to expect a lot from candidates and pay close attention to details- I applaud that- but don't be too quick to rush to judgment on one or two particular proposals, that's what I'm trying to say.
A President Obama, Edwards, or Clinton would likely do great things for the environment- let's work hard to get them in office- that should be the #1 priority right now I'm my view.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:12 am
12 May 2007
He takes the position that "nothing is off the table" when it comes to Iran.
He has nothing particularly exciting of offer on economics--seems to be about where Hillary is on economic issues. (Hmm, maybe to JS that is a plus rather than minus.)
So I would not be too quick to say that Obama is the best on everything.
At any rate, the first primary won't be held until 2008. So right now our job is to hold all candidates feet to the fire (in both parties), drawing attention to any candidate who takes a bad position.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:19 am
12 May 2007
As for the candidates and their positions, who I vote for at the end of the day will of course depend on much more than what gets debated in Grist. But the degree to which a politician clearly panders to special interest groups I think is a better indication of their future priorities and performance than the bright ideas they come up with.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:38 am
12 May 2007
<<
I am simply suggesting that those who want to engage in more wide-ranging debates about politicians in this forum be tolerant of those who might want to focus on particular issues.
>>
Actually, it always struck me that it was you the particularists who have ever restricted us the wide-ranging-ists. But whatever.
Thou goest on:
<<
Also, those who are writing under anonymous pseudonyms might reflect on why they choose not to write under their own names.
>>
Very unfair. There are all kinds of reasons why people choose to use pseudonyms, and it does not discredit them at all. And to suggest that it does, is rather villainous.
For myself, I would be happy to share my name at this point. But inasmuch as that would constitute a kind of agreement with Ron's most unhappy suggestion, that the pseudonymous crowd are a gang of cravens, cowards, slitherers, poisoners and cheats, I refuse to do so. If you wish to write to me directly, Ron, not that I expect you have the time or inclination to do so, I should be happy to tell you my name.
Really, it does not matter. You will not have heard of me, anyway.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
TheSSG Posted 8:45 am
12 May 2007
But compared to the other candidates, he's really not bad at all.
I think instead of looking for a Messiah, we should be looking for a good all-around leader.
Don't forget, Congress makes the laws and sets the budgets.
The President can "suggest" an energy policy all he wants, but it's up to Congress to actually make the law.
I keep noticing that more and more people forget how our Government is SUPPOSED to work (as defined in the Constitution).
Just because the Presidents like to act like they call all the shots, and because most of us let them do that, doesn't mean that they do.
In closing, let PRESIDENTIAL candidates suggest all the ideas they want; it's just rhetorical babbling.
Now, I DO have an issue with this idea, since he's my Senator...but that's another story...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:59 am
12 May 2007
If this community can't kick up a fuss when a candidate proposes doing more harm than good -- if we can't draw a few lines in the sand -- what chance in hell is there that this country is going to get serious about remaking itself in the time it has left?
grist.org
Permalink
Tod Posted 9:18 am
12 May 2007
Single issue voter? Yes, that is me. Women's rights, economy, Iraq, et cetera - all quite secondary at this point. If you don't think so, woah Nellie are you blind.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
http://www.todbrilliant.com
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:32 am
12 May 2007
It's heartening to see such an idea starting to circulate within US discussions, but it is of course far too late to avoid losses, due to US intransigence, on a genocidal scale -
the several decades time-lag between pollution & climate impacts make sure of that,
just by mega-drought in Africa, let alone other impacts.
I think it is time that the environment movement, (if it is really willing to accept industrial society's label,
began to take the issue of GW seriously).
That is, not to waste a minute disputing with those dupes/shills who would prevent disussion of its resolution.
That is, to critique as a criminally incompetent any politician who fails to act today for the common good in resolving GW.
That is, to work harder than we have ever worked to achieve an equitable and effective Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons.
Which is to say Dave, you are dead right.
Complicity in genocide would be the price of further waffling.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:45 am
12 May 2007
You had previously written:
It is rather spooky, actually, to learn that there are some participants in these Gristmill conversations who are limited, bound and censored by certain "professional commitments."
I was trying to explain the different consequences for somebody writing publicly, not passing any judgement on their reasons for somebody not doing so.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:54 am
12 May 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:58 am
12 May 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:48 am
12 May 2007
And if you all think that there is any chance that the next president is going to treat climate change like WW II you are surely going to be deeply disappointed and disillusioned.
Fortunately, I don't think that is necessary for good policy or major changes.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:42 am
12 May 2007
The science is also very clear on the fact that our weather models mean less and less as the arctic ice cap melts. You can't predict the weather if you don't have a baseline with similiar conditions or a very, very seriously good model. (we don't).
So around the world nuclear bomb scale events will ramp up in frequency. More every year. Due to Global Warming.
The candidates that understand this are excluded from the corporate media spin (thanks GE) and the candidates without a clue have $$ galore. Do the math.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:03 am
13 May 2007
This is an effect that is largely ignored. Why is that?
Because it was still "cool" to be fair and balanced about global climate change and claim that science has not proven events like this to be GHG related, up until a few months ago evidently.
Remenmber the debate all about Katrina having been more severe due to warmer ocean water?
Is it still "cool" to deny drought, fire, tornado, hurricane, flood and other weather disasters are being made much worse by human GHG production?
IPCC needs to revisit this issue complete with increasing cost to economic activity and growth due to increased weather volatility.
Not to mention that a whole new report needs to be done on solutions. Real scientists picking the scaming, like ethanol subsidies, from the real solutions, like distributed renewable energy generation and storage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:07 am
13 May 2007
In fact I would like the world to know that I have great respect for Ron, and believe that his contributions to our Gristmill conversations do us all great good.
Carry on, Ron. Well done. Dreadful sorry encore une fois.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:20 am
13 May 2007
War production is the right comparison. Ramp up production of the GM Volot and other serial plugin hybrids and average fuel consumption could eventually drop to 10% of present levels. Do it the same way WW2 war production was done. Massive orders from government to get costs down to where consumers can afford it.
After WW2 anyone that wanted a jeep could afford one. After government fleets are running on mass produced battery/electric drivetrains, the cost will come down to where everyone who can buy a car can afford them.
In the case of the Volt it reduces your driving cost from over 3 bucks per gallon to 60 cents per gallon equivalent, in the form of electricty to charge the batteries.
Make it clear that the same type of rapid innovation and mass production that helped winn WW2 is necessary now, but this a peaceful effort. And in fact by reducing the use of imported oil and nuclear proliferation this energy revolution can actually stop wars that are ongoing and about to happen.
Like the hoped for invasion, occupation, and nation building of iran. Cheney was on an aircraft carrier touting that idea just the other day. "Mission...Yet To Be Acomplished?"
Even the low-life VP was not obnoxious enough to put that banner up. But you know he wanted to.
As an after thought. Millions are now stavring as a result of fuel farming having driven up the price of corn. A massive move to produce the Volt would also halt fuel farming. Oil prices would stabilize and remove the financial incentive for ethanol once gas consumption started to come down.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:21 am
13 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:31 am
13 May 2007
We need an effort similar to the One Laptop Per Child project, only in the reverse direction.
It would benefit the entire Third World, if we pollution spewing, energy gobbling First Worlders would all get Chevy Volts.
Therefore I propose, ala Negroponte, the OVPA or One Volt Per Adult program, in which people will be invited to trash their current cars in exchange for a brand new Chevy Volt. The cost will be fleet leased prices, as local and state governments can "dicker down" the price by pre-ordering millions for redistribution to their citizens. This will instantly cut pollution, reduce the cost of gas and increase our efficiency by 5 ( the Volt gets 150 miles per gallon).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:53 am
13 May 2007
BTW -- I clicked on the GE banner ad at the top of Grist. It's fascinating -- GE is making the plastics for the Chevy Volt.
GM, GE.
It's American industry, not the cheerleaders, who are saving the world!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
MikeSar Posted 7:01 am
13 May 2007
We'll Tell the Truth to the people in the next election!
"A new study has concluded that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. If the carbon dioxide is captured and permanently stored, liquid coal emits 20% more greenhouse gas than diesel but 11% less than conventional gasoline, according to the study to be released next week by Argonne National Laboratory, a research arm of the Energy Department." -LA Times
The Issue is simple! Do you want the Miner's Union Votes?
Do you want Oil and Mining Industry Contributions?
In short: Do you want to get elected?
The science is simple too:
Coal produces energy by binding Carbon and Oxygen (CO and CO2).
Gasoline has Carbon and does the same too but it also has Hydrogen which produces even more energy when it is bound to Oxygen to produce water (H2O).
The idea of "sequestering" is to make it sound like an Incantantion, a Witch's Hocus Pocus that will make CO2 harmless and intimidate voters from asking for details.
The REAL problem is the numbers, not the ideas. The numbers are so big, they are practically impossible to imagine, grasp or comprehend.
Presently the world produces about 26,000 Billion Tons of CO2 per year, give or take a few thousand billion.
To make the CO2 harmless, the idea is to mix the CO2, that currently goes up the powerplant's tall chimney exhaust into the air, with something else (study is on-going, calcium a possibiity) that will make it much heavier and THEN bury the whole mess under the earth, in abandoned mines, oil fields, etc., every year.
The idea of shipping it from one place to another is crazy, the energy needed would use more than the profits in selling the energy -at current prices.
It would take more energy (and produce more CO2) to move the refuse than the energy that was produced by burning the coal.
The idea of digging wells next to each power station to put away all the exhaust at a rate that may reach 100,000 Billion tons per year is hard, or impossible, to imagine.
Let's try something simple: Imagine you had to bury 1,000 tons of refuse, sure: Dig a big, big hole and dump it. Now imagine trying to bury a Million tons, if you can imagine that, try to imagine burying 100 Million tons and, if you say you can imagine that, I will give up.
So, how are they going to do it?
By keeping the numbers out and telling voters, with that flair and super-confident politician look (Pres. Reagan was The Master) and we secretly want to see that in us (and spend time rehearsing with the mirror).
They will say, with exaggereted emphasis, that our "smart" scientists are working on this problem "24/7 and, there is no doubt in my mind, THEY WILL FIND A SOLUTION, TRUST ME!" Of course, they will not mention that the nature of chemical bond energy is fundamental to science and nobody expects any changes.
This is worse than re-electing Pres. Bush who is sinking our economy at an ever faster rate but these politicians, and THEY HAVE ALL BEEN SAYING THE SAME: "THEY WILL FIND A SOLUTION, TRUST ME!!" will burn up the world, all the way up to the edges! Their children will say "Dad didn't know that! I can't believe he knew!"
Once we reach the "tipping-off" point, the millions of tons of Methane "sequestered" deep in the Oceans, by nature, will bubble up and increase the rate of Global Warming. Methane is about ten times worse than CO2 in trapping heat in the Earth's Atmosphere.
When the overnight low temperature is over 100, we will wonder about that Kool Aid recipe from Jonestown, or was it from Jamestown, no they used something else, I get confused in my history.
Permalink
MikeSar Posted 7:44 am
13 May 2007
To even propose a ban on coal powerplants is a giant step, compared to 850 big electric powerplants China, India and U.S. plan to build, presently.
Sonn all Democratic Presidential Candidates will join a ban on ALL coal-fueled powerplants AND a plan to retrain miners for work in new mass transit technology (Hydrogen powered buses) and other new technologies to end carbon emissions.
Another good news is that the new energy company TX cancelled plans to build 12 new coal powerplants, two months ago. Texas is now the largest producer of electricity from windmills. Offshore tests of MIT floating windmills are expected to begin next year, off New England.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 11:31 pm
13 May 2007
Read more here:
http://www.noseweek.co.za/article.php?current_article=141 ...
Perhaps Barack is trying to hit two birds w one stone?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 11:45 pm
13 May 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:57 pm
13 May 2007
But I am very fond as well of the two men for whom I have already voted, John Edwards (twice) and Al Gore (three times).
What exactly does it tell us about American presidential politics, that Dennis Kucinich is always going to be dismissed as a second-tier candidate, barely recognizable to most voters? Is it just a matter of appearance? And yet the physically unimpressive Howard Dean was very impressively surging, for a brief period in late 2003.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:43 am
14 May 2007
"If it is pursued in a careful way, the strategy of producing more biofuels can be part of the solution to the climate crisis without causing other damage to the environment because these fuels are renewable," Gore said.
However, "every potential solution must be handled carefully and the danger with biofuels is that extremely valuable forests will be destroyed unnecessarily," he said.
"Another danger is that if it is not pursued carefully it drives food prices up."
Former Vice President Gore was speaking at the first Biofuels Congress of the Americas, in Buenos Aires on Friday
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:11 am
14 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:32 am
14 May 2007
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q= ...
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1094e/a1094e00.pdf
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green- ...
Can find a lot of news stories on the issues for that.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:40 am
14 May 2007
Although I think I liked this title best.
UN waffles furiously on biofuels
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:41 am
14 May 2007
==========
For someone supposedly smart, it's sure taking a long damn time for this guy to get a few points (grant you he's getting closer):
the reason to get off oil is world peaking - and that's what's keeping the oil price high
there will never again be sustained cheap oil
there are no adequate substitutes, certainly no sustainable ones, other than tiny electrics. Wasting money on substitutes will squander the last of our capital.
in the near term, we're better off car-pooling, van-pooling, biking, & mass transiting than buying new high mpg cars - that seems to me just hanging onto a way of life that's toast. Detroit is fucked, now and forever. They need to switch to windmills, solar panels, & motors/controllers for tiny electrics, batteries, and composters capable of composting all those excess dead people, pdq.
Btw, with gasoline prices headed for $4 around here, our transit system is about to be overwhelmed. The route I bike to, put the bike on the bus, and transit to college, is so crowded now that I can't count on space. Friday afternoon we had 6 people standing in the aisle on one of the small buses that used to have no more than 6 people total!
5. within 2 years, I think there's a high probability of a repeat of the 1970's gas lines, rationing, lower speed limits - and it will be a way of life that never ends but steadily gets worse - always with the possibility of sudden big shortages due to another geostrategic fuckup on our part or that of western Europe.
tooj
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:44 am
14 May 2007
Biofuels: The great green con
So by blending crops such as sugar and corn with petrol, biofuels will slash carbon emissions and save the planet. Right? Not when the price is escalating food prices and the clearing of the rainforests.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:54 am
14 May 2007
"Experts say the price of water may double or triple over the next two decades"
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Demand_for_biofuel_irrigation ...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:18 am
14 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:38 am
14 May 2007
_
Here's another one on that report:
UN warns on impacts of biofuels
"And (the UN report) concludes that biofuels are more effective when used for heat and power rather than in transport."
Which is pretty much my feelings on the subject as well.
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/376
http://www.greyfalcon.net/biodiesel.png
However I do believe that liquid hydrocarbon fuels will continue to be the fuel of choice for intercontinental travel.
However it's likely that if we're really that hard up for liquid fuels, they could either use what oil we have left, or do something similar to an H2Car program.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2397
Where they take CO2 + Hydrogen from Electrolysis = Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuel.
Isn't all that energy effecient, but it is perhaps better than turning biomass or fossil fuels into a liquid when the electrolysis is done with renewable electricity.
_
Cool part about switching our cars over to electricity is that even with the dirtiest coal, an electric car is still comprable to a Prius in CO2 emmisions.
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
Which isn't such a bad worst-case-scenario to have.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:46 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:55 am
14 May 2007
They'll need to figure some way to replace the road tax with a different tax. Tire Tax?
However yeah, the cool part about electric is that it costs 50-cents-a-gallon equivalent.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins
And might even be free if you leverage the life of your battery in stabilizing the electricity grid. And the newest batteries are sporting multiple decades worth of battery life.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:39 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:23 am
14 May 2007
The draft biofuels strategy document says this renewable energy source can make a significant contribution to meeting South Africa's international environmental commitments while reducing pressure on the balance of payments, creating jobs, stimulating the rural economy, boosting agro-industry, making use of surplus sugar and maize, improving the country's energy security through diversifying our energy supplies and improving our technological base.
At current prices, it appears that the only way to make biofuels a starter is for government to forgo the fuel levy of R 1.21 a litre [$0.665/gallon]. Treasury has a track record in fighting against special deals and subsidies, preferring a one-size-fits-all model that is easier to administer and less subject to special interests and pleadings. Judging by its record, it is unlikely to agree to such a sweetener for biofuels.
The draft biofuels strategy document recommends the country targets using 5% of the national consumption of petrol and diesel. This is as much as one billion litres [264 million gallons], suggesting that the treasury could be asked to forgo perhaps R1 billion [$145 million] in fuel tax revenue, something it is unlikely to do.
My information is that treasury has already let it be known that it will not support the level of tax break required to price ethanol more attractively relative to petrol. Treasury spokesperson Thoraya Pandy declined to comment, saying the ministry only discussed tax policy once a year.
Things may change. Increased biofuel production worldwide, mainly from developing countries, some chasing new markets in the United States and Europe, could see international prices fall, perhaps even bringing fossil fuel prices down with them.
The Southern African Biofuels Association (Saba), which speaks largely for established interests such as the sugar and maize industries, says in a draft document that biofuels should receive a 100% fuel levy rebate until the industry is established, after which the rebate can be reduced.
At ethanol prices the equivalent of up to $81 a barrel, you'd think Saba's members would be chasing this export market and not need local incentives. I called Saba to find out more about this, but my calls had not been returned by deadline.
There will be new [Fiat] Unos in the market at year-end. I can't see anyone paying a R2000 [$290] premium for a Flex model that may never use ethanol and, as such, would predict, based on current information, that the flex will not be offered as an option. This car will not run here.
Now that's what I'd call no-nonsense reporting!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:27 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:29 am
14 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
6degrees Posted 6:16 am
14 May 2007
Read about his home. I believe this is his second home.
Edward's new home
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:33 am
14 May 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qTjXItcJtc
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:37 am
14 May 2007
Thats pretty serious.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:46 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
6degrees Posted 8:57 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:33 pm
14 May 2007
Allow people their SUVs, their big houses.
Just make sure it's a green SUV, and the house uses green electricity.
For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger who also lives in a big house, and drives big cars.
Also happens to be one of the greenest Governors California has ever had.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwzZZ-EZhY
Its the only way Green is ever going to go mainstream.
This petty bullshit in the meantime isn't going to solve anything besides demonize people who are actually causing positive change to happen.
Permalink
6degrees Posted 11:04 pm
14 May 2007
Tightening our belts in a big way is the ONLY way. Incremental itty bitty steps won't help much. We don't have 100 years to turn this ship around.
Do you know that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already at 459 ppm? Read this article from Z Mag, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Climate, Time is Short
By the way, I disagree with you that Arnold is green. He is just greener than most governors, and that's not saying much.
We need an entirely different paradigm for relating to our planet. Check out the article at commondreams.org titled "Can Capitalism Be Green?" and see the follow-up comments.
By the way, if you want to support a "green" candidate, I suggest Kucinich. The guy lives in a modest size house and he's vegan.
Going vegan is one of the best things you can do for the planet especially if you are eating local organic. Earthsave just put out an excellent article about the importance of diet in coping with the climate issue.
Veganism For the Planet
We need to support leaders who walk their talk. No if ands or buts.
By the way, I would appreciate it if you didn't use "bullshit" as a derogatory term. First of all, shit can be very useful. It makes great fertilizer and in an ideal world we would all be composting our humanure, instead of contaminating our drinking water with it. Secondly, we should not condescend our animal friends like that.
The heat is on...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:38 pm
14 May 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 11:56 pm
14 May 2007
And, on the subject of green mansions and belt tightening: I must disagree with 6degrees. What we have is not a problem of lifestyles, but a problem of design. Green design, if supported and implemented in effective ways, would do as much for the environment as cutting back (perhaps even more), and would benefit the economy as well. We have the technology. The market exists. (As I mentioned above.) This is the heart of the new movement. Of course, this is also a discussion for another forum...
I suggest reading William McDonough's book "Cradle to Cradle," or, if you have the time, watch this lecture on green design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
It might just blow your mind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:56 pm
14 May 2007
In case you're perplexed by my questions, here are some key points from "Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians", by Ciaran Simms and Desmond O'Neill (BMJ No. 331 (2005), pp. 787-788):
In the United States 40% of new vehicles purchased are classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUVs). Gabler and Lefler have used the US fatal accident reporting system database (FARS) to analyse the relative dangers posed to pedestrians by these high fronted vehicles. Their results show that, for the same collision speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian fatality is nearly doubled in the event of a collision with a large SUV compared with a passenger car. Other studies have consistently showing higher rates (up to four times greater) of severe injury and death for pedestrians in collisions with SUVs.
...
SUV bonnets [i.e., front ends] are higher than those of cars and this results in a more severe primary impact on the critical central body regions of the upper leg and pelvis. Also, there is less rotation as the impact is closer to the body centre of mass, resulting in a more efficient transfer of energy. For example, raising the bonnet leading edge height from 600 mm to 850 mm increases the impulse by a factor of about two. This results in a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax, and abdomen.
Another group of vulnerable road users are small children, and a well described risk with SUVs are accidents in driveways, in which SUVs and light trucks are over-represented. This is probably a result of the increased height of the SUV and the driver's reduced ability to see things around the vehicle.
Need I include photos?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:35 am
15 May 2007
In particular, an electric SUV.
Something kind of like this.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/truck
_
Like I said above, I complete reject the idea that we're going to make any progress by trying to force everyone into drastically changing their lifestyles.
It's far easier to just have them keep doing exactly what they are doing now. Except Green.
And make it worth their while to switch.
Just like "swapping out their incandecents for compact flourecents."
Still getting exactly the same benefits and services, but at a drastically reduced resource cost. All the while saving money in the long run, for a slightly higher short term capital cost increase.
_
Don't try to change people.
Just change their choices, and bias things in favor of Green.
Permalink
6degrees Posted 9:05 am
15 May 2007
Lifestyles must change if we are going to make any difference in reversing climate change. Remember, world population is growing by like 70 million people a year. Any net gain in energy efficiency (CFLs for example) will be offset by the net energy drain these additional people will create.
Also, if people are spending less money on their energy bills, they will have more money to spend on other stuff. like fossil-fuel powered sight-seeing vacations to Antactica to watch collapsing ice shelves.
Permalink
LuckyCharm Posted 2:38 pm
15 May 2007
~~Cheryl
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:26 pm
15 May 2007
So, even though CO2 is slightly less dense than ground level air, it's more dense (heavier) than the rarified atmosphere at high altitude. That's just a fancy way to say that, like all of us, it's trapped here at the bottom of a huge gravity well -- just like a water well, only with invisible sides. But very real just the same. It takes a hell of a lot of energy to climb out of this very deep well.
So the only way to actually remove CO2 mechanically would be to somehow contain it (such as from a coal gasification process) and compress it (a big energy user) into heavy cylinders (making them would use a lot of energy) and then expend a HUUUUUUUGE amount of energy in shipping all that massive material out into space beyond the earth's gravitational potential. And for most of that journey, you can't use the CO2 as a propellant, because it would just fall back into the atmosphere. If we did it as "one way" bottles, we'd be charged the manufacturing energy of the bottles every time; if we tried to get the bottles back after somehow voiding them in space, then we'd have to send them up with enough energy and radio control smarts to enable them to return, and then we'd want to be able to guide them to keep them from landing on anyone's head. So we're talking something about as expensive as most any satellite.
So you'd probably bankrupt yourself and create far more CO2 trying to ship it "out there" than you would be able to mechanically remove from the atmosphere.
But not a silly question---it's only by trying to think of approaches like this that people really start to get that the only solution to pollution is not dilution but not to pollute in the first place!
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:38 pm
15 May 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/21/10136/4144
-- An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050.
-- Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
-- Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
-- Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.
-- Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
-- Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.
-- Raise CAFE standards.
-- Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
-- Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.
-- Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
DMason10 Posted 6:22 pm
04 Jan 2008
Also, "if the American manufacturers were to be put out of business, it would have a huge [negative] impact on our economy"; yes that is true but what's more important; the economy of the most powerful empire in the world, or the world itself? There wouldnt be a most powerful empire if there wasnt a world and its not like we can relocate to Mars or any other planet besides the moon. The effects of Global Warming are already taking place. Katrina was an example. That hurricane would not have grown so powerful if it had not been fed by the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico which are warm as a result of global warming. A heatwave in Europe in 2003 killed more than 100,000 people and more than 1,000 in India although it did not get as much attention. Temperatures in India reaches 122 degrees Fahrenheit.....can you imagine?? Working or just plain being in those conditions?? Those imaginations will become a reality if we don not act and the economy of the US should not be a reason to procrasinate the inevitable. If you do not recall the not too distant civil war in which the Union devasted the Confederacy. After the civil war, the South's(Confederacy) economy was in complete shambles but they managed a slow painful process back to a good economy. If you've ever been to the Sout they still refer to the Northern people as Yankees and they dislike them. Although the South suffered, the cause of the war was accomplished and slaves were freed by the Emncipation Proclamation. I believe that we as a nation will have to sacrifice and suffer the same way the Confederacy did more than a century ago in order to save our world for if we don't it is the youth that will suffer the consequences not the adults making the actions.
I also understand that we are not the only nation contributing grealy to global warming but we are contributing the most. And are we not the so called "big brother" nation to the other nations of the world??? Are we not the richest most powerful empire in the world? If so I believe that it is our responsibility to lead the fight against Global Warming and be the first to make those economical sacrifices needed to put a stop to this global epidemic.
My name is Daniel Mason. I am 14 years old. I am a sophmore and believe, agree with, and support evrything I have said in this piece. I strongly insist anybody who disagrees with what I have said or has doubts about the facts to look up the info. or watch "An Incovenient Truth", a documentary by Al Gore. This film has inspired so much that i hope to be one less contributing to Global Warming and be a major contributor(in my mind) to helping stop Global Warming through my words, ideas, but most importantly actions because it is MY generation that will suffer the consequences.
Thank you for enduring this long "essay" or whatever you want to call it.
P.S. No I'm not a nerd I'm actually very popular at my school and some could call me a jock....further evidence that anybody can help stop Global Warming and you dont have to be a nerd.
Permalink