As opposed to emission or energy, what can we do about oil? As I've said in the past: not a lot. But "not a lot" is not equal to zero.
Here are some pretty immediate things we can do:
- There have been some real drops in oil use in response to increased prices. I think Charles Komanoff once suggested that various types of conservation and efficiency measures could reduce oil use 10 percent more or less overnight [PDF]. Many of his suggestions are not exactly pain-free, but neither are the reductions we are making anyway in response $100 plus per barrel oil.
- Alan Blinder's proposal to buy oil guzzling clunkers back from owner at a premium -- old, fairly cheap cars only. These tend not to be the cars driven the most miles. Still, there would be real savings.
- Increased telecommuting. We are not going to switch everyone with an office job to 100 percent work-from-home mode. But putting in place some modest incentives, along with public education that help rebut some of the most common myths about telecommuting could get some modest immediate increases.
- Increased subsidies to existing rapid transit. Existing buses and trains should not have to cut services right when more people want to use them.
- Increased support for car pooling and van pooling. More incentives for companies to set up such pools, plus funding for services (such as the ones we already see) will make it easy for people interested in pooling private vehicles across companies to do so.
Below the fold you will find some things we can do that are not immediate, but can be done pretty quickly.
Medium-term oil reductions:
- Increased funding for walking and bike paths. Note this is not about forcing people to bike or walk, just providing facilities for those who want to. Of course oil prices are not going down below $100 per barrel, so you may see an increase in the number of people who want to.
- Moving 85 percent of long-haul truck ton-miles to rail. This will require investment: Our existing rail system could not handle that load. Alan Drake has a proposal which seems more and more sensible about this.
- Pass a new CAFE standard that raises requirement so all new cars sold average 40 mpg (including light cars and trucks) and that the minimum acceptable standard for the next five years is 30 mpg.
In the long run, we can phase out oil along with other emission sources:
- Set requirements that as of 2012, 90 percent of all new cars and light trucks sold must be Battery Electric Vehicles, or plug-in hybrids -- the latter able to travel at least the first 50 miles on pure battery power. Both must use no more that .33 kWh per mile at 45 mph. At least 10 percent of vehicles must be pure BEVs with at least a 100 mile range that use at most .29 kWh per mile. By 2015 the minimum ranges would be 70 miles for PHEVs and 150 miles for pure BEVs.
- Starting immediately, provide large scale funding to existing electric commuter transit proposals.
- For all their flaws, buses are not going away soon. Start funding transformation of the busiest bus routes not being replaced by commuter rail into "bus trolleys" -- buses running off electric wires. Anywhere that the life-cycle cost of running a bus trolley is more than that of commuter rail, put in commuter rail instead.
- Fund some full-scale tests of ultralight rail systems (such as CyberTran). If they worked, they could lower the costs of light rail by at least half, perhaps by 80 percent.
Note that all of these suggestions focus on oil. Look at the spreadsheet Jon Rynn and I developed if you want to look at one set of comprehensive alternatives for phasing out emissions.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
Comments
View as Flat
Arjuna Posted 1:58 pm
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:42 pm
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:44 pm
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:55 pm
29 Jul 2008
You would drive on the batteries as long as possible, then switch to the front gas engine. A 40 mile range would take around 125 pounds of the latest battery.
The total weight could be offset by lightening the car with fiberglass and carbon fiber parts.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
scatter Posted 4:51 pm
29 Jul 2008
But as a target it's spot on. Amazingly, Gordon Brown recently dropped it on the UK as a policy idea for 2020:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/20 ...
That was a bolt from the blue for sure!
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:09 pm
29 Jul 2008
For this reason, some environmentalists don't care at all about oil. But the question of replacing oil is important. The motivation is primarily economic - to reduce the trade deficit of your country to oil exporters.
The period we are talking about is medium term. In the long term, we hope to electrify the whole transport sector (maybe in 30 years optimistically speaking ?). Longer than that, oil doesn't even exist.
So in the medium term, we should look for sustainable mechanisms for replacing oil. What can we do in the next 50 years ?
The obvious answers are to reduce dependency by things such as "telecommuting" and "carpooling".
But we would still need a lot of liquid fuels. To obtain them, we have a few options
(a) coal liquification
(b) natural gas vehicles + natural gas liquification
(c) biofuels
(d) energy intensive biofuel production
Natural gas is needed for electricity generation, or we will never replace coal. And coal is evil, period.
That leaves us with (c) and (d) biofuels. We need efficient, low-cost and sustainable biofuels. The current corn ethanol is bad. Importing sugarcane ethanol from Brazil is better, but not sustainable either.
That leaves us with future heroes such as cellulosic ethanol. They better make a difference soon.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:37 pm
29 Jul 2008
No, in fact both electric power from natural gas and the bigger use, building heating, can be eliminated with renewable energy and conservation. Rooftop solar cogeneration, ground source heat pumps, and wind. Working through a smart grid that stores energy as building heat/cold in the building's own mass.
Natural gas can even be stored at ambient pressure and temperrature at near the energy density of liquid fuel, with nano tech storage media. It's a metal nano structure that methane molecules fit into nicely, and act like a solid. Anyway there are already natural gas vehicles.
But we don't need them. It would only take a decade to reduce oil consumption by 80% with plugin hybrid drivetrains in all vehicles.
Use the oil at a lower rate and it lasts longer, and US reserves would supply that 80% reduced demand. As it goes to zero over the next decade after that first one, no problem. Reducing oil demand on an ever exponentially increasing path to plugin hybrids. That's the plan to back.
Not fuel farming, that doubles GHG over oil based gas guzzling. Guzzle no more, sip instead, with a plugin hybrid transportation (bikes and buses too)economy running mainly on renewable electricity. And of course on renewable electric freight trains and commuter rail.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:42 pm
29 Jul 2008
Would it be a whole new industry or would the automakers set it up to retrofit their used models? There's a thought, overcome the legal barriers to this with government action.
Take you Chevy down to the dealer, get it back as a plugin hybrid in a few weeks? Good plan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:47 am
30 Jul 2008
Also, another long-term goal would be to encourage people to live near transit stops -- one idea is "location efficient mortgages", in which you get a break for living near transit -- and to change zoning laws to encourage dense, mixed use building patterns.
Permalink
B Amer Posted 1:29 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
scatter Posted 1:56 am
30 Jul 2008
http://sustainableresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-resea ...
I've been hunting for ages for that data.
In Europe, WEEE (waste electronic and electrical equipment) must by law be recycled. This includes batteries. Modern automotive batteries are recyclable and I would be astonished if hybrid and EV batteries weren't recycled in the US. You must have some end of life vehicle legislation don't you?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:08 am
30 Jul 2008
That doesn't work with fossil fuels, manufacturing more carbon energy equipment takes more carbon, a vicious cycle of climate abuse.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:25 am
30 Jul 2008
and plugin-hybrids are inferior to serial-hybrids.
and plugin-hybrids are a dead-end. All the investment in cars that you make right now will be invalid when better technology comes up.
USA has to use its capital in sensible ways. The opportunity costs of not doing so are enormous.
Rapidly increasing public transport sector (as Jon Rynn says..) is a good way of investing your hard earned money.
Making plugin-hybrids is not. Each plugin-hybrid takes atleast 10 years to offset its CO2 emissions incurred during the manufacture. Within ten years, you would have complete electric drive.
If you could retrofit plugin engines to existing cars in a cheap and large-scale manner, yeah go for it. But otherwise, there is no point.
This is where cellulosic biofuels make sense in the medium term. Apart from reducing oil dependency, they will offset carbon emissions (not in a great manner, but still a little).
@Amazingdrx :
I try to believe in your fairytale land where cogeneration plants, conservation and blah-blah would replace coal (and natural gas too) completely. But this is so out-of-touch with reality. In reality, coal provides for most of our electricity and this demand is growing ever more. China is getting 1.95 trillion KWH and USA is getting 1.99 trillion KWH from coal every year. Try replacing that..
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:30 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:32 am
30 Jul 2008
This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Much easier, I guess, to buy a Prius and hope that 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians don't decide to do the same thing.
Sorry if I sound cranky. I'm just wondering why this fundamental, underlying driver behind every environmental problem on the planet isn't discussed more often on Grist. Everything else -- habitat loss, global warming, fisheries depletion, soil exhaustion -- is just a symptom of this disease.
Permalink
JordanLyons Posted 5:18 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
Arjuna Posted 8:24 am
30 Jul 2008
The key here with the auto retrofits is that this is very near-term technology. This could be ramped-up quickly which would reduce the cost and be widely available.
Ex-Intel CEO Andy Grove is talking up retrofits too: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9741842
huge opportunity here.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:53 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:37 am
30 Jul 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:40 am
30 Jul 2008
The 21st Century is the Century of Gas -- Hydrogen.
Once we switch (and it's happening now) all your CO2 worries will float away...
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 11:16 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:37 am
30 Jul 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:29 pm
30 Jul 2008
No one noticed. Camouflaged as it was amongst your other errors. Hehey.
"plugin engines"
Did you mean electric motors?
"plugin-hybrids are inferior to serial-hybrids"
Huh? In what respect?
"plugin-hybrids are a dead-end. All the investment in cars that you make right now will be invalid when better technology comes up."
As solid oxide fuel cell/turbines become portable and inexpensive with mass production, just replace the ICE. As batteries get better the backup fuel cell is not needed either. The car need not be replaced.
"Each plugin-hybrid takes atleast 10 years to offset its CO2 emissions incurred during the manufacture."
Huh? What if renewable energy is used in manufacturing? If an ICE car is manufactured with fossil fuel energy, CO2 just keeps on going up and up.
How long does it take for a cellulosic ethanol plant to offset CO2 emissions incurred in its manufacture? It never happens, because it produces 50% more GHG than oil based fuel. No offset whatsoever.
"If you could retrofit plugin engines (electric motors?)in a cheap and large-scale manner, yeah go for it."
Uhh, yes we can and we will, thanks.
"This is where cellulosic biofuels make sense in the medium term. Apart from reducing oil dependency, they will offset carbon emissions (not in a great manner, but still a little)."
No, they raise GHG 50% over oil based fuels.
Ooops. Maybe you might want to rethink your positions? Just a suggestion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:59 pm
30 Jul 2008
What if renewable energy is used for transporting ethanol, (read ethanol itself) instead of gasolene ?
Then, all your projections that ethanol increases GHG by 50% become incorrect.
> What if renewable energy is used in manufacturing ?
This is a taller order. As I mentioned above, you should first concentrate on replacing coal in electricity generation. This is a HUGE task. As long as it is not done, no renewable energy will be used in any type of manufacture.
I suspect (and most people agree) that we will run out of oil before we ever talk of stopping the use of coal. So coal is the killer. The question that makes the true difference to climate change is "How much of coal is still left in the earth before we completely abandon using it ?".
GHG are a non-issue as far as biofuels are concerned. The only important issue is the danger to food security and environmental damage. These issues can be solved by cellulosic ethanol, because it does not compete with food, and it uses lesser space. So, there I rest my case.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:26 pm
30 Jul 2008
Why do you persist in making completely untrue statements? You continue to state cellulosic ethanol raises GHG 50% over oil based fuels, but I have asked you repeatedly to document this, and you have been unable to do that. All you've been able to do is point to a study that says it is possible to displace food crops with other crops that would result in higher GHG emissions for cellulosic ethanol, but no CE company I am aware of is proposing to do that.
I have repeatedly asked you to prove that CE results in higher GHG's when the feedstock is grown sustainably (which would be the basis for the CE sector when the source is not landfill waste), but you can't do that. You can't, because all the studies show that a sustainable source of feedstock for the CE sector results in a carbon neutral balance.
So why persist in making false statements? To me, that shows you have a personal agenda that is more important to stand by than facts. This makes your statements less than credible.
If I am wrong about this CE issue, please provide the evidence to directly refute my points so we can all see that I am mistaken.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:41 pm
30 Jul 2008
Trains : This is a proven technology and all forms of freight and long distance transport should be done through them.
Urban transit and light rail : These are also a proven technology, and improve the efficiency of urban transit by a huge factor. They also reduce air pollution and traffic problems.
Electric bikes and light urban cars : Current battery technology has sufficient range if your travel requirements are within the local neighborhood (if you commute within your city). These vehicles also reduce a lot of your gas bills.
For suburban and rural transport, electric vehicles are not yet a good idea. The main problem is battery capacity. Newer battery technology (such as Li-ion polymers) might solve this problem, but they are still a decade away.
If your commute lies beyond the range of electric battery capacity, you have two options (a) buy a hybrid (lead acid battery + internal combustion engine) and burn oil (b) use biofuels.
I support (b) because it is sustainable. (a) is an inefficient technology and would not reduce your national oil import bills. More importantly, American consumers would not immediately mass-migrate to hybrids, they will keep using their gas guzzling cars. Further before you get any carbon offsetting done by using hybrids (wait 10 years), you would have complete electric drive available in the market. So what is the point of wasting money now ?
Obviously, the long-term strategy would be to redesign urban housing and eliminate suburban sprawl altogether. But this will not be possible within the next couple of decades.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:15 pm
30 Jul 2008
Consider this. Think about the natural carbon cycle, before industrialized humanity.
Prairie soil was 20 to 30 feet thick, soil stored carbon. Wetland peat bogs were even thicker, storing more carbon. Coral reefs stored carbon as calcium carbonate made by the coral.
Fires were started by lightning, burning biomass and releasing carbon as CO2. Methane was released from bogs.
Some processes stored carbon, some gave off carbon. It stable climatic periods carbon was balanced, as much was released as was absorbed.
Then combustion and chemical ag brought on by the human industrial age statred increasing carbon in the atmosphere and depleting stored carbon, stored in soil and wetlands and the living ecosystem.
In order to turn this around we need to restore the sequestration effect of the soil. As well as putting a halt to combustion, fertilizer run off, and chemical ag that is putting carbon into the atmosphere.
To restore the soil we need to add all the biomass we can back into the soil in a way that does not produce GHG. Liquid fuel from biomass robs that carbon by burnig it and sending it into the atmosphere.
Biomass combustion as a solid or liquid fuel is not carbon neutral, it increases carbon in the atmosphere, robbing it from the soil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:52 pm
30 Jul 2008
Well just take a break here, and give the relative shares of where this stored carbon is located..
(a) coal tar pits.. deep underground
(b) oil wells.. deep underground
(c) carbon left a couple of metres in the surface
(a) and (b) got deep underground because they are made from millions of years worth of bio-material.
(c) is lurking some couple of metres under the surface because this bio-material of a couple of decades.
The share of carbon amongst (c) to (a)+(b) is about 10s to 1,000,0000 s.
Biofuels rob the carbon forming effects of the natural cycle by the scale of (c). Using oil and fossil fuels churn out CO2 in the scale of (a)+(b).
Where does all the carbon in biofuels comes from : from the atmospheric CO2.
In a single word, biofuels are carbon-neutral. They neither increase nor decrease the %age of CO2 present in the atmosphere.
But, to repeat umpteen times, any reasonable study of GHG effects should concentrate on king-coal. This is the primary culprit and this should be kept deep underneath. This is the only thing that matters the most. If we can do that, we can prevent climate change.
About biofuels, let's discuss about real problems : how they hog land, how they hog water etc. in an already resource-starved world. GHG is a non-issue.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:24 am
31 Jul 2008
The carbon is the constituent element of the carbon cycle. It changes molecular form during the cycle. It "comes from" star stuff, just like everything here on spaceship earth does.
As exchanged naturally in a pre-industrialized, balanced climate carbon cycle, the amount of GHG produced is equal to the amount absorbed.
"In a single word, biofuels are carbon-neutral"
That's not a "single word", it is a false assumption. The carbon doesn't come from the biomass or go to the new biomass. The form of the carbon is changed by combustion and photosynthesis.
Carbon is neither created nor destroyed by biochemical process, only an atomic reaction can do that to carbon. I hope you are not proposing that? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:45 am
31 Jul 2008
Without needing a new car. Avoiding the cost and energy use needed to manufacture a new car.
The steps:
First, power the rear wheels of a front wheel drive economy car (to be converted) to plugin electric drive. A 250 pound weight for this add on system with a 40 to 60 mile range could be offset by substituting lighter composite parts for hoods, doors, bumpers, and so forth on the car.
Second, As batteries get better the gas engine can be removed and replaced with a backup generator that only kicks in after a 100+ mile plugin battery range is exceeded. An electric clutch between the backup generator and front wheel drive car trnsmission can serve as a more efficient direct drive once the batteries have been depleted.
Third, Install a very small and very efficient solid oxide fuel cell/turbine backup generator to replace the old bulky ICE backup. Along with 150+ mile range batteries.
Fourth, install 200+ mile range quick charge batteries. With charging stations at every gas station, dispense with the fuel cell, you have reached zero fuel status. How many years will that take? Maybe 10 to 20 until the last step is the norm.
Government ought to lead with million vehicle conversion orders. Like they ordered millions of jeeps, trucks, shops, planes and so forth in WW 2 war production.
The mass production efficiency would lower the cost to a few years payback at each step for consumers, in expensive gasoline costs.
Baby step your economy car over the hump to the downside of oil guzzling transportation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:09 am
31 Jul 2008
Their raw materials are rather valuable
They still have 80% of their functional life left after they are no longer suitable for transportation. Wire a couple of these batteries together to pump up the voltage, and you got yourself a valuable grid storage device. (Which can be FULL owned and controlled by the utility, and likely dispersed regionally. Far more viable than V2G)
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:11 am
31 Jul 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:13 am
31 Jul 2008
Or the government could use the same money to improve the railway network and increase the capacity of public transport, automatically reducing the number of cars that are used by the public.
The hackery-crockery of steps (1) to (4) of amazingdrx, would cost you a couple of thousand dollars each (and still make your car guzzle foreign oil). In one swoosh, amazingdrx asks you to step through all things possible : (1) parallel hybrids (2) series hybrids (3) fuel cells (4) futuristic batteries.
When the technology becomes mature enough, the market will automatically adopt it. Battery technology has a lot of promise, but it is not mature. Ofcourse, there will be hobbyists who will test and try the fresh meat. But the rest of the people will not.
An intelligent investor will use his money for R&D and do mass-production after the technology gets mature.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:20 am
31 Jul 2008
Enough already! You are burying yourself by continuing to stick to this absurd line of reasoning. I'll ask you for the fifth time at least: DOCUMENT your statement! I have no interest in hearing you share an opinion that has absolutely no scientific basis and cannot be documented.
I can quickly provide numerous links to studies that show that using biomass as energy when it originates from sustainably-grown or managed feedstocks is carbon neutral. You can't provide even one to the contrary. Do you really think anyone should take you seriously on this matter?
Give it up already. I know the idea of being able to produce a sustainable oil substitute from wood and grasses just doesn't fit into your plans. But you'll have to deal with that on your own. What you say on this matter has no credibility... unless you can document it otherwise.
Richard
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 7:14 am
31 Jul 2008
source: CJR, http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/vision_quest.php
The problem with biofuels and GHG emissions is not that liquid biofuels somehow disrupt the carbon cycle--including, for some reason, pyrolysis from what I've been able to gather on this board, despite the fact that it makes a stable solid form of carbon--while biogas doesn't. The problem is that food-based biofuels, and even cellulosic feedstocks grown on agricultural land currently used to grow food, disrupt the economy. This results in the increased value of food crops on the global market, leading to land clearing in poor countries to grow more of those crops. My first thought (a brief, very fleeting thought, fortunately) was that international agreements about land use could curb that problem. But we can't even get international agreement to stop torture, let alone land use change. I'm guessing an international agreement to ban land use change will work about as well as laws to protect the rainforest in South America and Southeast Asia currently are...
One thing I must comment on is the caricature that's being created about people in cellulosic biofuel companies as greedy corporate fat cats just salivating at the opportunity to rape Mother Nature for profit. I know people at next generation biofuels companies and they don't really fit that profile. Especially when it comes to the profits part, because none of them to make expect very much of that for quite a while. So, misinformed some of them may be. Evil profit mongerers--well, not really. Misinformation is much easier to correct than evil is. Even the most stubborn people can be convinced with respectful dialogue. If you talk to the biofuel proponents instead of about them, behind their backs, in lampooning and insulting terms, you might find that they share your concerns. (I mean some of the smaller startups with full staffs of about 10 people and operating budgets of around $1m, not the Khoslas of the world.) Just maybe.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 7:18 am
31 Jul 2008
I think I meant something a bit more coherent than that...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:44 am
31 Jul 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:59 am
31 Jul 2008
I'm not against biofuel in principle. But there is a heck of a lot intersection with all sorts of social mechanism. Doing it right is tough, and on a lot levels besides technical ones. To do biofuels right is really hard in a globalized market that maximizes the advantages of very small differences in marginal cost. And it seems that with biofuels unexpected consequences keep hitting us in the ass. And, if you will pardon me, a lot of those promoting biofuels show a lack of caution, and in fact a real contempt for the idea that there are real dangers of even well-managed biofuel systems going wrong.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:06 am
31 Jul 2008
How is your understanding of the natural carbon cycle different from what I presented?
I would like someone to present an alternative explanatuion that lets biomass combustion off the hook for an increase in GHG.
Would you at least agree that putting biomass back into the soil, rather than burning it, would lower the amount of GHG in the atmosphere?
I keep hearing I am obviously in error about this, and how all experts agree I'm wrong. I just don't see the error in my analysis.
Pyrolisis is no loophole, it has been found to increase GHG release from soil when charcoal is added as a sequestration soil ammendment.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:50 am
31 Jul 2008
I've explained the GHG issue (with respect to using biomass for energy) to you on several occasions, but you seem unwilling to simply address the details point by point with your alternative theory. I'll try once more... and this time I'll also show why it is easy for GHG to go negative.
You start with an acre of forest containing 70 tons of biomass.
Harvest trees containing 25 tons of biomass. In other words, cut them down so others can grow in their place.
Within 15 years or so, this 25 tons has regrown. So this acre again contains 70 tons of biomass.
At this point, this cycle is carbon neutral... regardless of what you did with the 25 tons that was harvested. Even if you burned the entire 25 tons, whatever went into the atmosphere, was pulled back out and into the forest during those 15 years.
Where it goes negative is on two accounts.
Out of the 25 tons originally cut, you leave 5 tons in the woods for decomposition into the soil. Now you're carbon negative. This is common practice with sustainable forestry.
You don't burn all 20 tons, but instead take 5 of it and put it into wood products, like structural lumber or furniture. Now it's even more carbon negative.
Which part of this doesn't make sense to you?
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:14 am
31 Jul 2008
So why is everybody here talking about plug-in hybrids?
In the short term, if we were to phase out all factory farming by not reseeding our current livestock stocks, we'd be out of factory-farmed cows, chickens, and pigs within two years. We could then cut 60% of the current acreage of corn and soy cultivation and those lands would immediately become carbon sinks. The huge decrease in methane and nitrogen oxide gases, however, wouldn't make a difference for some time since methane holds 20 times the amount of heat that carbon dioxide does. If would take a couple of years for the methane already in the atmosphere to break down further to carbon dioxide but the savings would be huge.
At that point, our fossil fuel needs would be greatly diminished, our methane output greatly diminished, and our carbon sinks expanded. This could happen in two years if we all stopped eating factory farmed meat and encouraged people to eat only grass-fed beef or livestock raised on food scraps.
Or we could convert 100 million gas guzzlers to 100 million Prius....that would be easy...
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:21 pm
31 Jul 2008
How about another monkey wrench.
N2O formation.
Where they guy who brought us the Ozone hole theory found that
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
Soy for instance, once you factor in N2O formation makes Liquid Coal look benign.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
And another,
Soil carbon sink exposure to decomposition.
(Which applies to any type of soil, but especially for Peat)
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/peat
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:22 pm
31 Jul 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:36 pm
31 Jul 2008
That being said, I totally agree about restoring the prairies and cutting down on meat, allowing for people to eat well.
Permalink
goneSouthtexas Posted 3:20 pm
31 Jul 2008
Please listen and listen well!
The Six (6) BILLION + or - people (not frogs, insects, ect. ) but PEOPLE! who inhabited the mothership planet call EARTH! , run on DINSIOURS!
PERIOD!
STARTED IN PENN. BACK IN 1850 + OR- AND GUSESS WHAT PETROLEUM BASED OIL REPLACED! WHALE OIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MORAL OF STORY!!!
SOMETHING WILL COME ALONG AND REPLACE THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS THAT WE USED TODAY! TO POWER US INTO THE 21ST AND BEYOND CENTURIES!!
NOT SOME G/D GOLBAL WARMING MOVIE, SWITCHBALDE GRASS STUFF, ECT. ECT. , BUT OIL & NATURAL GAS, COAL AND NUCLEAAR POWER, SOLAR, WIND POWER TO KEEP US GOING!
I REFUSE , I REPEAT, I REFUSE TO GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF THE HORSE & BUGGY DAYS AND BURNING WOOD FOR ELECTRICTY AND TO COOK MY FOOD FOR MY EXITENCE BECAUES SOMEONE? (AL GLORE. ECT, PELOSIS, REID ET.AL. ) SAID THAT I (WE THE PEOPLE) US , HAVE TO BECAUSE THEY SAID SO!
A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN 1776 SARTED A SMALL RIOT WHICH GREW INTO A REVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMED THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS INTO ONE THE GREATEST NATIONS ON THE PLANET IN THE 20TH CENTURY AND 21SR CENTURY!
THINK ABOUT IT!
DON'T BUY INTO THE GLOBAL WARMING B/S!
I PREDICT THIS WINTER WHEN BE THE SAME OR WORSE THAN LAST YEAR!
BUY A EXTRA SWEATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PEACE & LOVE!!
OLDEST SISTER TAUGHT ME THAT PHRASE AT A EARLY AGE IN MY LIFE!
Permalink
eheath1000 Posted 7:49 pm
31 Jul 2008
Permalink