<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Ethanol dreams and ethanol realities]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Ana Unruh Cohen http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/ Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:44:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/1 What's the difference?

Dave, I really appreciated your comments on Patrick Moore's latest pro-nuclear power piece. But don't you think this part of your argument applies to biofuels too?

"Do not accept the oft-repeated canard that we cannot fundamentally change our energy situation, that we must simply plug one massive, unsavory power cartel in to replace another. We can build better vehicles, better cities, better infrastructure. We can drive less, consume less, and change our food system to reduce freight distances. We can shift policy to internalize industry externalities. We can tax carbon. And we can lavish the same attention, subsidies, and tax breaks on renewables that we do now on oil, coal, and agribusiness."

Shouldn't progressives be pushing for a sustainable - environmentally and economically - biofuels industry that can supply a portion of our energy needs in a world of improved efficiency? Unlike nuclear which still has scare and economic factors that hinder its deployment in the US, investment in biofuels is booming now - investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts. Why accept the canard that biofuels has to be bad for the environment and just another give away to fat-cat corporate powers rather than jump in the ring and fight for sustainability? I think the juggernaut of biofuels is sailing. Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

]]> What's the difference?

Dave, I really appreciated your comments on Patrick Moore's latest pro-nuclear power piece. But don't you think this part of your argument applies to biofuels too?

"Do not accept the oft-repeated canard that we cannot fundamentally change our energy situation, that we must simply plug one massive, unsavory power cartel in to replace another. We can build better vehicles, better cities, better infrastructure. We can drive less, consume less, and change our food system to reduce freight distances. We can shift policy to internalize industry externalities. We can tax carbon. And we can lavish the same attention, subsidies, and tax breaks on renewables that we do now on oil, coal, and agribusiness."

Shouldn't progressives be pushing for a sustainable - environmentally and economically - biofuels industry that can supply a portion of our energy needs in a world of improved efficiency? Unlike nuclear which still has scare and economic factors that hinder its deployment in the US, investment in biofuels is booming now - investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts. Why accept the canard that biofuels has to be bad for the environment and just another give away to fat-cat corporate powers rather than jump in the ring and fight for sustainability? I think the juggernaut of biofuels is sailing. Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/ Sun, 16 Apr 2006 02:27:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/2 What a crew!

"...investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts."

Grist sure has some great people collected all in one cyberspace!

I think biofuel could be turned around and made truly renewable becoming the main source for the vastly reduced amount of liquid fuel and natural gas that would be needed (maybe 10% of present use)once renewable electric power provides most transportation, heating, and industrial needs.  

By using algae grown in solar collectors as the source for biofuel rather than chemical farming.  The efficiency of sugar cane at converting sunlight to chemical energy in the sugar to ethanol process can far surpassed with algae.

And no prairie, rainforest, or land in conservation (as with switchgrass) needs to be destroyed as a natural carbon sink to do it.  

Feed the algae with waste water, CO 2 from power plant emmissions, and sunlight from roof mounted solar collectors, and biofuel in the form of ethanol and methane, clean water, and organic fertilizer comes out.  

Along with some solar electric power if photovoltaic cells are strategically mounted in the collectors.  And waste heat to ether cool or heat nearby buildings.

The start of this sort of system has already begun in separate efforts, how to get leadership that will encourage the combination into a comprehensive energy policy?  

And get subsidies moved away from fossil, nuclear, and chemically farmed fuel, directed instead to really solving global climate problems AND energy monopoly, foreign dependence, and the resulting war/terrorism.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> What a crew!

"...investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts."

Grist sure has some great people collected all in one cyberspace!

I think biofuel could be turned around and made truly renewable becoming the main source for the vastly reduced amount of liquid fuel and natural gas that would be needed (maybe 10% of present use)once renewable electric power provides most transportation, heating, and industrial needs.  

By using algae grown in solar collectors as the source for biofuel rather than chemical farming.  The efficiency of sugar cane at converting sunlight to chemical energy in the sugar to ethanol process can far surpassed with algae.

And no prairie, rainforest, or land in conservation (as with switchgrass) needs to be destroyed as a natural carbon sink to do it.  

Feed the algae with waste water, CO 2 from power plant emmissions, and sunlight from roof mounted solar collectors, and biofuel in the form of ethanol and methane, clean water, and organic fertilizer comes out.  

Along with some solar electric power if photovoltaic cells are strategically mounted in the collectors.  And waste heat to ether cool or heat nearby buildings.

The start of this sort of system has already begun in separate efforts, how to get leadership that will encourage the combination into a comprehensive energy policy?  

And get subsidies moved away from fossil, nuclear, and chemically farmed fuel, directed instead to really solving global climate problems AND energy monopoly, foreign dependence, and the resulting war/terrorism.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/ Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:26:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ethanol-dreams-and-ethanol-realities/3 Ana,

Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

I don't doubt that the biofuels cat is out of the bag. Given that, I'd certainly prefer cellulosic to corn-based, small-producer to massive agribiz.

But frankly, I'm pessimistic about greens' chances on this one. It's a huge goldrush. What about our history, economy, or culture leads you to believe that such a goldrush will slow or change course based on environmental concerns?

I guess I'm glad some enviros are out there advocating for less-bad biofuels. But I really wish there were a larger and more concerted push on behalf of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydrokinetic.

www.grist.org

]]> Ana,

Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

I don't doubt that the biofuels cat is out of the bag. Given that, I'd certainly prefer cellulosic to corn-based, small-producer to massive agribiz.

But frankly, I'm pessimistic about greens' chances on this one. It's a huge goldrush. What about our history, economy, or culture leads you to believe that such a goldrush will slow or change course based on environmental concerns?

I guess I'm glad some enviros are out there advocating for less-bad biofuels. But I really wish there were a larger and more concerted push on behalf of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydrokinetic.

www.grist.org

]]>