Comments RDMiller has made

re: asdf

Bob,

I was just wondering if there is anything you don't know. People who talk a lot usually think they know far more than they actually do.

How about a little humility. Please.

RichardOn Cellulosic ethanol's bumpy ride posted 11 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

Billhook,

I realize this is hard for you to understand, but I'll try explaining once more.

The issue has nothing to do with people who have different views. I am always interested in hearing other viewpoints. The issue has everything to with people who don't know the difference between a biased opinion and a factual, or at least, unbiased report. If Grist is simply about people having built in biases and spewing beliefs, and not about factual reporting, few serious people will spend any time here. Hence, the answer as to why few (like Khosla) do.

This planet is in the trouble it is in primarily because people who end up in power can't tell the difference between their own personal agendas and what it means to serve the greater good. Sounds like you haven't noticed this.

Personally, I've had enough of that pattern, and my hopes were high it wouldn't show up as much here. Stupid me. David R. was right. This is just another place on the Internet where people preach beliefs, claiming it's something else. That's unfortunate, because there really is a lot at stake.

Given what's transpired here, I'll withdraw from posting on cellulosic ethanol. I don't need the frustration.

And for the last time... I do NOT have a bias in favor of CE. I'm not at all certain it's the most sensible way to go. I DO have a bias towards creating healthy forests and using wood harvested sustainably. But if the writing on the wall tells me CE is coming and will impact forests in a big way, I'd prefer to do what I can to create a favorable outcome... rather than standing on the sidelines making believe it isn't happening or shouldn't be happening. That's just be irresponsible.

Richard  On Cellulosic ethanol's bumpy ride posted 11 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

re: Which contains more biomass per cubic foot...

Tom,

Wood is denser than switchgrass, but the equation is more complex than that... especially if you assume the switchgrass is dry and the wood is green and of a less dense species.

The issue of availability of forest biomass is also more complex than it might seem, because while a sustainable harvest rate for a given forest is relatively low, the one-time, initial harvest could be very large (on the order of 50 times the sustainable rate). This would kick start the CE bandwagon, leaving time to develop dedicated energy plantations from switchgrass and fast growing woody species like poplar and willow. I don't think anyone in this business is overly concerned about biomass supply for CE over at least the next 15 years.

RichardOn New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

re: Missionary or fellow seeker?

Bart,

I agree with almost nothing you've said. That aside, I'll make just one point now (which I've made many times before and which will be in whatever I write). Jon has made this point several times as well, but it's not quite getting through.

There are "biofuels" (as the public has come to know this term) and then there is cellulosic ethanol from wood. It's a huge mistake to confuse these two. They have little in common in terms of sustainability, EROI, costs, history, etc.

Many in the CE sector are basing their business plans on wood (whether from natural forests or plantations) because just about everything about this.... other than the technical process of converting the wood into ethanol... is very well known. As I said before, the same wood that is harvested in large volumes every day for one product or another could go to CE. It can easily be sustainable, in every sense of the word. This is proven... it's not up for discussion. There is over 100 years of solid evidence to back this up.

So Bart... if you and others want to discuss biofuels (as defined above), I'm not interested in that discussion. That's a subject I know enough about to know it's on troublesome grounds. But this is NOT the discussion to be had about cellulosic ethanol.

RichardOn New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

re: OK

David,

I'll work on something over the next couple of days and see if it meets your approval. Thanks for the offer.

Bob... I don't recall calling anyone names here. And I certainly never said "other people here know nothing." Where do you come up with these things? I said too many people here draw conclusions about some things they know too little about. That's a far cry from saying people here know nothing. It's this kind of twisting of statements that drives me away from Grist (and I know David... it's not Grist specifically... it's the Internet. I'm sure the folks behind Grist would like to see the discussion go up a notch).

RichardOn New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

John

The point I was making... and the reason I find Grist a less than satisfying experience... is that too many people here make judgments about issues FIRST, before asking questions. This shows a lack of maturity that doesn't bode well for sorting through these very important issues.

I tend to avoid making definitive statements about any energy technology I don't have first hand experience of us, because they are all complex.

People here should learn to ask questions first... not reach conclusions first. It would make Grist a far better site.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Ignoring the evidence

Bob,

You, too, have simply failed to listen to anything I've said.

My point is that Obama, Chu and many others on Obama's team stand firm behind cellulosic ethanol... not to mention the investors and government agencies that have pumped more than $1 billion into it over the past 18 months.

But all of us must be mad, Bob... just delusional. And you must have the answers.

Right.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Didn't hear a thing I said

Bart,

It's as if what I said went in one ear and out the other. It's why I don't bother reading or posting much here anymore. Closed minds. Closed ears.

No matter. Cellulosic ethanol is coming, in a big way, whether Grist folks like it or not. Must be Obama and Chu are just out to lunch because some select group of "experts" know better. Looks like we're all screwed.

A lot of folks here really need to learn how to listen more openly and not be so damn afraid that someone else might notice your not an expert on everything. Because no one here is an expert on all things energy.

A little humility is in order.

RichardOn New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Getting back to 350 ppm

There is a tangible, realistic way to implement what Jonas posted using known technology.

The solution to the issue of CO2 from coal plants in the US is not to attempt to implement CCS, but rather to convert them to using torrefied biomass. This biomass can replace coal on a 1:1 basis with virtually no change to the facility, and it creates the carbon-negative bioenergy approach Hansen asks for.

The process of producing the "bio-coal" creates excess bio-char... exactly what Hansen asked for. Feeding this bio-char into the soils in the existing forests and new biomass plantations surrounding each coal facility both sequesters more CO2 and increases the productivity of those forests.

Anyone can go through the figures with relative ease and see that the resource base is available around virtually every coal facility in the US to make this conversion. The beauty of it is that the bio-coal can be mixed in with conventional coal gradually as the conversion process ramps up over time. And it includes a massive reforestation program which includes converting abandoned strip-mined land to biomass plantations, thereby addressing another part of Hansen's plan.

Of course, this also more than solves the problem of jobs in coal regions, because even more people need to be employed to produce the biomass than are needed to mine the coal. And the economics of burning bio-coal vs. conventional coal are not significantly different to derail this approach.

We have this technology right now and it rather well known. This approach could start to be implemented today. All we need is the political will and the dollars to make it happen.

RichardOn Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

re: Nuclear & Wood Power Generation

Jim,

How about coming back to reality. I know it's painful, but it does make for a more useful discussion.

Your 30 planned nuclear plants mean little until any of them are built. A good case could be made that few, if any, will.

I realize you want to make it sound like nuclear produces a major portion of our power and cannot be done without, but the facts show otherwise. Fact: nuclear produces well under 10% of US energy. Fact: plans are on the table to eliminate it completely over time.

With Obama in now, expect to see a continuing rapid expansion in the use of biomass for energy (mainly through cellulosic ethanol). With the plans I am aware of, it should be about 10 years before biomass produces more energy in the US than nuclear.

That said, I will say once again that I am not opposed to nuclear energy. But it has a long way to go to prove it is cost effective and safe.

RichardOn The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Vakibs... stop the incorrect statements already

Why do you keep making unequivocal statements of fact that you can't possibly prove to be true?

I said: "My guess is a vehicle powered by cellulosic ethanol will be considerably less expensive to operate than one driven by electricity... at least in the next 10 years." This is a guess on my part... not a fact, because no one can know the truth of this yet.

You came back and said it was false. Since when do you know the future? What you should have said is, "it's my belief this will not be the case." Come on, Vakibs. Debate with some truth to your words or don't debate at all.

Then you go on again and talk theory (about efficiency) versus fact (in terms of what people actually pay). The FACT is, it's more expensive today to operate a hybrid or electric vehicle than a gas driven one.... especially with today's gas prices. If cellulosic ethanol came in to the market at today's gas prices, it would clearly be less expensive TO ME AND YOU to operate now in the US. In 10 years, who knows. Arguments could be made either way.

I am glad the first few paragraphs of your post represented a change from your earlier statements. Now you are saying "nuclear power should be cheaper than alternatives." OK... that's a fair statement regarding your hopes. But let's be clear, nuclear is far more expensive today than other sources of power here in the US for anything other than direct usage of electricity.

RichardOn The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

He's gone nuclear

Jim,

At least get the basic facts right. Your numbers do not reflect reality. This leads me to believe anything you say is suspect.

In 2007, nuclear provided around 8.5% of total US energy; biomass around 3.5%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_ ...

You then say "there are no signs of an increase in the use of biomass for energy." Come on, Jim. Wake up. There's been more venture capital invested into the use of biomass for energy in 2008 than was invested in genetics or the Internet. New biomass plants are being built at the highest pace in 50 years. And wood stove and wood pellet sales are off the charts... dealers can't keep up.

Now let's see... how many nuclear plants are being built here in the US?

RichardOn The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

re: richard is wrong on multiple places

Vakibs,

You can continue to make your claims for the safety and low costs of nuclear energy until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the realities that TODAY, nuclear is considered too expensive to expand (at least in the US), remains riddled with waste disposal problems, is prone to devastating damage from attack by military means or natural events, causes serious environmental damage when mined, and may be causing damage to humans from low level radiation.

There could be solutions to these issues, and for this reason, I remain open to the nuclear energy possibility.

What is a fact is that biomass energy is being expanded at a rapid pace and is demonstrated to be low cost, safe and renewable. Nuclear is just not there yet.

RichardOn The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

re: Split Atoms not Wood

Jim,

You're ideas about wood burning are from the stone age...sorry. Wood dirtier than coal? Wood has a greater impact on the environment than nuclear? I'd challenge you to prove either of these statements, based on current wood burning technology.

These are classic statements from folks who read something about burning wood 40 years ago. They have nothing to do with the current discussion.

Oh yes... please prove that last silly statement as well, about wood energy being more radioactive than nuclear. It gave me a good laugh anyway.

Richard On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

re: Need for a renewable model

Atomicrod,

I'll give you an excellent example of what you asked for ("could someone point to any reasonably sized village, town or city that gets even a large fraction of its power from the popular forms of renewable power so that we can all see what living there would be like"): Burlington, Vermont

Burlington (a city of about 50,000) has been largely powered by the local 50 MW wood-fired electric plant since the early 80's. This plant has competed effectively with Vermont's only nuclear plant and cheap hydro over the past 25 years. It's been consistent, renewable, inexpensive baseload power.

RichardOn The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

In all seriousness...

Tom,

I know Branson has some money in several cellulosic ethanol companies, hoping to find a way to power his jets. Almost as cool as this baby:

http://www.hybridcars.com/technology/silver-buckshot-appr ...

RichardOn AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

re: This is my nightmare

Tom,

Like I've said in every post I've made at Grist about nuclear, I take no position on it. It has great potential, but lots of questions remain.

However, if you are planning to go to another planet, I'd say a nuclear powered ship would definitely be preferable over one driven by cellulosic ethanol. Granted, the CE ship won't kill you on its own, but you'd be way too old by the time you got any place where you could put your feet on the ground (well, OK...other than the moon).

RichardOn AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

re: Global Relevance is the primary criterion . .

Billhook,

Typical response... paying no attention to anything I say. Just in your own little world, making up words instead of reading mine.

I don't "hype" cellulosic ethanol. I've made it perfectly clear I have many concerns about it and believe it is only one of many possible uses of biomass. Don't you even bother to read what I write?

To say the development of CE is about lobbyists and profiteers, though, clearly indicates your interests lie somewhere other than history and fact.

Research into CE has been steadily ongoing since the early 70's when no one much cared about it. The large sums of money flowing into it more recently occurred when oil and gas prices spiked and concern grew over GHG's.

Fact is, CE represents the ONLY large-scale direct replacement for transport fuel which does not compete with food for cropland. I'd say this makes it far more than a "flighty interest to line the pockets of profiteers". What planet do you live on? It's very hard to take your comments seriously.

RichardOn AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

Forget global relevance...

Billhook,

I understand you want to engage in a theoretical discussion about the potential relevance of cellulosic ethanol technology to the world outside the US. I'm much more concerned about reality.

My interest in CE has to do with what is actually taking place and where the money is going. Whether you think it's relevant or not doesn't make much difference. The fact is, it's coming... and it's coming all across the globe. Why? Because there's money to be made, resources to be used, and oil to be replaced.

I don't have much interest in debating the relevance of this technology. I'm far more interested in trying to steer it toward sustainability.

If you dig into the conventional wood-to-methanol technology that has been around quite a long while and compare it to what is expected from CE processes, you'll understand why hundreds of millions are being plowed into this. These people are hardly the type to be throwing their money at a needless technology.

That said, this doesn't mean I think CE is the best route to go. But my opinion... just like yours... won't change what's happening. I'd rather focus on reality and try to steer it in a healthy direction.

Richard On AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

I'll repeat it all again (for the 5th time)

1. My cellulosic ethanol web site is designed only to cover who is doing what. It is information based only and sells nothing.

2. I built the site because I have many concerns myself about where this technology may be heading. CE could be very useful to bridge the gap from oil to electric and to offset the use of oil for plastics and base chemicals. But it could also be mishandled and become unsustainable, at least in terms of its impacts on forests and soils.

3. My interest is in the sustainable forestry area. Has been for 35 years. Anything that effects forests in a big way is something I take interest in. Anything that can allow for better forest management is something I get behind.

Cellulosic ethanol could create this kind of market. But other competing technologies exist which could provide this market as well (or perhaps in a much better way). The value of using one technology over another is a very complex subject, and frankly, no one has the answer to this yet. I'm NOT in favor of CE over any of these other technologies.

4. Tom... I've covered the land issue numerous times already. We have at least 750 million acres of non-food-producing land available in the US. To see a breakdown of all US land, go here:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB14/EIB14_reportsu ...

I've made the argument we could easily shoot for pulling 200 million acres out of the total 2 billion acres of land in the US and designate these to sustainable energy plantations. Water is not an issue. Fertilizer is not an issue. This land would be located throughout the US, as close as possible to CE facilities. The species of trees and grasses to grow on it already exist and have been rather thoroughly tested.

Based on current yields, this 200 million acres could produce a minimum of 10 tons per acre per year of biomass. That's 2 billion tons of biomass per year. At 100 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per ton (this is the current yield several companies are experiencing), this land could produce 200 billion gallons of ethanol per year. I think that's a sizable number.

Independent analyses of some CE technologies are already showing energy-in-to-energy-out balances of 8:1. Best guess is this number could go to 15:1 within 10 years. Also, best guess is that the yields of biomass per acre of land could go to 20 tons per year within 15-20 years. In other words, 400 billion gallons.

This is the reason so much money is chasing the CE sector... many hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years.

In the short term, existing forests will provide the feedstock necessary to get the CE sector off the ground. At a minimum, current forests could withstand removals of around 50 tons per acre as a one time shot (we'd have to wait 15-20 years to do that again), but this would actually be a very good thinning and would help restore optimal forest health. So take half the total 750 million acres and multiply it by 50 tons to get some idea of the currently available volume of feedstock waiting for the CE sector. Remember, I can only support this if it's done according to FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) standards, but that is certainly doable.

AmazingDRX... your one track thinking gets so tiring. You keep talking about biogas when the discussion is on using biomass from forests and energy plantations. These two issues have nothing in common. Why can't you get this?

Biogas is fine. Great. I fully support it. Wonderful. Do it yesterday.

But that has nothing to do with sustainable forestry, and nothing to do with creating energy plantations (read "new forests") based on mixed species, sustainable rotations, and the use of no toxic chemicals and only the available water. Some folks really want to do this, OK? We understand it's not your thing. But unless you have a specific objection to this (based on the criteria I just mentioned), stop talking about biogas as a response. It's just silly and makes your thinking look incredibly rigid.

BioD.. I have no objection whatsoever to your statement. All this biomass may well be better used to offset coal. There's a lot of sense to this argument. But as I said earlier, the issue is complex... offset coal or offset oil. Different people are placing their bets in different places.

RichardOn AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

It's alive and well

Tom,

Cellulosic ethanol is alive, well and growing rapidly. If anyone wants to review the many dozens of commercial efforts underway, they're all covered at my web site:  http://www.thecesite.com

Please note that I share the concerns of Billhook. There may be better uses of biomass than cellulosic ethanol, and I'm all for a careful evaluation of this matter. But a reasonable case can be made that CE might be an important bridge fuel from oil-based transport fuels to electric vehicles. Also, CE would be an critical factor in replacing oil used to make plastics and chemicals.

As far as answering the second key point you raise, it's important to understand that most folks in the CE universe are NOT focused on using crop land to grow the feedstock for CE. So your points are not really valid. The feedstock for CE will come from existing forests (in the near term) and energy plantations down the road a bit. Both of these will be located very near the CE facilities. Transport will not be a big concern.

In fact, IF this is done correctly, one could argue a very strong case to dramatically increase the use of biomass for cellulosic ethanol, pyrolysis or other wood energy production technologies. That case is that we need to create vast new forested areas to act as sequestration sources for GHG's. We know how to do this... we've been doing it for at least 100 years throughout the US. Water is not a limiting factor. Land availability is not a limiting factor. We just need to do it sustainably and pay careful attention to biodiversity and soil quality. But this is all doable.

RichardOn AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

re: Nuclear power is the only non fossil technolog

This statement of yours is incorrect, silly and of little value to the debate at hand:

"Nuclear power is the only non fossil technology with the proven ability to supply unlimited amounts of reliable dependable electricity at an affordable cost."

First of all, biomass could make the same statement. Most experts would argue it is considerably cheaper the nuclear. It is certainly dependable. And it can reverse the GHG problem... something nuclear cannot do. Further, nuclear has numerous important problems you do not mention (most related to safety).

More importantly, exclusive of biomass, your statement may be true today, but will almost certainly be untrue in 10-20 years as solar and wind prove themselves and costs drop.

For all practical purposes, your statement is meaningless and adds nothing to the important debate in front of us. I know you have a lot of value to add to the discussions at Grist, but making statements like this doesn't add to it.

Richard On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responses

Not worth my energy

Jabailo,

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

I'll let the powers that be decide how to handle you. In the meantime, I'll try my best to ignore you. I figure that's what most folks here are doing.

RichardOn McCain's 'Farm and Ranch Team' is chock full of agribiz heavies posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Enough already

Grist,

I appreciate it greatly when this Grist discussion remains focused on examining environmental issues and solutions. To the extent politics effects this topic, the discussion should be extended to that as well.

I have no use for feedback from posters like Saluki and Jabailo, and I do believe it detracts from this site. Saluki's comments, in particular, are disrespectful, mean-spirited and simply counter productive. They add virtually nothing of value and do not contribute to what I suspect is the mission of Grist: to build a more sustainable future.

I think Saluki is capable of engaging here in a respectful, and even intelligent, manner, but I read little of that. What I read is language that is hate filled, angry, frustrated and demeaning. I don't see how this serves the mission of Grist.

I've noticed few people here respond directly to Saluki anymore, hoping maybe she'll get the message and either change her tone or go away entirely. Perhaps this will work over time. Still, I think a few choice words from Grist management to her might be in order. It would improve the quality of this site.

RichardOn Town hall again reveals just an anti-science, out-of-touch McCain posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

High temp heat

Sean,

Just so this is clear... any application that can be fired by coal, can be fired by biomass. High temperature energy is not an issue. Scaling is not a problem. New forms of torrified biomass replace coal "chunk for chunk" and carry the inherent potential to be carbon negative. We have the land base. The cost is affordable. No new plants need be built to burn the stuff. We have the technology. It's just a matter of doing it.

RichardOn How current GHG policy distorts capital allocation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

re: pangolin's solar plan

Vakibs,

How about saying we discover even trace amounts of radiation from nuclear plants cause cancer?

How about discovering waste nuclear material is being used to create far more bombs than previously expected.

How about learning that nuclear facilities are easily destroyed by earthquakes?

Now, I'm not saying any of that makes a lot of sense, but it does make about as much sense as your statements.

We can either have intelligent discussions here, making the assumption that reasonably intelligent people are not presenting ideas that are inherently destructive and completely unworkable, or we can throw out silly statements to quickly dismiss the suggestions of other. Take your choice.

RichardOn The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

Inadequate

George,

I looked through the link you provided (at PeakOil) covering Charlie's work, but there was nothing there about biomass.... only corn ethanol and biodiesel. These figures are irrelevant. Can you point me to any specific information he provides that discusses the EROI for direct combustion of sustainably-harvested biomass or even cellulosic ethanol (which I believe is lower than torrification)?

Here's one very firm link showing a 7.7 EROI for cellulosic ethanol... and this is still early in the game. Many researchers expect the EROI for CE to exceed 15:1 over the next few years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN06279 ...

Unless you can point to specific studies by Charlie that cover (certified) sustainable biomass harvesting operations based on carbon negative systems tied into more advanced biomass energy production methods, your argument is really quite weak.

RichardOn The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

Typical confusion

George,

My discussion was entirely about replacing coal with a densified form of torrified biomass. I never mentioned biofuels. The two have very little in common. Your comments clearly indicate you know nothing about the former. So why do you bother to state conclusions about something you know little or nothing about? I stand by my statements about the EROI of direct-burned biomass vs. coal.On The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

Doesn't add up

George,

It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the EROI of biomass... particularly versus coal. I'd challenge you to back up your conclusions. I don't believe you can.

Biomass competes effectively with coal on price alone today. This does NOT include the huge external costs of burning coal, not currently factored into the price of coal. These include damage to the environment from extracting coal, coal being seriously carbon positive versus biomass being potentially carbon negative, and damage to the miners extracting the coal (injury and long term impacts). When factored in, coal is far more expensive and damaging than biomass. We are starting to factor these items in now, and as we do, the outlook for coal will continue to diminish.

Richard
On The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

Biofuels clarification, energy density

Randy,

Saying biofuels are a death warrant for the world's tropical forests is simplistic and a distortion. No one seriously involved with next generation biofuels (i.e. cellusic ethanol) proposes clearing any rain forests. Of course, we have no tropical forests in the US, so any discussion on using biofuels or biomass to replace coal (in the US) clearly bypasses this issue entirely.

George,

Your statement that there are no alternative energy sources that have sufficient energy density to replace coal and oil (other than nuclear) is incorrect. Biomass can be easily turned into a direct coal replacement with the exact same energy density as coal. Combine this with other renewables and we could replace all the oil and coal (and natural gas) we use within some acceptable period of time. It's just a matter of committing to do it.

RichardOn The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

re: That's a big improvement RDM

Bill,

I believe you are somewhat of an expert on nuclear issues. Remember what it feels like trying to educate people who know nothing about nuclear... especially when they come into it with certain conclusions already in mind? This is what I'm going through now with you. This isn't any fun at all.

Transportation is a non-issue. Actually, millions of acres of forests are very close to coal plants... not to mention the millions of acres of "unused" land to grow new plantations. But that's secondary anyway, as advanced technologies allow the biomass to be converted into a coal substitute which can be transported hundreds of miles, if necessary... no differently than coal is moved long distances today.

Your second and third points are not valid. Again (and for the last time) millions and millions of acres of forest are harvested continually to produce the wood products which form the backbone of our construction industry. Everyone accepts this as part of normal commerce. Creating more forests specifically to grow energy (instead of building products) is simply more of the same.

Your other points about the yields from fast growing biomass and availability of land for it are also not significant. Here are the facts. There's around 750 million acres of forests in the US, 600 million acres of grasslands, pastures and range, 300 million of "special use" lands (including most national and state park lands), and 450 million acres of cropland... any portions of which could be used to dedicate to the 200 million acres I have talked about. Take your pick of this lot. If we can pull out 200 million of it and use it to produce 200 GW of renewable, carbon negative energy, it sounds like a good choice to me.

The issue of whether or not to create electricity, transport fuels, plastics and/or chemicals from this material is being hotly debated.

RichardOn Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 24 Responses

Definitely radioactive

Bill,

The simple fact you would try to defend nuclear by arguing that all the potential problems either have been, or could easily be, addressed, indicates to me you have a mindset I'd rather not debate with. It's just not worth my time.

When you state that "failure of the biomass crop could lead to...", you apparently didn't read that the heart of what I presented is based on forests. Simple forests... whether planted or natural. I'll tell you this... if we experience wide spread failure of forests, there ain't no nuclear plant anywhere that's going to make a bit of difference. It'd be fair to say we had crossed the tipping point a long time before that and are pretty well cooked.

As far as answering the specific question you asked, you need to understand that millions of tons of biomass are harvested, transported, dried (when necessary) and converted into energy every year. It's been going on for a long time, with the energy competing with nuclear and coal since the 70's. There's no mystery in this. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Here's a few rough figures for you. Biomass typically costs $10-$20 per ton to harvest; perhaps $2-$5 per ton to transport; and generally nothing to dry (it's often burned green in large power plants). Delivered costs of green wood chips is typically $30-$40 per ton these days. I hope that answers your question.

RichardOn Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 24 Responses

re: Just so Im clear

Biomass includes any plant in any form: standing trees, tops of trees harvested for sawtimber, residual wood products left over from processing, wood salvage from old buildings, plus all forms of grasses and plants (switchgrass, corn husks, leaves, etc.).On Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 24 Responses

re: More details please

Bill,

I don't believe I ever suggested biomass would supply all the power needs of the US. It wouldn't and shouldn't. But I have explained before (on two other posts) how it could produce the equivalent energy of 1,000 - 2,000 nuclear power plants (1 GW each). Water requirements are not significant. Any residual materials would either be used to make products or enrich soils. This isn't rocket science. It's based on existing technology, much of which has been in use for 30 years or more. It's just a matter of deciding to do it.

Put simply, the approach combines sustainable management of existing forests along with planting 200 million acres of unused land to fast growing trees and grasses. Either gasify or liquify the biomass after that, depending on just which energy products make the most sense to produce.

This should be used with all other renewables to solve our energy problems. The biggest advantage of biomass, though, (as Jonas mentioned) is that you can create a carbon negative system.

RichardOn Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 24 Responses

Biodiesel is just easier to say

John,

I don't believe Obama means "biodiesel" in the traditional sense you and others think of it when he uses that term in his campaigning. He means (primarily) cellulosic ethanol. It's just that that term is a mouthful and one the majority of folks have never heard of. He is apparently in favor of increasing the availability of home-grown biodiesel, but even with this, my understanding is that he insists it come from sustainable sources only.

RichardOn Bad news for climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

re: OK, let me try some stats.

Jon,

It is absolutely possible to replace all the coal burning with biomass. The technology is available today. The land is certainly here to do it (we have over 1.5 billion acres of land we could call on). All it requires is the decision to do it.

Even better, new technology allows us to actually burn this biomass in the existing coal facilities, if we wanted to. And make it all carbon negative.

Not a bad deal, considering it would create several million new jobs, create a lot more forests and increase soil quality.

RichardOn Duke Energy announces investment in wood biomass on first day of the Clinton Global Initiative posted 1 year, 2 months ago 18 Responses

re: biomass is great, but insufficient

Vakibs,

I downloaded MacKay's book, but found nothing pertaining to your reference. What was his summary on biomass? I've found that many so-called energy experts are often most lacking in knowledge about biomass.

As far as population densities, last I checked, uranium isn't available near population dense areas either. There's no problem growing biomass wherever one can and shipping it to population-dense areas. The room required for the actual energy production facility is not so large as to be prohibitive. But you are right in saying that, for numerous smaller countries (geographically), there isn't going to be land available to produce large amounts of biomass within that country.

It terms of it being a least power-dense alternative, I don't see the relevance of that argument. In fact, it's actually a positive if one is concerned about creating rural jobs. Unlike with solar and wind, biomass doesn't involve installing large numbers of "manufactured energy collecting devices"... trees or grasses do all the work.

But you are absolutely right... biomass can only be part of the solution. Many other technologies are needed. Still, given the potential to produce the energy equivalent of 1,000 - 2,000 nuclear facilities while reversing GHG problems, it needs to be taken mighty seriously.

RichardOn Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 Responses

re: Biomass Plant Size

KenG:

These are 100 MW plants. They'll have no problem getting the feedstock. There's plenty of biomass available in that region.

Your statement that "you can't afford to log forests for biomass feedstock" is incorrect. It's being done every day all across the country. The value of biomass as energy has skyrocketed along with the price of oil. All of this standing wood is harvested mechanically.

The sustainability of Georgia's tree farms is questionable, but that's a complicated debate.

RichardOn Duke Energy announces investment in wood biomass on first day of the Clinton Global Initiative posted 1 year, 2 months ago 18 Responses

Impossible

Biodiversivist,

As I said in my first post about Saluki, it is impossible to get her to agree with the points you are making because she is incapable of significantly changing her point of view on global warming and many other environmental and social issues. Facts will be argued against; conclusions of experts denied or worse.

It's all about good judgment, which is not something Saluki has demonstrated and not something she is capable of accessing, because it doesn't come from intelligence, smarts or studying data.

In my opinion, Saluki lost her credibility here when she said that, even after all we know now about Mr. Bush's history as president, she would STILL vote for him. That puts her in the 30% (or less) of the voting population who still support Bush's policies and decisions. You folks can label these people whatever you want. I simply call them untrustable.

Saluki is certainly not a bad person. Just a very confused one... and she hasn't a clue that this is the case.

RichardOn In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 71 Responses

re: Far worse than any troll

Russ,

If you don't understand what I'm speaking about (such as my meaning for the word "conscious"), ASK. Stop flying off the handle on everything. My god, you need a sedative, dude. Calm down. Ask questions. Stop making huge, and often very wrong, assumptions.

I never said intelligence and smarts are not very useful. I simply said that they are dangerous without being balanced by other critical elements.

Calling me right wing puts you in the dog pound for the day. I'm so far left of you on numerous topics you couldn't find me if you had a telescope.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: What's Extreme?

Wolverine,

I respect your opinion on the issue of killing trees because it is one I shared strongly during my earlier years (until I was 23 and decided to build a community in the back woods of Vermont). I think I understand your perspective and I certainly believe it is a rational, compassionate approach to living things. It is not one I share at this time, mainly as a result of my own direct experience working closely in, and with, forests for many years.

For me, having recognized how much bad forest management (outright abuse, damage and waste) was (and still is) taking place in the forestry sector, I felt compelled to get involved in the industry in an attempt to steer it toward sustainability. I'm still doing that and can take comfort in knowing I've had a positive impact. I'm not sure you can respect that choice, but at least you know my perspective.

You may or may not be aware that there are quite a few indigenous groups around the world that are very involved in sustainable forestry and have been leaders in this area for quite some time. And then there are others who are not.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

Now we see the true Saluki

You see, when folks like Saluki get pushed beyond their comfort zone, they start relying on name calling, labeling and quite vicious attacks. She can't handle it when the discussion goes outside the line of linear argument.

"Idiotic psychoanalysis", "stupidity", "nut case"... this is what Saluki's debating skills degrade into. It's not something I have much patience for... and it's certainly not a sign of tolerance or wisdom.

All that aside, her arguments this last time around were weaker than ever. I'm happy to continue pointing out the flaws, if anyone is interested. But as I've said numerous times, she's not going to change her mind on anything.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Formatting

Sorry about the formatting for that last post. The system here at Grist does what it wants to when it formats certain kinds of responses.On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: you already won the debate, just make it expli

Vakibs,

Thanks for your comments. I understand your point.

There's a saying something like, "we don't want to win the battle, but lose the war."

I'm not as interested in getting someone like Saluki to agree to a specific point or accept defeat with a given argument as I am in helping her consider a very different perspective and orientation to the world. People like Saluki need help in understanding why other people (like you and I) have the concerns we do. She is capable of understanding specific points or facts, but incapable of accepting the fundamental flaws in her world view.

Again, it's like the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Plenty of Republicans have the intelligence to understand specific facts that may run contrary to what they think, but this doesn't mean they'll make any change in position... especially if that change would require a fundamental reconsideration of their perspective on the world and human issues. They have a better chance of deep change by being introduced to completely new and different perspectives, AND by seeing how others can debate fairly and calmly and with integrity... something they can at least respect. If all of us just use name calling and other degrading tactics, they can then fairly call us loonies or eco-freaks or whatever. I'm trying to show Saluki it is possible to have a very different perspective, but still act with civility and some respectable level of intelligence.

The most I can hope for is to plant a seed in her... and let the seed grow slowly over time.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: how to lose a debate which you can win

Vakibs:

If you think anyone can "win" this "debate" with Saluki, you're mistaken about what is actually taking place here. You can't (generally) use logic or arguments to change the perspective of one who is more conservative in views, into one who is more liberal. You can't change a Republican into a Democrat using any given logic or debate. "Logical, linear" people might think you can, but that's a fallacy. In other words, there isn't a way to convince anyone to "do the right, sensible" thing just by talking about it. You haven't figured this out yet? People are more complex than this.

This is not (largely) a debate about facts. This is a discussion about different ways of seeing, and interacting with, the world. It's certainly not a boxing match. Saluki and others with similar views will change their minds over time, but not through debates like this. But it does help to introduce them to other perspectives... and that's about the most we can hope for.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: false equivalences rule

Russ,

Obviously, you are angry about what's going on. There's plenty to be angry about. I've not experienced that that path works for me, though.

While I share many of your hopes and dreams for a better world (as best I can tell from what you've written), I have doubts anger, labeling, fighting and the "eye for an eye" approach will get us there any quicker. No, I'm not suggesting being timid, cautious or even withholding one's feelings, but there are other paths to change.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Heck... two different approaches to a similar goal... sounds like we're covering the bases.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: Bush talk.

Saluki,

Thank you for your reply. It helps me to better understand your perspective.

It would be pointless to debate your arguments one by one. As I said in my first post to you, from where you are coming from, there's no chance you can shift your thinking in any meaningful way simply from a discussion alone. (I hope others take note of this. It's really useless to debate item for item with Saluki.)

It's my opinion that your belief system is what led us to war in Iraq and has directly resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of humans, unnecessarily. I think a different belief system would not have had this effect.

It's my opinion that actions emanating from belief systems like your own is resulting in a far less healthy and biodiverse ecosystem, and potentially one that will have catastrophic consequences. I think a different believe system could avoid and reverse this, and create a much higher quality of life for humans and all other creatures on this planet.

It's my opinion that actions resulting from your belief system cause excessive inequality in the distribution of fundamental life-sustaining resources, creating intolerable levels of misery and pain for billions of people every day. A different belief system could change this circumstance immediately.

And it is my opinion that the limitations of your belief system greatly restrain opportunities to create and sustain a world powered by inexpensive, renewable, clean, efficient and largely decentralized energy.

For all of these reasons (and many more), I have a very different belief system. As yours becomes more and more painful to bear (and it will, because you have a heart and a soul which seek evolution and harmony), that (and only that) will lead you to adopt new ways of seeing the world. Until then, I will do my best to respect you, while working my hardest to create a better world and reverse (or at least confine) the almost unimaginable damage I believe is occurring from the actions of millions who carry beliefs like yours. Fortunately, the days when your belief system ruled the world are numbered and waning quickly. Enjoy it while you can.

Richard

P.S. I note you didn't answer my post about oil shale, in which I challenged statements you put forth with direct evidence to the contrary.On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: No one here knows squat about shale oil

Saluki,

I thought I would spend a few minutes to investigate the integrity of the statements you made about oil shale.

You do realize that Wiki posts are often unreliable, at best... often serving simply to promote the position of a person or business. So I thought I would check the latest news reports about oil shale. To that end, I read four separate news accounts, all posted within the past week.

Turns out, even Shell Oil is quite uncertain if their technology will work. They don't know what the actual production cost will be, nor how much water will ultimately be required or where that will come from. Most importantly, their own spokesperson said "it will be at least until the middle of the next decade before they decide if the process is commercially viable."

So it seems your statements about the viability of oil shale are greatly inflated, unless you have some specific evidence to prove otherwise. If you do, I'd like to review it. Otherwise, I think you need to accept that this may never be a solution and, at best, is at least 7-10 years away with uncertain costs and environmental impacts. If it turns out to be viable and achievable without obvious and serious environmental impacts, we should all consider it at that time, but that time is still years away. Given this, it would seem prudent to move ahead as quickly as possible with known, renewable alternatives that are cost effective. Do you not agree with this?

Thanks.
RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: Who is Richard?

Saluki,

It's definitely not about me... I've made that clear several times.

What you've done in your last post, for at least the sixth time, is avoided answering my direct and fair questions. There's a pattern here. Every time you are asked a challenging question based on your own statements, you simply divert from answering, and instead, twist the discussion to turn it on me or imply I have a position that I've actually never stated. When you do this, you lose all credibility.

Sure, you can keep arguing with more fringe elements here and, given your often extreme positions on the right, make it sound like you're in the center and Grist folks are all "loony, eco-freaks", but this fantasy won't move your cause forward. Why? Because it's not so much your positions themselves that are often out-dated and rigid (though many are), but rather the fact that the way you debate lacks integrity. It is this deep pattern within you which no longer serves you or others. With each passing day, increasingly more people "smell" this about you and quickly know you can't be trusted.

Fact is, I don't disagree with every position you maintain. Some of your positions are factually accurate; some are reasonable; and many others are simply bizarre and out-dated. That's not the problem. The problem is your inability to admit when you're wrong or when you simply don't know what the best answer or solution might be.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by answering the half dozen or so questions I've asked you in previous posts.

RichardOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: Adding it up.

Saluki:

I suspect you don't really believe this statement of yours... you just said it without thinking about the truth of it:

"Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you.  And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself."

Are you not content to give the government money to build the roads and bridges you use, deliver your mail, establish communications and energy infrastructure, protect your food from poisons, and (last but not least) protect your family from hostile forces?

True, there are certainly instances in which the government takes resources from me to do things I might not agree with, but there are likely far more instances in which I willingly give the government a portion of my resources to provide basic necessities for my life. Is that not true for you as well?

From what you said (and again, I'm just replaying your words here), you would prefer to keep your money so that you had the freedom to do these things for yourself. Could you please explain how you would go about this?

Richard
On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

re: Tolerance

Saluki,

Again, I won't debate the issues with you, but I will state facts.

To state that opposition to abortion is as strong as ever simply ignores all polls and facts of the past 50 years. But like I said, you'll lie to yourself even on the most basic of facts to sustain your belief system.

"... intolerance of people with SUVs"... would you please point out where I stated that? Once again, all you can do to defend yourself is create lies about my beliefs.

Keep it up. You're validating everything I said earlier.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

Ethanol mandate

John,

You probably won't be satisfied with this answer, but I really don't have an opinion on the GOP effort to kill the ethanol mandate. As I've said before, corn ethanol isn't something I have much interest in. Intensive farming with monocrops, pesticides and fertilizers isn't something I can get behind.

My interest is in seeing a dramatic increase in forest cover, with these forests being as bio-diverse and productive as possible. If cellulosic ethanol can help this become a reality, I say do everything we can to make it so.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

Saluki's agenda

John,

This debate you and others are having with Saluki is an excellent example of how people's personal agenda's makes it impossible to fully consider the viability of an opinion quite different from their own.

Saluki and many, many others are actually incapable (at this point in their lives) of accepting a different viewpoint on the subject of abortion. To do so would require a complete re-wiring of their inner world and belief systems. The only personal security they have right now is their reliance on a limited, out-dated set of beliefs created by others who need followers like Saluki.

Saluki prefers to focus on making wrong the choices of others she doesn't even know personally, rather than taking full responsibility for the disasters resulting from her own choices. She simply can't handle the pain of the latter.

I'm willing to bet Saluki voted for Mr. Bush the last two times around. A significant degree of responsibility for the deaths of some 4,000 US soldiers in Iraq and the maiming of tens of thousands of others there rests squarely on her shoulders for the votes she made twice, but you'll never hear her take responsibility for this. Too painful to do that. There is a long list of other disasters resulting from Saluki's personal choice to put Mr. Bush in power, but rather than take responsibility for this and look deeply inside at her decision making process, she'd rather turn to a woman she doesn't even know and tell that person what is right and what is wrong.

I have no doubt Saluki's heart is in the right place. But she and millions of others with the same belief system are compelled by insecurities and fears that drive the choices they make. It is from that place that people like George Bush get put into power.

But she can't possibly understand what I'm talking about... no easier than she can understand why the "pro-life" position should really be called the "anti-choice" platform.

As Pangolin said, debates like this with folks like Saluki cannot possibly result in a change of position. The breakthroughs she seeks will come in their own perfect time.

RichardOn The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

re: Reality v. Fantasy

Wolverine:

I understand that you have a particular mindset and set of beliefs that compels you to follow a specific line of thinking. It's not likely you'll change any part of that because that would lead to a complete personal breakdown. And you're not willing to let that happen... not yet anyway. But the points you make are simplistic and simply don't reflect what is possible or even the trends of the past 500 years.

I never said "lust for material things" was a part of our sustainable future. I agree with you that this is not spiritual or sustainable... which is why we'll grow beyond it.

I never said we can sustainably increase population AND individual consumption across the board. I said we can increase our population while changing our behaviors and consumption patterns to live in harmony with the planet.

Your use of the word "overbreeding" is just silly and reflects an overly simplistic understanding of human life. Humans are far more than simply animals. If you have any spiritual knowledge at all (and I believe you do), you'll understand what I mean by this.

Ecosystems and species have evolved countless times over the course of Earth's history and have survived far more turmoil than is present now. Yes, there will be dramatic changes on this front, but the Earth will evolve as human society continues to change, eventually finding a new balance (with a substantially higher population).

Your desire to return to some kind of "natural" state, at least here in the US, is unrealistic. With 97% of our old-growth forests gone, that can't possibly happen for at least 250 years, at best. The pre-"white man" phase is gone, forever. But that hardly means we can't establish harmony with nature and maintain adequate "wild" places.

New technologies for efficiency (in everything), resource conservation and materials recycling will allow us to sustain more people with far less impact. Will we employ these "in time" and in sufficient volume to make a difference? I believe we will. You may believe otherwise. There's nothing you or I can say to prove this point one way or another. We'll just have to see what happens.

RichardOn Bearded freak hippie discusses biofuels with Bill Scher posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

re: More Deniers

Wolverine,

I realize you believe there are only two choices and you present this as fact: "support the Earth and people who are willing to live on it naturally, or you support human destruction of it." This statement of yours is really a rather old and simplistic way of looking at human life on Earth... coming from a time well before the 60's.

I know you preach the importance of a spiritual orientation to life and environmental issues, but I do not often see this reflected in your writings, tone or positions. Nevertheless, I believe you sincerely want to live with the least impact on the Earth and in peace with nature and other people, and I respect that.

I would simply suggest you consider that there is a way to live in harmony with the Earth and with people, while accommodating a far larger population and potentially higher (selective) resource demands from our world. It will require greater intelligence, considerably more creativity, and a much stronger commitment to "do the right thing", but it is possible... and I believe, it is the direction to which we are heading, despite the seeming insurmountable problems we appear to be facing.

I'm not saying we'll definitely get there, but I am saying your "two choices only" position is incomplete.

Richard On Bearded freak hippie discusses biofuels with Bill Scher posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

re: Misquote

John,

I know you don't understand this, even though I've explained it several times.

Forests throughout the U.S. need to be thinned, particularly of low-grade and over-crowded trees. These are not our original, native forests. These are forests that have been high-graded again and again, and now have too much lower-grade wood. A lot of this wood is best suited for energy. That's just the way it is. By removing it carefully, the health and productivity of the forest will increase. It's no different than a garden. It works exactly the same way, except that most of the trees are left after a harvest, and new trees regrow on their own without the need for fertilizer.

Here in Vermont... just one example of many states... we import over $1 billion worth of energy every year just for heating purposes. This is money that goes out of the state, and often out of the country. By using just a portion of the annual regrowth of biomass, we could displace ALL of that fossil fuel energy, save Vermonters at least a half billion dollars per year, create thousands of local, rural jobs, and displace all the greenhouse gases that would otherwise be released indefinitely by burning oil, natural gas or coal.

Yes, in years to come, there will be other options to produce heat for homes and businesses here. And when there are, we'll need to look at those. But that's quite a few years down the road.

Of course, they'll still be a need to displace the oil used to make the plastics, chemicals and other oil-based goods that Vermonters use. I'd prefer to see those come from sustainably harvested biomass.

Landowners need to realize an income from their forest land, otherwise it gets converted into some other less desirable, income-generating product. The best way to maintain this land as forests is to keep it producing various wood-based products. Energy (or ethanol to plastic) is the key for the foreseeable future. There is no other viable alternative anyone has come up with. This is a fact, John, that you need to come to terms with.

Trees are renewable electrons. What don't you get about this?On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

re: It's quite common to see a thread degenerate

Biodiversivist:

I find nothing of value in your post. Wasted words only.

If you want to debate specific items I have raised about cellulosic ethanol, sustainable forestry or wood energy, please do so. Other than that, I really have no interest in conversing with you. I find it a waste of time.

You labeled me a "devout supporter of all things biofuel". Go read your post if you need to. On far too many occasions, I have specifically said I am not this. I could not have made it any clearer that I have no particular interest in any biofuel other than cellulosic ethanol, and even with that, I only support it if it is done sustainably. But again, you have misstated my position and twisted my words. Why would I want to spend any time debating with someone who consistently misstates what I say. I can't think of a good reason. You are not to be trusted.On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

re: Delusional agenda

Biodiversivist:

If I thought for one minute it would be worth engaging in this conversation with you, I would. But I don't take you seriously... and I suspect few professionals do. Based on your last post to me, you seem incapable of having a respectful dialogue.

While you continue to scream from the sidelines, the reality of cellulosic ethanol continues to grow with each passing day. Some of us need to actually do the work and solve the problems you speak of. Now if we could only harness the hot air you seem to generate so profusely... On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

re: Only 5% per year

John,

Of course, you provided no specifics on how to accomplish a major reduction in oil use over 20 years... just your usual fluff. Sorry to be so hard on you, but your reply is just a fairy tale. Of course, I fully support what you would LIKE to see happen. I'd like that too. But some of us are trying to deal with realities... trying to deal with the huge mess we're in and will likely remain in for quite some time.

If you have a step by step approach that you believe can, AND WILL, be implemented within 20 years to reduce oil usage by at least 40%, please spell it out. Then we can comment on the reality of that happening.

If you don't have this, then I suggest you support other approaches than can address this concern. We need to employ every possible sustainable method there is to reduce oil demand.

Wishing it will happen is not acceptable. And just saying, "reduce it by 5% a year" is just silly. Tell us the specifics of your plan.On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

Too many myths in "Myths of Biofuels"

This is directed to David Alport (GreyFlcn), John S. (AmazingDRX) and others who have bought into the myths told by David Fridley.

I decided to follow your link, David A., to the video showing Fridley's talk on the "Myths of Biofuels." I was barely able to get through it. The number of misstatements, incomplete details and his simple outright bias was quite troubling.

It seems Mr. Fridley's heart is in the right place. I don't question his intentions, though I don't know the full story on the man. But this presentation was obviously created to talk the layperson into believing his story. I don't know what his agenda is, but I can't imagine serious people in the cellulosic ethanol sector taking him seriously... not with all the inaccuracies in his presentation.

On my first pass through, I noted 23 statements of his that are either untrue or incomplete. I'm happy to go through each one of them in detail here. And if Mr. Fridley actually monitors this site, I'd go through that process "face to face" with him.

I think the important thing to understand is that when someone like him makes so many misstatements, it really doesn't serve him or the larger effort to find a path to a renewable energy solution, because eventually he'll lose his credibility, as will the supporters of his position.  

People can take various positions on these issues, but those positions really need to be backed up by facts. And when the facts aren't clear, this needs to be said right up front. When a statement is made that is an opinion, this also needs to be made clear.

It's a shame Mr. Fridley has some kind of personal agenda that seems to have gotten in the way of his ability to help steer the cellulosic ethanol sector toward sustainability, because I think he could help accomplish this if he stuck to facts. Instead, he is promoting his own myth and confusing many with a story that is simply full of untruths.

RichardOn What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

re: "Trust but verify"

John,

I'm not sure why you don't get this, but what I suggested (as far as electric production is concerned) is well known and thoroughly tested. You can find installations like this all over the world. The Burlington Electric plant is 30 years old. No one questions how well they work. The environmental impacts are quite minimal.

We know how to grow trees. Virtually every stem of wood used as structural lumber to build every home in the US comes from plantation grown trees. There's no mystery in this. What I and others are suggesting, though, is growing trees only for energy purposes, and doing it in the most sustainable way possible (reducing impact on existing biodiversity; limited the use of fertilizer; maintaining soil quality; etc.). But this work has been ongoing for 30 years as well.

The only question now is whether we want to do it... or keep burning coal and oil... build more nuclear plants... and simply wait for GHG issues to become overwhelming. I'm a big fan of solar and wind, but we can't just toss aside the potential... using KNOWN technology... to offset the energy we'd get from 200 new nuclear or 300-400 new coal facilities by using biomass-based energy instead. On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 Responses

re: Wood is interesting and scary at the same time

Jon,

A bit more on potential...

You asked about the 200 million acres. Considering we have some 750 million acres of range/pasture land and another 750 million acres of forest, it is not a stretch at all to envision pulling 200 million acres from this 1.5 billion acres and creating sustainable energy plantations of poplars, willows and grasses... if we wanted to or needed to... and if it could be done sustainably.

What's it amount to?

Standard conversion figures for biomass electric plants are 10,000 tons of chips per MW of electricity. If each acre of plantation is producing 10 tons of biomass per acre per year, we need 1000 acres to produce 1 MW of baseload electricity. That amounts to 1 million acres of plantation to generate 1000 MW... about the size of a small nuclear plant, I believe, or a large coal facility. That 200 million acres gives us the equivalent of 200 new nuclear plants. I think that's a meaningful number. Then use all the sustainably managed natural forests to offset oil usage in plastics and chemicals. This scenario even gives DRX and others the option to drive electric vehicles off of mother nature's very own natural solar conversion system.

I'm not sure what the output is of a solar thermal plant, but my guess is trying to produce 200,000 MW of power from these is a bit of an environmental nightmare.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to establish thousands of decentralized, sustainably-managed biomass energy plantations run by local co-ops throughout the country, keeping power generation local and rural, encouraging biodiversity as much as possible, and creating the opportunity for a carbon negative solution. But that's just me.On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 Responses

and waste....

And, of course, add in large volumes of wood waste and other non-wood waste materials, all of which can be converted to cellulosic ethanol and/or turned into energy through other existing and near-term technologies. I don't have these numbers at hand, but they are large.On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 Responses

Differences

Michael,

Let's start this discussion with an understanding that there is a huge difference between what many folks (I believe you seem included in this group) call biofuels versus sustainable use of biomass.

For all practical purposes, let's include corn ethanol and virtually every other type of plant-based fuel that is out there now... with the exception of woody biomass... in one group that we'll call biofuels. There are a few exceptions to this, but these represent small volumes. The other group we'll call biomass (which includes trees and grasses, like switchgrass).

I limit my discussions on "biomass/biofuels" potential to biomass. I have no interest in biofuels, as defined above, and can't speak to the potential sustainability of this group. All we know so far is that most of what I've defined here as biofuels is not being grown sustainably and/or has questionable GHG/energy balances. The FSC may have some involvement in this group (I'm not currently active in the FSC), but it's main focus is on biomass.

So again, my comments are limited to biomass.

On this front, there is no issue with water use. It's just not on the radar screen because it's a non-issue (at least in the US). Soil conservation is an issue, but it is integral to eco-certification and sustainable biomass production.

That said, I have read numerous statements by companies (and investors) involved in cellulosic ethanol, as well as other biomass energy technologies, that they support sustainable production of biomass feedstocks. Time will tell how strongly this position is adhered to, and whether they ultimately rely on stronger standards like those of the FSC or weaker ones (which I would personally oppose).

But the point is, there is enormous energy potential that can come from sustainably grown and harvested forests and biomass plantations. I think it is fair for folks to speak out aggressively that biomass be used in this way, and spoken against if it is not.

Your point about the internal combustion engine is really not relevant. Yes, transportation will largely convert to some other mode in time. I think most agree on that. But that time.. the time when MOST of this conversion has taken place... is at least 20 years away. In the meantime, we need to offset the use of oil. This is what those in the cellulosic ethanol sector are focused on, and anyone who argues to the contrary is simply in dreamland.

Stating that the use of biomass could become a problem is, of course, a true statement. I can present scenarios for wind and solar that are quite problematic as well. It's all of our jobs to make sure this doesn't happen.

But again, let's differentiate between biofuels and biomass, and let's acknowledge that there is huge potential for sustainable biomass energy. Some scientists, in fact, argue that greatly expanding the use of biomass is, in fact, vital to reversing (not just stabilizing) GHG levels... something solar and wind can't do.

I, for one, get far more joy out of spending time in a sustainably managed forest than I do in a wind farm or solar thermal array. But maybe that's just me. On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 Responses

re: Who's living in a dreamworld?

Michael,

Had you read any of my previous posts at Gristmill, you'd know that not only do I support a very tight and heavily enforced system of eco-certification, but I am one of the founders of the Forest Stewardship Council... already the largest eco-certifier for biomass. So we have no disagreement on this point. I cannot support any biofuel which has not been so certified. In other words, I don't support most biofuels today.

But that isn't the point I was addressing in your statements. Given that we agree sustainably-produced biofuels should be a part of the equation, this statement of yours is either biased or uninformed:

"Biofuels, sustainably produced, especially from wastes, will have a niche in aviation and marine propulsion."

My point is that this flies in the face of what is happening today in terms of investments in, and planning for, cellulosic ethanol, but also direct burning of biomass (already a larger producer of energy than wind or solar) and numerous other options for producing energy from biomass. To say it will be a niche is simply incorrect... not unless you consider wind and solar niches as well.

As far as DRX's comments go, he is no longer to be taken seriously on this subject. He is unable to substantiate much of anything he has to say on this matter, and simply stops responding when presented with direct evidence contrary to his statements. On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 Responses

re: Hmmm

John,

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

re: No problem

John,

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.

RichardOn Short, medium, and long-term solutions to phase out oil posted 1 year, 4 months ago 46 Responses

re: ok, agreement on...

It is truly fascinating how hard it is for most folks to understand forestry and forests.

Two points:

1. Sustainable forests are NOT planted!!! Well, perhaps very, very rarely, but NO... sustainable forests are existing forests which are managed sustainably. Forget planting. That's an entirely different discussion.

2. "Natural" forests, in the sense most people think of this term, do not exist in the U.S., except on about 1-2% of our remaining forest land. ALL our current forests have been either regenerated from cleared land (what WAS once virgin forest... a few hundred years ago) or have been logged over numerous times in the past 100-200 years. The vast majority of pine forests in the entire southeast US are plantations, as are many millions of acres in the west (not necessarily pine out west, but still planted forest).

RichardOn Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Another compromise Jon

John,

I'm sure there are many in positions of influence within government and business that are keenly interested in following your prescription here. I'll just bet they are already changing their business plans, stopping the chain saws, shutting down the wood pellet mills, selling their log skidders and writing off their billions in investments.

I haven't done any drugs in a long time, but whatever you're on, I want some...

RichardOn Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

re: It's in progress

John,

Comments like this are what most show your personal agenda and lack of maturity. It's all about what YOU want, because you have different interests and beliefs than many others.

What you don't understand or appreciate is that millions of individuals prefer to live and work in an integral way with nature, whether as farmers of the land or stewards of forests. This is true around the world, and it is as valid a choice as any you might have.

What you fail to accept is that millions of people (in fact, most people) enjoy and want all the products we get from forests.

What you cannot accept yet is the realities of the next 10-30 years as we work our way converting from a society driven by fossil fuels to a different one. Wish as you might, compromises will need to be made.

What you have been so far unwilling to answer is how you plan on solving the issue of how to produce the myriad of products that come from oil (not energy products, but all the others)... products that we depend on for so many basic aspects of our lives. Plastics and base chemicals stand out high on that list. Have you done the calculations to understand just how large this volume of oil-replacement product actually is? Where's it going to come from?

You can take all the pictures of bad logging you wish and protest as loudly as you can, but it won't effect the items I've listed above one iota. You may... and hopefully will.. help move forest management towards a more sustainable form. But you won't slow down the use of forests and biomass the slightest, because it's necessary.

I know this frustrates you. I suggest you figure out how to work through this frustration. It's bad for your blood pressure. On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: One big correction, on forest area...

Jon,

First, your numbers are still off quite a bit. Total forested acreage in the US is around 750 million acres. I believe you were looking at just non-federal forest land area. So this doubles your figures.

Then, if the intention was simply to focus on growing biomass to produce electricity, the plan would need to include dedicated energy plantations producing 10-20 tons per acre per year. With these figures, it would be possible to produce all the electrical power in the US from something like 1/4 of US acreage.

But I can't see a good reason to focus on producing electricity from wood when we have solar, wind, hydro and other options for that. While there are specific locations now where it makes a lot of sense to create electricity from wood, these would be the exception, not the rule.

The focus for biomass in a sustainable energy economy must be, first and foremost, to displace oil for those key items where solar, wind and hydro have no effect... like plastics, chemicals and liquid fuels... as well as provide heat and even electricity during the interim years (let's say the next 30-40 years) as other renewables get up to steam.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Thank you

Thank you, Spaceshaper, for your kind words.
RichardOn Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: energy efficiency

Solar Greg:

This comparison of yours... relating 2,000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year to being equal in energy output to what you can get from an acre of solar panels in 4 days... is fairly meaningless.

For example, given the cost to install that acre of panels, you could grow dozens (or perhaps hundreds... I haven't done the math) of acres of biomass. So even on a strict dollars-to-energy basis, your comparison says little.

More importantly, though, you can't make plastic or rayon or chemicals or any liquid fuel from that DPW systems, and this was the context of the discussion.

RichardOn Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Harvest

John,

You asked:
"Are you repudiating or supporting tree farms?"

I do not support the conversion of healthy natural forests to tree farms. For existing tree farms, I support managing them in a way that reverts them back to a more natural state. How? Answered below.

That said, I believe it is possible to create "energy farms" of fast growing poplars, willows and other species that can be established and managed in as sustainable a manner as any organic food farm.

You asked:
"How do you suggest tree planting be done in cut areas?  In rows?  At random?  Leave a few large trees to reseed the forest?"

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, as the great majority of forest harvesting does not require any planting be done after the harvest. New growth occurs naturally. Perhaps you are referring to specific types of forests where clearcutting is normally considered the best option. I'm not that familiar with this type of situation, as I've never faced it. But I'd be comfortable with the prescription of foresters like those who are part of the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood program (I gave a link to before).

You asked:
"How do you recommend that tree farms be turned back into natural forest, if this is even possible?"

It is very possible. I've done it myself before. Just don't harvest all the trees when they reach commercial maturity. Leave enough (the percentage varies with different species) to keep an intact forest, then let other species start taking root (or introduce them when necessary). Over time, it'll revert back to a more natural state... and continue producing wood for conventional and energy purposes.

You asked:
"How does removing biomass and burning it for energy, either directly or for fuel conversion, return nutrients to the soil and sequester carbon?"

Please understand that it doesn't matter what you do with the tree after you harvest it. That factor has nothing to do with the soil quality itself and the issue of carbon sequestration. Any sustainable harvest (like those done by the Menominee, for example) maintains soil quality and at a minimum, keeps the volume of biomass per acre at a stable level over time (and can easily increase this level if the management is done well).

So if you have an acre containing 50 tons of biomass and you remove 15 tons, within 10 years or so that acre again contains 50 tons of biomass. This is why burning wood (in temperate forests.... NOT rain forests) is considered carbon neutral. The CO2 from the 15 tons of biomass that went into the air is sequestered back into the ground after the regrowth period occurs.

You asked:
"Why would removing biomass from forests to make liquid fuel for ICE vehicles be worth the risk, since transportation with plugin hybrids can be powered by renewable wind, solar, wave, and biogas electricity?"

Every expert I am aware of believes it will be 15-20 years or so, at best, before we can be done with liquid fuels for transportation. And this time period includes a fairly rapid conversion to electric cars. The earlier conversion to hybrids will still require liquid fuel. You understand this, right? All the solar, wind, etc. can't make this liquid fuel.

You said:
"Mismanagement of forests is the rule, not the exception."

I would tend to agree with this, but we're doing much better today than we were 15-20 years ago. Improvement is about all I can hope for. Continuing pressure from consumers and others will continue to shift the industry toward sustainable forestry.

You asked:
"The risk is that a rush for fuel from trees would further degrade forests.  Can any group guarantee they can stop that?"

Guarantees?... you know better than that. All we can do is work as hard as possible to make the entire matter of energy from biomass as sustainable and efficient as possible. There are many forces at work, most beyond our control (such as geopolitical issues, hurricanes, etc.), that will effect this outcome. What I know is that it is POSSIBLE to use biomass in a very positive way, and it carries numerous advantages that solar and wind don't have.

You asked:
"What is left over to use for liquid fuel production after "sustainable" harvest of forests for timber, chips for building material, and paper pulp?"

The woody material that would go to liquid fuel (or plastics or methane or natural gas or chemicals or whatever else comes from the conversion process) is often considered unsuitable for any other application. For example, in Vermont we have no pulp mill or wood panel production company anywhere in the state. So all of this material (the low-grade, over-crowded trees that are often part of an "improvement" harvest) have no market today and could go to energy.

You asked:
"What sort of machinery would be used to harvest trees?  Would it be the ones used now?  That guzzle diesel fuel and rip up the land and ecosystem?  Or with some of the recently developed scandanaivian technology that dioesn't tear up the ground?  Powered by renewable electricity."

I've always used the least impactful system. That's what I support. Yes, the Scandinavian approach is quite good. I support using the smallest machines possible that are economically viable. Too many in the forest industry use machines that are not appropriate for sustainable forestry.

You asked:
"What is done with slash and waste under FSC guidelines?  Is it chipped up for a use that returns nutrients and carbon to the soil or burned or left in place to feed fires?"

Under FSC rules, soil quality is vital, so residual materials must be handled in a way that assures healthy soils. The way this is done varies, depending on many factors. The issue of reducing fire damage is always factored in.

Please understand that sustainable forestry is no different in terms of goals than organic food farming. The same mentality drives both... protect the Earth while producing products people need.

You asked:
"Describe the total energy and biomass balance of a "sustainably" managed forest, how much biomass can be removed for fuel production before soil nutrients and carbon are diminished by the process.  For instance, how would forest ecosystems fix nitrogen and other nutrients to offset the removal?"

I've already answered this question by stating that these issues are always factored into every sustainable forest management plan. For example, the Menominee (and many others) do what you've asked every time they harvest. It's simply a given: maintain, or improve, soil quality. It doesn't matter whether you make a piece of furniture, a wad of paper, or you heat a room with the trees you harvest.

You asked:
"Would fertilizer be added?  Where would that fetilizer come from and what would be the GHG imbalance from applying it?"

Fertilizer is never needed in a sustainably managed forest.

You asked:
"With plugin hybrids powered by solar and other renewable electricity, meddling in natural ecosystems is not necessary.  Why use an approach with all this risk, when this safer path would provide all the transportation energy we need in a GHG free fashion?"

I already answered this question. There's no escaping the need for liquid fuels for at least another 15 years... not to mention replacements for all the other items we get from oil.

You asked:
"With all the trees killed by climate change related drought and disease, why would we need to cut live healthy trees for fiber and construction materials?"

Because we have plenty of forests... a great abundance... and despite all the lousy forestry still being done, we have increasingly more and more trees (in North America) every day. Many people prefer homes made from wood; furniture and flooring made from wood; paper; and many of the 5,000 other products that come from wood.

Hope that helps answer some of your questions.
RichardOn Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

John and Jon

I'm going to take the time to respond to each of the questions in your last posts later today. Obviously, it's going to take a good deal of time to do that, but I'm happy to take a stab at it.

And John... thanks for asking questions! Now we're getting somewhere.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: In short, not a word about biomass

Jonas,

Thanks for this excellent post. Now let's hear folks refute these points with studies and facts, if any believe differently. If not, readers should take in what Jonas has said, because biomass is already big, will grow much bigger, and has an important role to play in the alternative, renewable energy sector.

RichardOn Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

At least you're trying

Sorry, folks, for the mistaken spelling in my last Subject line. It's still early in the morning...On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Let the community judge

John,

Your tone is modifying somewhat, and I even hear something of an apology in there. It's weak, but I am hearing you say you'll back off on distorting what I (and others) say. Yes, stick to the facts... that would be much better.

But you go on to say, "I'm not backing down on the facts!", as if you have stated any facts that I disagreed with? Please, tell us which facts you're not backing down on. But remember, you'll need to document these statements. Without that, they're not facts... just opinions which may have little or no credibility.

As far as my behavior is concerned, I take pride in listening well and trying hard to understand the positions of others. But when my statements are distorted and my integrity is questioned, I can get much tougher. If you continue to treat me as you have, you'll continue to get the same response. Treat me fairly and state my positions as you hear them, and you'll find me a very civilized, courteous debater. On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Maybe I can clear up some of the confusion

Jon,

I share this same concern: "it seems clear that lumber companies will pull their normal shenanigans and mine the forest if left to their own devices." Wishing it to not happen, though (I'm not saying you're doing that), won't make it so. It'll take hard work, patient discussion, creativity and tolerance.

With respect to the communication between John and I, it will get personal if he continues to twist my words and lie about what I say. No one should settle for their integrity being challenged. It is not acceptable and should not be tolerated on Gristmill.

John has work to do. He's been challenged to defend statements he has made. Let's see what he comes up with.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

It's Gristmill's loss

I thought I'd stop back here for a moment to see if the conversation continued, only to find out it has degraded even further.

Now I see that despite everything I have said about my background, my orientation and my work, John has taken to completely distort who I am and what I do. The fact that this site even TOLERATES this is proof Gristmill is a sham... nothing more than a hate-spewing site for immature boys to vent their frustrations because they are incapable of bringing about meaningful change in the world.

I hope there are a few here that have at least listened to my words and understand that I am deeply passionate about protecting the world's forests. I can guarantee you my passion for trees and forests runs just as deeply as John's and Wolverine's and Whisferfish.

The difference is, I chose years ago to get involved IN the world and figure out what I could do to change the way logging and forestry are typically done. It is a very difficult undertaking. Compromises need to be made along the way toward eventual victory. Intelligent and patient discussions are necessary with people on the other side who would prefer to simply mine the world's forests. My job is to find a way to move them toward sustainability... not distance them further. It requires a certain level of patience and tolerance.... something John and his friends have little of.

John.... I say this man to man. You should be ashamed of yourself. If I was standing in front of you and you could feel my heart, you'd know how terribly wrong your words have been. Same for you, Wolverine and Whiskerfish. Grow up, guys.

Until you do, your dreams for a healthier, more peaceful, world are driven further away by your lies, distortions and hate. We can't afford this any longer. The work begins INSIDE each of us first. The anger and intolerance in folks like John only fuels the outer destruction of our planet we all wish to see come to an end.

When Gristmill puts in place a better system of moderation, this site may actually grow into something that can have a positive impact on the world. Until then, folks like myself... serious people doing serious work... will see it as little more than a playpen for immature boys and girls to throw their toys at others who wander in for a look around.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: That's a big problem

John,

This response of your ignores everything we've been discussing in the past few days, and actually coming to increasingly greater agreement on. Very disappointing. That's enough for me. I prefer not to engage with you again. I'm not that great a fool.On Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

re: Well, now we know

Just a little exercise... it's just an exercise, folks...

The people producing hybrid energy-grade trees tell us they're heading towards yields of 20 tons per acre per year. The cellulosic ethanol people are already at 100 gallons of liquid fuel per ton. So each acre of ground can produce 2000 gallons of liquid fuel per year.

We use 21,000,000 barrels per day total oil in the US, or around 900 million gallons per day. At 365 days, that's 330 billion gallons per year.

Divide that by 2000 gallons means you'd need 165 million acres to replace all the oil we use in the US each year. We have around 750 million acres of forest land alone... plus another 300+ million acres of farm land... plus 100 million or so acres of marginal non-crop land.

Plenty of land... and that's just in the US.

Again.. this is just an exercise. Let's not argue the merits of it.On Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

How does this sit with you

Take a look at this technology and tell me how it sits with you. This company has raised a lot of money: http://www.greatpointenergy.com/biomass.htmOn Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

re: Hooray For Whiskerfish!

Wolverine,

Here's the thing... no one, outside of a very, very small group of people... takes you seriously when you take this kind of position. People see you using all kinds of wood products and view you as a hypocrite. People who live in and near forests, and have made a living for decades harvesting and caring for forests, see you as out of touch and disrespectful of their lifestyle.

Fact is, wood use is only increasing. Forests continue to be harvested every day. You can yell all you want from the sidelines, but it changes nothing.

Go see the Menominee Nation's forest, then report back here what you experienced. Until then, your view will seen by most as seriously misinformed.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Biomass

I don't want to get into a debate about this because I just finished a long one ("Biofuel for the flames") and don't have the time to engage in another right now. You folks can discuss it amongst yourselves. I'll just point out a couple of facts, keeping in mind that I am NOT talking about including corn ethanol in this discussion... just woody biomass:

1. The use of biomass as energy far exceeded the use of solar and wind.... COMBINED... according to the latest government figures in 2007 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html). Most folks just don't realize how energy self-reliant the forest products sector is, and tend to leave this out of the equation. But it's as valid a source and use of energy as any other.

2. Since the standing volume of timber available today exceeds the volume of timber available yesterday, and last year, and the year before (this has been the trend for years), it's fair to say no significant GHG's were added to the Earth because of this biomass energy. Trees are pulling out the CO2 from the atmosphere just as fast (or faster) than any burning of them (in the US) is putting CO2 back in.

3. All of this biomass displaced a great deal of energy which would otherwise have come from burning coal, oil or natural gas.

re: FSC cont.

Whiskerfish:

I'll not go into each of your points individually, because you've demonstrated you can't debate a point without distorting what others say.

That said, I've made it unquestionably clear in my last response to you that the FSC is not perfect. In fact, I was one of the loudest critics early on, demanding a higher level of independence for the FSC and its agents, as well as tougher inspections. The FSC still has some growing to do... and it does need to do that rather quickly. Time will tell if it succeeds at this. If not, something better will come along, because those in the marketplace (like yourself) will demand a higher level of quality from any certification brand which seeks to label wood products as "sustainably harvested".

The matter of what the impact could be to forests if, and when, the use of forest biomass for energy substantially increases, is something of great concern to me. So in this respect, I share your warnings and concerns. It could get out of hand... no question about it.

But here's the thing: there's not a lot that can be done to stop the increased use of biomass for energy, because it's available, cheap, distributed and uses known technology (not including cellulosic ethanol, which is not quite proven yet). So rather than sitting on the sidelines complaining about it, I suggest doing something NOW to avoid the worst impacts and create the best.

I am aggressively moving ahead with my own plans to establish a biomass-based energy business I think you would be comfortable with. I'll tell you that the standards my business will use to ensure sustainable forestry will be at the upper end of what the FSC supports. And if the FSC can't get its act together to independently certify what I do... and do so with enough integrity that competitors can't slip by with significantly lower performance... I'll be devoting a good part of my time to creating a competitor to the FSC. Because your concerns are valid, and when energy use drives forest harvesting, the impacts could potentially dwarf what the FSC is currently doing with respect to standard wood products.

We definitely don't want that evil genie to leave the bottle.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: CCC revival to revive forests

Well, John... we WERE getting more on track together. But why do you say this when it's just silly:

"burning it for energy is scarcely better than forest fire, from a GHG stand point."

If you burn it for energy, you MUST factor in the oil or coal that is displaced. This means you're reducing the GHG contribution by roughly 1/2! To say this is "scarcely better" is silly.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: I'll look at the FSC standards RD

John (amazingdrx),

There's far more in this post of yours that I agree with, than disagree with. We're probably much closer on this topic than our debating might seem to show.

I'm happy to leave it at that.. for now, anyway.

RichardOn Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: FSC

Whiskerfish,

I don't think I have any misunderstanding of the FSC, as I am one of the original very small group of founders. I know exactly what it's about and the tensions within it. I should point out I have not been directly associated with the FSC for the past 7-8 years, so this does not reflect any personal ongoing connection I have with it.

The FSC is not perfect... just as you most certainly are not. It is learning as it goes, just as you are. However, the principles of sustainable forestry underlying the FSC are the best we have in the world today, as far as trying to find a balance between protecting forests and the requirements of industry to produce large volume of product at affordable prices. This is a very difficult balance to maintain.

One thing is certain and that is that the presence of the FSC has dramatically shifted the way forest harvesting has been done over the past 17 years toward something much more sustainable than it was. This has resulted in hundreds of millions of acres of forest being harvested in a more respectful, careful manner. This is certainly a good thing.

With respect to the issue of certified paper, I share your concern and have spoken out strongly to the FSC about it. I hope we'll see a change in policy before long.

To describe the FSC as a "deeply flawed organization" is unproductive and silly, and simply shows immaturity on your part. Have you done better or more than the FSC? If so, please tell us of your long list of accomplishments. I'm all ears.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: I would include

Amazingdrx,

Your concerns about what is "sustainable forestry" and what isn't is very much a fair and important discussion. And I have no doubt too much of what is happening in Wisconsin is NOT sustainable forestry. And you should be concerned with this.

This is exactly why the FSC was created... and created by (as I've said several times already) leading environmental groups (along with many others). We need independent bodies to certify the kind of forestry taking place. Otherwise, we have nothing to assure it is taking place... and too many in the forest products industry will revert back to "timber mining" and worse.

It's the same as with organic food. We have independent certifiers who MUST certify any claims of "organic". I'm not buying organic food unless I KNOW it is produced organically. The claim of the manufacturer itself isn't good enough for me.

So demand that any biomass used for energy be grown and harvested according to FSC standards. It's the only assurance we have that forests will increase in health... not decline.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Battles of the last millenium

Backcut,

First of all, one of the main reasons clearcuts are no longer allowed in most US Forest Service forests is because of the FSC and the work of the environmental community. I was there in the midst of that fight in the late 80's and I know this for a fact. Pressure from numerous big wood users who wanted to stop the boycotts led them to help force an end to the mess of that earlier time. But you probably know that.

With respect to my statements about clearcutting and conversion of diverse forests to plantations, I didn't say this a big problem on public lands. But it remains a big problem on private lands, and the great majority of US forests lie in private hands.

With respect to the issue of cutting larger trees in thinning projects, I understand very much the challenge you folks face. It has been hard to do these necessary thinning projects and make them commercially viable without adding in a few big, mature trees here and there. But it is this piece which still causes the tension, because there's too much variability in what one forester might want to include in a stand cut (in terms of how many, and which, mature trees to mark for sale) versus another forester. There's also not enough of a thorough inspection process to make sure the loggers then remove only the designated trees. Until this tension is resolved, many of these (needed) thinnings won't take place.

The solution is to use an INDEPENDENT body, like an FSC certification agent, to oversee the harvest. This gives the environmental community the comfort it needs to support the thinnings.

But something much more important is now taking place, and it's something most foresters just don't quite understand yet. Because of the dramatic increase in the price of energy, the value of trees which should be removed as part of a thinning has now risen DRAMATICALLY... more than enough to offset a reduction in the harvesting of mature timber while still making the harvest very profitable... more profitable than ever before. The problem is, there's still a disconnect between the value of using this wood to offset oil and coal as energy, versus the value of this wood as a conventional forest product. Until that connection is made, this wood will be greatly under-valued, leading to tension and a lack of progress on conducting the necessary thinnings. But it'll be figured out before long, and when it is, I think you'll find resolution to many of the challenges at hand.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Sobering article on electric vehicle conversion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121640867386365903.html?m ...On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Sustainability?

Justlou,

I understand your concerns.

What I suggest you do is visit a sustainably managed forest and decide for yourself once you've actually seen and felt what this means. Restrain judgment until then. I'd be happy to suggest such a forest within reach of you if you wish to visit one. They can be found throughout the US and Canada.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Apology, and more

First, I'll apologize to Wolverine for calling him ignorant.

After using that phrase, I reflected back on a time in my earlier days... I was around 21-22... went I was a Psychology major in college and boarding with a student majoring in Forestry. Coming from an upbringing in which I had had no exposure to logging and forestry work... and seeking to live a "least impact possible, vegetarian, spiritual seeker" lifestyle... I tended to argue with this fellow daily about the merits of cutting trees. To me, it seemed unnecessary, even brutal and barbaric.

Of course, I was ignorant (or my thinking was ignorant... however you want to put it, Ron). I was totally disconnected from the fact that I loved (and depended on) wooden things in my life... furniture, wood flooring, wall paneling, newspapers and books, rayon clothes, cereal boxes, toothpaste, baseball bats, and many of the other 5,000 or so products that come from trees.

I hadn't worked a day in my life in the woods. I had had no exposure to cultures that lived in intimate harmony with forests, using trees to sustain their lives while carefully managing those forests... cultures like the Swedes, Norwegians, and Germans... you know, rather intelligent people.

As fate would have it, after graduating from college, I went out into the deep forests of Vermont to build a community of like-minded people. I wanted to build my own home (a log cabin), completely disconnected from the grid, in the middle of a forest along a beaver pond. I bought a chain saw, determined to do this on my own with a few friends... but knowing nothing about what I was doing. I cut my first tree... and completely fell in love with working in the woods.

The next 30 years were spent learning what it means to work with forests in a sustainable manner... learning what it takes to make sure everyone else who fully enjoys the benefits of using wood in their lives can be sure that someone took the time to harvest those trees with the most respect and care they could.

I also quickly learned that tremendous volumes of trees were being cut every day by others who were in it just for the money... who saw forests as simply a resource to be mined. I saw it could be done differently and set about to provide wood products that were harvested with care and respect.

At a certain point, everyone gets to choose if they're going to live in a cave (which is a fair choice) or out in the world at large. If you're in the modern world, you're using wood. If you care about your impact on the environment, then you need to support those who supply wood products which reduce impact on the environment. It's that simple.

But it's also more complex, because so many of the products we use are dependent on oil... like the plastics that make up your computer (Wolverine). I'd much rather know that this plastic came from a renewable tree harvested sustainably than from another gallon of oil. And soon I'll be able to make that choice.

Fact is, 99% of US forests have been cut at one time or another. There are essentially no "virgin" forests left in the US. Mankind has left its mark on forests everywhere, and in many cases, the harvesting of the past was not done sustainably. We have a chance now to undo some of that damage... to help forests become more productive and more complex, while growing better soil and producing more diverse habitat. And... we can still get the benefits of having large volumes of wood products available for many kinds of important products.

Think about all the things in your life that originate from forests... then think about all the products you use that come from non-renewable sources. Which would you prefer to support?On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Ignorant

Wolverine,

Thank you for showing all of us just how truly ignorant you are.

So you, like one of your friends earlier, also disagree with the position of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, WWF and most other environmental groups who not only support sustainable forestry but helped found the FSC (www.fsc.org) to promote it around the world. But that's right... I believe Earth First! never quite came on board with it. Guess your part of that wing of the environmental movement. That's OK. Like I said, ignorant. But you've got as much right being here as the next person and I'll continue to respect that. It's just few people could consider your positions as being intelligent, let alone respectful of the millions of indigenous and local peoples around the world who understand what it means to work in harmony with the Earth.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Evidence?

Ron,

I hear your frustration with the subsidy situation. Government supports have been all over the place over the years regarding many alternative energy endeavors, as well as other non-energy ventures. I share a lot of your frustration and agree "fairness" and appropriateness don't seem to be part of the equation.

We'll just have to see what happens.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

CE Subsidies

Ron,

The issue with cellulosic ethanol right now is that there are at least 10 different approaches to producing it, and no one knows for certain which will work and which will work best. This is the primary reasons subsidies are needed. This kind of research needs to take place. Everyone will be ultimately well served by it. But it is very risky (and expensive) for investors. They won't take these risks without help from the government.

Once one or two processes are shown to work well, I believe the subsidies should be (and will be) phased out fairly quickly.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Keep demonstrating just how biased you are

Amazingdrx,

Are you not aware that Mr. Gore is part of two firms that continue to make substantial investments in cellulosic ethanol? Seems he thinks it's a good idea as well. But you fail to mention this.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor

1Eco,

Yes, that title (the footer to your post) says a lot. There are few options for rural communities with as much potential as increased use of biomass for energy. Unlike solar and wind (two technologies I fully embrace), biomass-based energy is labor intensive. Unlike coal, oil and natural gas, it is highly decentralized and available in the majority of States. It takes advantage of the kind of skills more common amongst rural people and provides jobs more akin to their lifestyles. It generates and keeps energy dollars local.

Because of historical reasons, the biomass we can take advantage of is already standing in our forests. No need to incur any new costs to plant it; no need to wait for it to grow. The key, though, is to make sure it is harvested sustainably... meaning, remove no more than grows back in a relatively short period of time; create the least disturbance possible; maintain or enhance wildlife and soil quality; and in the case of biomass, remove the diseased, over-crowded and deformed trees. Leave the biggest and best standing.

The volumes available are huge. The cost to extract it is low. And the technologies to use it are varied, giving us heat, electric power or (soon) a replacement for oil which can be used as a transport fuel or to create plastic and many other items typically produced from oil.

Biomass has been competitive with oil for many years... way before solar or wind. But the technology has tended to attract a different crowd of researchers, investors and environmentalists than solar and wind. But that's changing now (though apparently not so for Amazingdrx, GreyFlcn and a few other holdouts here).

I've been working in this sector for about 30 years. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you might have. I maintain a web site (www.thecesite.com) to track who is doing what in the cellulosic ethanol sector. The developments are fascinating and hold much promise.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: I wasn't talking about R&D subsidies, RD

Ron,

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable to pay substantial subsidies to cellulosic ethanol producers when CE is commercialized and a regular, ongoing production process. I might agree with you, but we're not there yet. Everything happening with CE today is still in the R&D phase, even when we're in the stage of demonstrating that CE is commercially viable. These subsidies are completely appropriate and necessary right now. Down the road, I might well agree with you.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Just isn't so RD

Amazingdrx,

Stubborn as ever. Why do you continue to make silly statements that demonstrate your ignorance on specific topics you know little about? Why don't you try... just for a change... saying you're not certain and have a question?

Show me evidence that this statement of yours is true when applied to sustainable forest harvesting practiced under the guidelines of the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)?

"The natural carbon cycle is interrupted when biomass, grown on land that naturally would sequester that carbon, is turned into fuel and burned."

I mean, obviously some kind of natural cycle is interrupted, but I'm assuming you are saying that the effects of the sustainable forestry and energy production process results in a carbon positive problem. Prove this, please.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Understanding biomass

The problem for many who comment on alternative energy possibilities is that it's actually much more difficult to understand the issues behind producing (and utilizing) biomass, in contrast to solar, wind and hydro.

There are many horror stories out there about rainforest destruction, old-growth logging, clearing forests for biofuels and such. This has created a certain justifiable wariness about utilizing wood and similar feedstocks for energy. But it says nothing about the potential to utilize biomass on a sustainable basis (something being done every day by countless companies around the world).

As I said, though, it's harder to understand the mechanisms, costs and issues involved in biomass production than solar or wind, so too many simply grab onto any of the horror stories and use those as a basis to form a negative opinion about biomass. But this is not "truth"... it's simply becoming comfortable with ignorance and playing it safe. This serves no one.

As someone who has spent years in the field producing biomass sustainably, I know it can be done and I know what the costs are. I know how vast the resource is and I know how much larger it can become.

When folks have an agenda, they'll take a position on something that they have no direct experience with, rather than saying "I just don't know how to evaluate this." I encourage GreyFln, Amazingdrx and others here to consider this. On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Tough to swallow

Folks,

Amazingdrx, GreyFlcn and a few other characters here will never budge on the issue of the viability of cellulosic ethanol to positively impact climate and energy issues... and that's OK. Because their naive positions in the face of volumes of contrary evidence will not, FOR ONE SECOND, stop the dramatic increase in the use of sustainably-produced biomass for energy.

These folks have not demonstrated any actual experience in working with biomass. They simply have agendas to promote other renewables that, from their limited perspectives, cannot co-exist with potentially competing options. But this won't stop a thing.

In the 2nd quarter, venture capitalists poured funds into cellulosic ethanol development at a rate faster than was put into Internet tech or genetic research companies (http://www.altassets.com/news/arc/2008/nz13769.php).

New CE facilities are being built at an increasingly faster pace to demonstrate both advancements in the technology, as well as commercial viability (http://www.thecesite.com).

Results on the viability of growing switchgrass continue to be more favorable (http://scienceblogs.com/energy/2008/07/life_as_we_know_it ...).

Articles describing the potential of CE in the US show clearly how big a contributor CE can be (http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=462).

This train won't be stopped. And that's a good thing, because anyone who has ever worked in the sustainable forestry and farming sectors knows the potential for growing and using biomass in harmony with the Earth.On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

re: Dead Thread

amazingdrx... this is exactly how folks respond when they have an agenda which has nothing to do with the statements others are making or the facts at hand. They simply ignore details and questions presented to them, instead focusing on gibberish and grandiose conclusions about issues they just barely know something about.

I have stayed with this game long enough. If and when you are your friends are ready to debate about facts, and answer questions with respect to the detail and specifics of the question, we may be able to engage again.

Until then, you should do yourself a favor and stop making your voice irrelevant. I really do believe you have something valuable to contribute, but your way of going about it is not working for you or your friends.On Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 111 Responses

One last try

biodiversivist, amazingdrx, justlou, etc...

First, to RBColeman... thanks for your words. As near as I can tell, these are a bunch of kids whose hearts are well meaning and have a fire burning within. I understand that and actually appreciate it. In time, they'll learn how to debate respectfully, and in particular, really listen openly to others and consider budging from their stated positions when the facts so dictate. But you're right.. it is probably a waste of my time to hope this might occur now.

Let's make clear a few issues about my stated position. Don't mix my positions with others. LISTEN to what I say and then respond ONLY to what I say.

1. I do NOT support land use change, unless that change applies to abandoned farm land, involves planting that does not require excessive fertilizer (preferably none or only organic fertilizer) and water inputs, and grows something that is highly sustainable. The determination of whether this process is sustainable or not MUST be done by a group which has widespread support from major environmental groups (NRDC, Sierra Club, NWF, Greenpeace, etc.)

2. Sustainable forestry (at least as it is defined by the FSC) IS endorsed by every one of those above groups. Why? Because we know it is sustainable... meaning, the forest continues to grow as well OR BETTER after the harvesting takes place. We know this from studying forests that have been managed this way over the past 100-200 years. Carbon in the ground increases... biodiversity increases... people have jobs they love... rural communities benefit.

3. Cellulosic ethanol is coming. There are at least 100 companies working intensely on the subject, with billions of dollars invested. The science has been reviewed by established, reputable firms and they tell us it will work. Some very smart people are investing a lot of money into this, and their record of investing is very good. BUT, they need to do it right, and many people (like myself) will be watching carefully to see that they do. If they start to depend on poorly-chosen feedstocks or use production processes that are questionable, their investments will be at risk and many will speak out.

4. It is a fact that it is POSSIBLE to harvest biomass sustainably and turn it into energy. This could be done well and contribute in a large and positive manner to the energy issue, or it can be done poorly. We need to steer it in a positive direction. But arguing that it is inherently a bad idea is silly. If you continue to do this, it indicates you have an agenda... meaning, you're not willing to discuss facts; you're not willing to change your position; and you don't know how to find acceptable compromise with other human beings in a world that demands this.

re: Forest thinnings

Thanks, spaceshaper, for some good questions.

Here's what I know from some 25 years working on sustainable forestry issues.

1. A very large portion of our forests are in poor health due to poor harvesting practices over the past 100 years (primarily, high-grading and conversion of natural forests to monocultures). This doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of biomass there... it just means these forests are not nearly as healthy as they could be. We need markets for low-grade trees in order to reverse the cycle of "removing the best and leaving the rest." Whether that market is for cellulosic ethanol, direct combustion to produce electricity, paper, building products, firewood, pellets... those answer are not clear. Many factors will determine this outcome. In the end, some bad choices will be made, as well as many good ones. But if cellulosic ethanol technology can produce inexpensive, renewable liquid fuel, and should there be a good reason to use this product over others, it'll come about. I don't know the answer to this yet, and I doubt anyone else does for certain as of yet.

2. A lot of abandoned farmland could be turned back into productive forests which could be managed sustainably to produce a wide range of products, as well as rich biodiversity and other non-economic values.

3. If the extraction of woody biomass from intact forests is left to the conventional forest products industry, without adequate market controls, we could be facing a disaster. I am very concerned about this. But it doesn't have to go this way. I know there are quite a few groups working to make sure this doesn't happen. I'm involved in that effort as well. Let's hope and work toward success... and stay vigilant for anything else.

re: with gay abandon

Thanks for this more reasonable post.

I don't know the actual breakdown in terms of the current state of abandoned farmland in this country, but I'm sure a meaningful percentage of it is already reverting to forest and other original habitats. On these lands, it seems to me, we'd need to be quite careful in how they are approached as potential feedstock sources. However, this certainly does not mean they can't be used to support the biofuel sector... it simply means (at least for forests) that they need to be managed sustainably.

I was recently invited to view a research forest plot in Vermont that was being sustainably harvested (by the University of Vermont) to measure impacts and yields. This forest was probably 30 years old. It had 65 tons of forested biomass per acre. They were removing 20 tons (mostly to alleviate over-crowding) specifically to be used as feedstock for energy. This is what a sustainable harvest looks like.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Menominee tribal forests in Wisconsin, you can see the effects of 150 years of sustainable forestry on 220,000 acres. I can only say that this forest is incredible in terms of health and productivity. Managing U.S. forests like this to produce forest products and energy would be a blessing (with, of course, leaving aside a significant percentage of our forests in a completely untouched state).

In terms of abandoned farmlands reverting back to native grasses and other non-forest habitat, the call to use those lands to grow switchgrass or other energy crops would need to be made on a case by case basis.... and always designed to minimize carbon storage losses. But I'd agree with you that in some cases, they would be better left in the state they are currently in.On Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 111 Responses

Your agenda blinds you

This last post of yours, amazingdrx, was so blatantly over the top that I just had to respond. Maybe with this post you'll begin to see how your agenda blinds you.

I was VERY SPECIFIC... as was the Science study... in specifying that my point was relative to abandoned cropland only. What you did was to twist that into "prairie lands". There's no question that taking native prairie lands and converting those to any biofuel is not sustainable... at least with the current systems being discussed. But I was VERY SPECIFIC in NOT talking about that. Yet you twisted it around to say something different, because you have an agenda. This is how agenda's work. They twist what someone else is saying so that the speaker can feel "right".

If, in fact, you are stating that taking abandoned farmland and planting switchgrass must, by its nature, be a problem, then you are directly contradicting the results of the Science study. I am quite sure you have no evidence to support that conclusion.On Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 111 Responses

"Biofuels bombshell" lacks credibiliy

I don't post here often because I find there's an underlying agenda from folks like amazingdrx, justlou, diodiversivist and others that undercuts the credibility of much of what they write. Clearly, their hearts are in the right place, but their agenda causes them to change or leave it critical facts. An example is this "biofuels bombshell" blog.

A few critical facts have been left out from the discussion of this Science study.

1. Switchgrass and other potential feedstock sources for cellulosic ethanol can be planted without negative impact on abandoned farmland (of which there is something like 200 million acres in the U.S.). The problem discussed in the study comes from converting native grasslands or forests to switchgrass... NOT from planting on land which was previously used as farmland. When people leave out important facts like this, all credibility is lost.

2. There is no discussion in the report about using wood harvested sustainably from forests as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol... clearly, because this is not a problem.

On the other hand, I think the issues raised by this study are vitally important and need to be headed. Clearing forests to produce biofuels; converting savannah and native grasslands; even converting abandoned farmland to corn ethanol, are all problematic and should not be utilized.

Let's try to keep the facts straight.

Coskata and other companies are on track to produce cellulosic ethanol at $1.00 per gallon. While questions remain, this could well turn into an important component of the renewable energy mix of the future.On Researchers find corn ethanol, switchgrass could worsen global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 111 Responses

re: One flaw RD

When you say things like, "any amount of biomass, not returned to the soil, burning tress rather than letting them compost into the soil, for instance, is unsustainable", you simply lose all credibility. There's just no truth in this statement. It's pure fiction and silly. The fact is, if you remove a "typical" tree from a forest in the U.S. and a new one grows in its place, there's no significant impact on climate change. This is less true if the tree is hundreds of years old, and it's not true if one was removed from a rainforest. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about using lower-quality trees, trees from overstocked forests, diseased trees and others which can be sustainably harvested. This would be some of the feedstock for fueling a CE market, and removing these can be done sustainably and need not contribute to climate change. In fact, some researchers believe that a process like this could actually create a net increase in CO2 sequestration in the ground through increased forest growth. The verdict is just not in on this yet.

When you talk about putting solar panels on farm building and wind machines on the fields, I have to assume you live in a city. In my neck of the woods (northern Vermont), almost every wind project proposed in the state has been turned down. Why? No one wants to look at the things off in the distance... let alone up close on a farmer's field! And solar panels? Well, some day the economics of this will make sense, but not today. That is a simple fact.

More importantly, all the wind machines and solar panels placed into production today would have virtually no significant impact on the transportation sector... not for at least 15 years (some say more like 20-50 years). You simply can't ignore the existing infrastructure and transportation system we now have and wish it away. It just doesn't work like that.

It's time for folks like you to get real. I don't like what exists today any more than you do. But I can't ignore it. On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

re: Banning biofuels would be simplistic

There are so many problems with this post that it's hard to know where to start.

You make the argument that if supplies were curtailed from the Middle East, we'd simply be able to buy our oil elsewhere, as supply availability shifted. This is a seriously flawed and simplistic argument. Yes, oil at some price might be available elsewhere... though there are certainly no guarantees of that. But the bigger problem is that the shock of the shutdown of Middle Eastern oil would drive the price of oil so high that our economy would be seriously threatened. THIS is the concern... pricing... not just availability.

Next, you seem to be implying that converting the entire infrastructure of service stations over to something other than liquid fuel shouldn't be too difficult or expensive. You're saying that the argument that corn-based ethanol is helping to "prime the pump" for cellulosic ethanol is flawed. I'd like you to document why you think it would be fairly easy to convert the existing infrastructure from liquid fuel to some other type of transportation system. I can't seem to find that evidence anywhere.

You then go on to infer that a substantial part of the argument for the existence of our current corn ethanol refineries is so they can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol when the time comes. Are you serious? I know of no expert who has put this forth. It would make no logistical, economic or technical sense and would not be viable.

Next, you say that a free market would not, by its nature, need millions (or billions) of dollars of investment from the government into the development of new technology. What? Have you ever heard of the Internet? Or perhaps space travel? How about genetic research? I'm guessing there might be another... I don't know... few hundred instances in which government funding was the catalyst for new and useful technologies that, following a very risky development period, were taken over by the free market.

Finally, you argue that there's a real possibility what will actually happen is that we'll turn our attention to importing ethanol from sugarcane-based producers in Latin America... leading, in turn, to destruction of the rainforests. Therefore, cellulosic ethanol, according to you, could all be just a scam.

How do you come up with this stuff? On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

re: From Fisk to Flame!

I am not an expert on cellulosic ethanol production, but I do know many different approaches are being tried, including some that do not use hydrolysis. In fact, there are so many different approaches being researched, that I felt the need to keep track of what all these companies are doing. You can find this information at my web site: www.theCEsite.com. (I'm not selling anything there... just keeping track of who's doing what.)

My sense is that there's a lot at stake here with CE and a lot of people watching carefully from the sidelines. I think the likelihood of a company succeeding with misguided or inappropriate technology is far less likely than in the past. But that doesn't mean it won't happen, and I'm probably just as concerned about this as you are. It's good to ask these kinds of questions and keep a close eye on developments in this sector. I believe it holds tremendous promise, but it could also go very wrong if short-sighted technology is used or unsustainable harvesting methods (regardless of the feedstock).

It's simply far too early to make any educated statements about the ultimate value of cellulosic ethanol in solving energy and climate change problems. But educated and fair questions... those are great.On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

re: Burning Money

Once again, another person responding with their own agenda...one which pays little attention to what others have written. It's really impossible to have effective dialogue like this.

Please do a little research into the meaning of sustainable forestry as defined by the Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org) which was founded, in part, by most of the major environmental groups. If you do, you would understand that it is pointless for you to talk about "rapid deforestation" in response to a post that is discussing the role of sustainable forestry in the production of biomass-based energy.

Also, as has been pointed out before, you simply can't lump corn-based ethanol production and cellulosic ethanol together in the same breath. To say "ethanol in cars does not make economic thermal dynamic sense" is simply an incomplete, if not useless, statement. While it may be true corn ethanol has a questionable energy balance, the balance for cellulosic ethanol is expected to be far different... perhaps by a factor of 10 times or more. Yes, it's true that much of this is still speculative, but it is founded on good research. We'll know for certain in a couple of years if the work being done now yields the hoped for results. If it does, cellulosic ethanol could make a lot of sense. If it doesn't, so be it. In that case, there are numerous other options for effective, sustainable use of biomass as an energy source. The point is, sustainable forestry and wood for energy are part of the solution in addressing the issues of energy, climate change and the health of rural communities.On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

Sad Commentary

At some point, you'll begin to realize that posts like yours are actually the worst kind of "pollution" on this planet. You have personal work to do. You do not serve the Earth through vicious attacks like your post against Mr. Khosla.

You call yourself a champion of biodiversity? Start in your own back yard. Do you know that some 97% of our original US forests are gone... those which had the most biodiversity? The loss is perhaps most striking in your neck of the woods. What's your plan to recover some of this loss? You think it's responsible to simply leave the mess behind without making an effort to repair it?

There are some of us who have been working hard on this front for a long time, while waiting for a market like that of cellulosic ethanol to become realized. Why? Because to undo the mess in our forests, we need a market for the millions of tons of low-quality, diseased and over-crowded trees which saturate too many forests today as a direct result of poor forest management from the past. We need markets to support the undoing of decades of "scientific" forest management which has left too many forests seriously lacking in biodiversity, looking more like wooded corn fields than diverse natural forests.  

It doesn't matter much to me whether these markets take the form of cellulosic ethanol, biomass-to-cogeneration plants or some other technology. The important thing is that SOME markets show up quickly so we can get this work underway.

No one knows for sure how things will unfold on this planet over the next 10-20 years. However, I can imagine a number of scenarios in which a direct replacement for oil and gas here in the U.S. could be vitally important. It's a serious stretch to imagine much of the current liquid fuels sector being replaced with some other technology during this time frame. Bottom line: we need a renewable, indigenous replacement for liquid fuels ASAP, and cellulosic ethanol has perhaps the best chance of being that. For those who don't yet know, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are two very different creatures. The latter has few of the major disadvantages of the former, though this potential is certainly not firm or realized yet.

Beyond the issue of energy and climate change, however, there is a perhaps equally compelling reason why we need to pay more attention to the benefits of using biomass to solve some of these problems... and it's a reason that cannot be addressed through solutions like wind, solar and electric vehicles. I speak of the health of rural communities.

Our rural communities are dying as jobs continue to flee to cities here and abroad. What can change this? The single greatest option for dramatic revival of these communities stems from increased SUSTAINABLE use of their natural resources... this being forests in many parts of the country, but also numerous other types of plants which already grow, or could be grown, throughout the U.S. to support a biomass energy marketplace. This resource is sorely underutilized now because markets don't yet exist for much of this material (yes, there are obviously markets for wood, but I'm speaking of markets for the lowest-quality wood... the trees which have tended to be left behind while we have removed the better quality ones over the past 100+ years or so). Instead, we import oil into countless rural communities, while we watch these towns slowly die out, all the while sitting on an oil replacement right in their own back yards.

Yes, an approach like this would need to be handled sustainably, but mechanisms for this already exist (for example, the Forest Stewardship Council's forest certification system). Tens of thousands of new jobs could be created across rural America through more effective use of this vital natural resource.

Mr. Khosla may well see a bigger picture than you give him credit for. I suggest you rethink your commitment to biodiversity and pay more attention to solving the problems in your own back yard. Electric vehicles (while a great part of the overall climate change and energy problem) just won't undo the mess in our forests...nor save countless rural communities from extinction. On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses