Increased production of corn and other crops to fulfill America's biofuel gluttony could threaten both availability and quality of water supplies, according to a report released today by the National Research Council. Fulfilling President Bush's stated goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2017 "would mean a lot more fertilizers and pesticides" running into rivers and oceans, says researcher Jerald Schnoor. In addition, he says, corn requires "a high amount of water" -- about 2,000 gallons per bushel, to be precise -- not counting the H2O used in ethanol factories. The National Research Council is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization that provides Congress with policy advice; still, we imagine biofuel bandwagonry will trump the report's water warnings.
source: Associated Press
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
CyberBrook Posted 8:33 am
10 Oct 2007
Whether it's water or soil issues, deforestion or biodiversity, heart disease or global warming, compassion or spiritality, peace or justice, we need to learn about, teach about, and engage in eco-eating.
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
davedenali Posted 4:00 am
11 Oct 2007
Permalink
kylegracey Posted 3:17 pm
15 Oct 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:41 pm
15 Oct 2007
The matter is that photosynthesis is a bad way to turn sunlight into energy in realtime.
Basing our entire transportation system on a 0.2%-to-0.4% efficient solar energy conversion process is just insane.
What we need to change is our cars, not our fuels.
(Or rather any fuel change is entirely for compatibility purposes)
Hybrids, Diesels, HCCI Engines, And Electrics.
THAT is what we need.
And while biofuels may play "some" role, they should primarily be limited to use for aircraft, international trade, and military.
For when there really is no alternative.
Since frankly, biofuels are NOT ecologically sustainable by any measure.
Be it resources, or global warming, biofuels are simply a bad idea. (Well virtually all of them, with very few exceptions, and those exceptions are only theoretical) Practically everything on the market right now is worse than petroleum in direct emissions. Everything else is worse in indirect emmisions, for instance the destruction of rainforrests.
Permalink
flatman rennolds Posted 8:42 am
02 Dec 2007
Clearly the question that should be asked when it comes to ethanol is how the SYSTEMS to make it are designed and their scale.
It is not just theoretically possible to design systems that are 100% organic, that sequester more carbon than is released, that return the fertility to the farm and the water used (unpolluted) to the local aquifer, and that actually increase the food production of the land used as a collector while getting ethanol as a byproduct of the farm- food system. Oh, and ethanol pollutes far and away less than gasoline,diesel, biodiesel or coal or natural gas based electric power.
Electric and hydrogen cars may put less out the tailpipes, but they still pump it out the smokestacks. With nuclear, it goes into some storage depot above or below ground to be managed for thousands of years - where's the gain with these sources?
We need to be a solar based society that focuses on creating ecologically sound systems. Deriving our energy from any source other than the contemporary, solar income of the planet is unsustainable and unwise.
In terms of the inefficiency of plants as solar collectors- corn "converts and stores as recoverable energy 25% of the received ultraviolet radiation" in Buckminster Fuller's words. Each region of the world has it's own plants which would be best suited for making ethanol or other biofuels. I am not an advocate for petroleum-based, monocultural practices. I am an advocate for local production of our food and energy needs.
Just as CSA's and Organic agriculture have become normalized in our culture, it is now time to start supporting the CSE's that will be cropping up around this country- that's Community Supported Energy. Watch for them.
Lastly, why is it that biodiesel seems so right-on with so many people , and ethanol is trashed? Both are ag based and ethanol produces more per acre and can be derived from marginal lands. Recycled vegetable oil is one of the most polluting forms of fuel- worse than diesel.
In terms of mileage, it's all about refining/designing the fuel injection systems on cars to reduce the oxygen to fuel ratio to be optimized to ethanol. That, and higher compression engines are key.
Of course, increasing the efficiency of all of our energy consuming systems is the first and most effective strategy........
For a complete and lucid accounting of this debate check out David Blume's website and book at www.permaculture.com
I met him at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair in Custer, WI last summer and again in Chicago this fall. He is a scientifically thorough ecologist that has worked with this issue since the early 80's. His work is a must for all naysayers and those who are inquisitive enough to not just buy into the negative disinformation being propogated.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:53 am
02 Dec 2007
Says who?
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lca.png
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/national-resear.h ...
http://www.energybulletin.net/28610.html
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
http://iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/bloomberg/bxdead.php
For a complete and lucid accounting of this debate check out David Blume's website and book at www.permaculture.com
Blume's arguments are patently wrong.
He's just trying to sell a "get rich quick" scheme.
In terms of the inefficiency of plants as solar collectors- corn "converts and stores as recoverable energy 25% of the received ultraviolet radiation" in Buckminster Fuller's words.
Well then whoever Buckminster Fuller is, is also patently wrong.
The theoretical limit of photosynthesis is 10-13%, and thats basically unachievalbe. The realistic limit is closer to 6%.
And corn isn't even a good energy crop to begin with. So that 6% is probably closer to 2%.
And thats before any conversion process takes place, which would lose you about another 90%.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
________
re: David Blume http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/s ...
Is this is a representation of your work?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-Y08RSDP6s
__
"Pollution free"? No. http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
"Greenhouse emissions free"? No. http://greyfalcon.net/etoh2.png
"Efficient Solar Energy Capture"? No. http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
"We have enough land"? No. http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
Better for feed than the original Corn? No.
It's far too acidic for cattle to feed them any more than 1/5th their diet.
"Brazil makes most of their fuel from alcohol". No.
Brazil makes almost all of their fuel from petroleum. http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
If we want energy independence, then perhaps we could slim down and use only 300% the oil as the typical Brazilian. http://greyfalcon.net/brazil2
"And in the midwest we already have stations". So what?
http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png
Permalink