Here are a couple of news items involving climate change, lest you permit that important political, economic, and environmental topic to stray off your personal radar screen.
Tornadoes
Oh come now, surely tornadoes like the batch that killed around 50 Americans yesterday have nothing to do with climate change? Well, think about it. Tornadoes, like hurricanes, are atmospheric disturbances that involve heat. The most dangerous time period in the USA for tornadoes is the Spring, when a rush of hot air from the Gulf of Mexico can meet colder air from the north with the result of tremendous turbulence. Yesterday's event was fairly typical, except that it was way too early in the year.
The Feb. 5 killer tornadoes - at least the 15th deadliest U.S. outbreak on record - had all the earmarks of a batch of twisters usually seen in March, said several meteorologists.
It was farther north than most February tornadoes and stronger, said Joseph Schaefer, director of the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla.
Part of the explanation is record warmth. It was 84 degrees in Oklahoma before the storm front moved through on its path of destruction. On Tuesday, 97 weather stations broke or tied records in Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky - the hardest-hit states. Sure, any meteorologist will tell you that stringing those facts together will not prove that climate change killed fifty people the day before yesterday. But I don't pay much attention to meteorologists, I am more of a climatology fan.
Ethanol
A research study has concluded that corn based ethanol is not a valuable tool in the fight to combat global warming. On the contrary, ethanol from corn is actually accelerating global warming. The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported by a grant from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States. You can see why George W. Bush hates NASA so much and loves to get guys to re-write their work- because those NASA guys keep making trouble for him!
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded. But switchgrass is an experimental ethanol source. commercially speaking, it pretty much all comes from corn here in the USA.
I guess that it's just a coincidence that the one thing that George W. Bush decided to do about climate change within the time period of his Presidency ends up making it worse. No, actually it's not really a coincidence, because with George W. Bush it was never about fighting climate change.
Good News on Climate Change
Sorry, just kidding, there isn't any.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 74
According to Pimentel, it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel equivalent to produce a gallon of Ethanol.
But pay very close attention to this ---- using his methodologies it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel equivalent to produce a gallon of gasoline
Yes, that is correct!!!
Pimentel and Patzek are claiming that you have to pump two gallons of petroleum out of the ground to get one gallon of gasoline.
Both Pimentel and Patzek have been heavily criticized for violating recognized standards guiding academic research. For instance, Pimentel uses a bizarre methodology that not only credits direct energy inputs into Ethanol production but tosses in the entire kitchen sink of energy imputs. He goes as far as crediting the electricity used by the hardware store that sold the machine lathe that ground the part that a farmer used in his combine, as well as the electricity used to make the steering wheel of the farmer's family car that was used to pick up the part.
Critics attack this unorthodox methodology, Pimentel and Patzek defend it.
The problem is that Pimentel and Patzek use it to ONLY attack Ethanol whereas every part of every day of everyone's life could be attacked equally with such a methodology.
I believe that you are refering to two studies.
Fargione, J. el al (2008). Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science, Feb 8, 2008.
Searchinger, T. el al (2008). Use of U.S. Croplands For Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gasses Through Emissions From Land Use Change. Science, Feb 8, 2008.
It might also be helpful to actually read them. Fargione's study focuses on land use in tropics, primarily the clearing of forests in Indonesia for palm oil bio-diesel programs, and the clearing of Brazillian scrub forests to produce soy-beans of which "some" is used for bio-diesel.
The collective reaction in the bio-fuels and farming industry is "huh" and "well duh!!".
As for corn-based Ethanol.
I know of no one who has suggested that the primary purpose for the corn-based Ethanol industry is to solve the problem of global warming.
So why would anyone make an issue of it?
What is claimed is that corn-based Ethanol:
1) Reduces air and water pollution by providing an alternative to MTBE.
2) Builds the infra-structure for a cellulous ethanol industry.
3) Provides an alternative to imported oil.
In view of that "Use of U.S. Croplands For Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gasses Through Emissions From Land Use Change" is rather specious. The authors are complaining that a shift of marginal land to corn-production is not good for Global Warming. What neither the media, nor the studies suggest is how bad is it?. Is it worse than a new power plant in China, or Ohio?
If this is an issue, shouldn't we know? Apparently not.
Next, why are we talking about shifting corn-based ethanol production to marginal land? That is not even an issue. What we should be talking about is the impact on Global Warming on shifting marginal land to cellulous ethanol production.
As for cellulous, one of the authors of the studies wrote:
What in the world are you talking about? There was a lot of cheezy media reports about the "Tortilla riots" in Mexico. What the media did not tell the public is that Tortillas are made from white corn and Ethanol is made from yellow corn.
What the media failed to reveal are the problems associated with massive U.S. exports of corn.
A farmer in Iowa can produce and transport corn to a market in Southern Mexico at a lower cost than can a Southern Mexican farmer. The big question: is this a good idea?
Refiners, not "oil companies" receive the blender's credit.
The corn price increase due to Ethanol has reduced subsidies by $6 Billion annually.
Just go into a super market and see the daily rise in food prices is going up. And not just meat, dairy and staples. Anything that uses high fructose corn syrup (which I think is poisoning the American public anyway) is skyrocketing.
Go stick your head in the sand - obviously you don't care about people starving or trying to feed families and being beaten down by this extremely flawed policy.
I care a great deal about people and that is why I care about getting the facts right. I all too often encounter people who care so much about people that they care little about facts.
As for the "food" argument. Obviously you are not aware that the single largest co-product of Ethanol production -- is food, both in the form of Distillers Grains and corn-oils. Distillers Grains in the form of DG and DDG are used as high-grade cattle, swine and chicken feeds.
Switching from raw corn to DG and DDG is not that difficult and it is better for the cattle, swine and chickens.
I hope you know that over 30% of all Bicarbonate of Soda (alkaseltzer) is fed to livestock because their stomachs are not designed to digest corn. Where did you get the idea that feeding corn directly to cattle was a good idea?
As for the high price of corn. What exactly is causing that? What subsidies are causing that? Is it Ethanol which consumes approx. 25% of the corn crop or is it exports which accounts for 25% of the corn crop?
If we reduced our subsidies for export, wouldn't that lower the price of corn and "food"?
What would be the effect on foreign farmers of our reducing our exports? Wouldn't it encourage their markets to develop?
To be blunt, our grain exports are starving third world countries by destroying their local agriculture and markets.
So, if people are concerned about carbon emissions, almost by definition, burning ANYTHING ORGANIC transfers the carbon trapped in burned material into the atmosphere. We often forget that "fossil fuel" is called that because it is the ancient remains of the vast forests that accumulated and were compressed over millions of years. We also forget that most of the organic debris today, given enough time, would also form a "fossil fuel" (althought it would be full of styrofoam).
I'm not familiar with the tortilla riots, but typically when there are food shortages somewhere in the world, it's a result of bad transportation, bad logistics or poor government policy. I can't believe that the corn used to make ethanol is starving peasants in Mexico. Were that true, the entire profit motive of creating a new use of surplus corn would make no sense...
I work in investments, Greg. As with anything, high prices come from supply/demand. Ethanol has raised the demand for corn, and switched the end market from food consumption to ethanol production. I don't think you have to be a genius to figure out what this means.
If the rise in corn prices are creating hardship, would it not be logical to reduce our subsidy for corn exports to allow the market to adjust downward?
You put your finger on it - X Tabber.
Problems in Mexico and much of the third world are the result of "bad transportation, bad logistics or poor government policy". These problems are exasperated by our corn exports to third-world cities, which under-cuts the incentive to develop good transportation, good agricultural practices, good infrastructure and good government.
Frankly I was shocked to not find a single fact, figure, or reference. Your article certainly had emotional appeal, but that was about it.
By doing a little research I found that the problem in Haiti that you attributed to Ethanol production in the U.S. was actually caused by damage to the rice crop by hurricanes.
I care more about people than political agendas that is why I am most interested in accurately defining problems and analyzing solutions. I am disappointed that you do not share the same interest.
I have thought many times, while observing the "extreme weather" in other parts of the country (e.g., droughts in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and S. Carolina this summer, or the wildfires in California, or the floods in Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana this summer), that we had "dodged a bullet", and at some point it is going to catch us too. This time it hit my region. Sooner or later, it's going to hit yours too.
Re: ethanol, I take Greg's word that the push for ethanol has nothing to do with solving global warming. In my mind, that's just another reason to find another transportation fuel. I think a better choice would be either hydrogen fuel cells or electric vehicles. Ethanol is mostly about corporate agribusiness, IMO.
Have you looked at DEFC fuel cells?
DEFC use ethanol as an efficient way to store, handle and deliver hydrogen to the cell.
As a sci fi fan, I think of a couple of books on killer weather, like Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy (40 Signs of Rain, 50 Degrees Below and 60 Days and Counting). However the one that's most pertinent to what we're talking about is "Heavy Weather" by Bruce Sterling. In this novel, radical climate shifts have created terrible weather throughout the US, and has also set the stage for a mythical F-6 tornado.
Shivers...
No, I haven't seen them. I'll look them up. Regarding ethanol production, there is a significant amount of biowaste that can be used to produce ethanol, which is now just...well...wasted. Sam Carana also wrote an article, Agrichar, which describes how biowaste can be used to produce hydrogen, AND a rich soil restoration product. Of course, it also sinks carbon.
X: "I can't quite pick out what to believe, between the numerous scientists claim this is or is not a normal climate cycle."
There's not a professional scientific association worldwide that disputes IPCC, and there's a well documented history of the fossil fuel industries funding "think tanks", who consult with "scientists" to "confuse the science in the public mind". So your dilemma basically comes down to who to believe - IPCC, NAS, AAAS, AGU, etc., etc., etc. - or Exxon.
Thanks for the sci-fi titles.
WHAT IS NORMAL ? How do we know what normal is? The Climate has been in constant change since the dawn of time.
Do not overthink it. Listen to the scientists. Stop mocking them.
As said, the Pimentel and Patzek study is merely an early study with worrying conclusions regarding biofuels. There is a increasing amount of studies that similarly point at worrying aspects of biofuels, such as:
- Paul Crutzen study (nitrous oxide emissions through use of fertilizers)
- Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? OECD study (600K pdf), at:
- Biofuels 'do more harm than good to environment' says Royal Society, also pointing at use of scarce water and land resources, loss of rainforests, shortages of food worldwide, etc.
- Palm oil, forests and climate change - Greenpeace
Instead of using food to run cars, it would be better - as Steve mentioned above - to use biowaste to produce both agrichar and hydrogen and to use wind and solar energy to produce electricity, while shifting to zero emission vehicles. Such a shift is best facilitated by means of a feebate policy.
It comes down to the question, "What problem are we trying to solve?" Corn-based ethanol addresses two problems: a substitution for MTBE as an oxygenator and octane booster for gasoline to comply with EPA clean air requirements, and as an alternative to the importation of foreign oil.
No has suggested that it is used to mitigate the problem of green house gases.
What is being suggested is in addition to the two purposes above corn-based ethanol will help build the infra-structure for a cellulous ethanol economy. When you speak to farmers, and ethanol producers, the conversation inevitably drifts toward cellulous - no one but no one believes that corn-based ethanol will be significant beyond 2030.
In Minnesota, we are looking at turning our landscape back to its native state - back to switch grass. Even corn producers are looking forward to this.
Why?
1) What is known as switch grass, is really a mixture of nine native grasses, each with a different response to weather conditions. It is like having a diversified portfolio for your investment.
2) Switch grass is a low-input crop. Most farmers must borrow for seed, fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide which, logically, means they have an added interest expense.
3) Switch grass requires less equipment - again less borrowing cost, less equipment cost, lower risk.
4) Switch grass requires less fuel to produce.
5) Switch grass build soil instead of depletes it.
6) Switch grass can grown on marginal land and steep slopes, even (and especially) ditches.
7) Ethanol yields are higher for switch-grass than for corn.
When we talk about cellulous ethanol from switch-grass, all of the critics arguments are turned on their head.
There is no absolute proof that the planet is warming out of control. But there's plenty of theories.
My concern and point is that the subject has taken on an almost religious fervor with many and a crusade is under way to whip the non believers into submission and then convert them.
We are still learning everyday what is happening and what has happened. To say that tornadoes happening in Feb isn't normal is only accurate within the memory of 100 years. That doesn't show that it shouldn't happen only that there's no record of it happening in the last 100 years.
There should be research into alternatives and responsible implementation of these alternatives not a religious conversion to them.
And Chris right now the scientist I see getting mocked the most are those who question man made global warming. Because according to the Gorical "The Debate IS Over". He has spoken.
The article raises the problems of global warming, climate change and tornadoes. The article suggests that biofuel is not the best answer to these problems and I agree.
If you suggest that biofuel could be helpful in reducing another perceived problem, i.e. oil imports, then I must repeat that using more wind and solar power and shifting to zero emissions vehicles is a better way to BOTH reduce oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Greg: "..to comply with EPA clean air requirements.."
The Bush administration has used the EPA as an instrument to support its policies of giving subsidies to those who don't deserve it, specifically biofuel, in the light of better solutions. Chris rightly suggests that we need better policies to tackle climate change.
Switchgrass may have benefits, but I see no reason to subsidize it. It may contain several grasses, but turning vast areas of land into switchgrass as a crop is effectively a monoculture. For over a century, e.g., we have been aware of the potential of the fungus Metarhizium as an insecticide. Specific strains of the fungus are a natural and effective pesticide, killing locusts and grasshoppers without harming other insects or damaging plants. However, the fungus needs damp conditions to survive. Farmers who turn a large area of land into pasture or grass typically take away the spots where such a fungus could survive, making them dependent on artificial pesticides.
In the light of climate change and tornodoes, it is imperative to plant trees which can break the ferocity of wind and tornadoes, while increasing landscape resilience and providing a habitat for a huge diversity of lifeforms, such as the above fungus.
Science Museum head Chris Rapley and Gaia theorist James Lovelock are suggesting to install flotillas of vertical pipes in the tropical seas. Free-floating or tethered vertical pipes could pump up nutrient-rich waters from below the thermocline in order to mix them with the relatively barren waters at the ocean surface.
Such pipes could be 100 to 200 metres long, 10 metres in diameter and with a one-way flap valve at the lower end in order to pump water upwards powered by by wave movement. The water pumped up this way could fertilize algae in the surface waters and stimulate them to bloom. More specifically, pumping up water through such pipes would result in an increased presence in the surface waters of the salp, a tiny tube-like species that excretes carbon in its solid faecal pellets. This carbon would subsequently descend to the ocean floor. The hope is that this could store carbon away for millennia on the ocean floor.
An additional effect would be that the algae produced an abundance of dimethyl sulphide (DMS), a chemical that acts as the precursor of nuclei that form sunlight-reflecting clouds. As more clouds would form above the ocean, more sunlight would be reflected away from the Earth's surface, resulting in relative cooling of the ocean underneath.
US company Atmocean has in fact already started trials with this type of technology, using pipes that bring cold water to the surface from a depth of 200m.
References:
- Mixing the oceans proposed to reduce global warming
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/news070924-8.html
- Ocean pipes could help the Earth to cure itself
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7161/full/449403a.html
- Lovelock urges ocean climate fix
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7014503.stm
i am not saying the algae stimulating idea is bad, but what if it causes an additional problem? As in, an unintended consequence.
"Pimentel and Patzek are claiming that you have to pump two gallons of petroleum out of the ground to get one gallon of gasoline. "
After the refining process of crude oil (the stuff that comes bubblin' out o' the ground NOT 'petroleum', which is another name for 'gasoline') a very small percentage of that barrel that got pumped out of the ground becomes gasoline, or "petroleum" as it were.
Are you saying you are surprised that the number that those two give is so high? Fifty percent is actually way over the normal understood amount of Crude to Gasoline conversion...
So when you are saying "fossil fuel equivalent" are you indicating Crude oil or Gasoline? What are you saying that P&P are saying in their papers & work? Crude or Gasoline?
I found this site that explains it pretty well: "Fat Knowledge (fat for your brain): How many gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil?"
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-many-gallons-of-gasoline-in-barrel.html
Either way, the point is crop based ethanols have problems worth wondering about...
The sentiment that Bush's Ethanol Plans have nothing to do with fighting Global Warming is right on. Anything Bush says about Global Warming is smoke and mirrors...
From... listing polar bears (which ended up being delayed and then never getting listed as endangered)
the establishment of Carbon Sequestering coal fired power plants (which ended up costing bunches and then essentially getting scrapped)
setting up some weird parallel global warming council...
delaying EPA Clean Air Act enforcement...
publishing the governments reports on Global Warming (which at the rate they are going to report on things already determined will take them about 60 years to get to the end of the planned thirty something reports)
etc.
etc.
etc.
Precisely, geo-engineering is terribly risky and we should seek more natural solutions as much as we can. I see it as something to consider if all else fails and my blog on geo-engeneering is merely an inventory of such ideas. Note however that we do need drastic changes implemented at planetary scale, such as putting carbon back into the soil and stopping to burn fossil fuel and shifting to clean and safe energy such as solar and wind energy.
The Great Plains existed for hundreds of thousands of years as a "switch-grass mono-culture"
Welcome to the wacky world of David Pimentel and Ted Patzek. A world that most energy activists accept without understanding.
You say, and I will probably agree, that for every barrel of petroleum pumped out of the ground we get something on the order of 9/10ths of a barrel of gasoline.
David Pimentel and Ted Patzek say no.
They say, its takes oil to transport petroleum in pipelines, oil tankers, and trucks to gas stations.
We say, okay.
Then they say, it takes oil to build the refineries, pipe-lines, ships and gas stations.
We say, more dubiously, okay.
Then they say it takes oil to power the cars that the oil workers, ship crew and gas station staff use in their daily lives. It takes oil to drive their kids to school, transport their dishwashers and stereo equipment through the manufacture, retail and disposal process.
They add up all of this oil, and come to the conclusion that it takes almost a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of gasoline.
Now do you get the point?
So the next time some one tells you that David Pimentel and Ted Patzek say it takes more energy to produce ethanol than we get from ethanol --- just shake your head and walk away.
David Pimentel and Ted Patzek and most analysts who research the energy balance use the term fossil fuel equivalent. Most often they are speaking of natural gas which, technically, is a fossil fuel.
They may also be speaking of electricity produced from coal. Coal is a fossil fuel.
For instance, ethanol production uses comparitively little petroleum, mostly in the form of diesel and herbicides and pesticides. The greatest use by far of fossil fuels in ethanol production is in form of natural gas for fertilizer and heat in the ethanol plant.
So when someone says, it takes 1 gallon fossil fuel equivalent to produce 1.4 gallons of ethanol, they are saying something to the effect of "it takes .95 (gallons) of natural gas and .05 gallons of (oil) to produce 1.4 gallons of ethanol.
First of all, "Bush's" plan is also Hillary Clinton's, Barak Obama's, John McCain's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's plan.
The plan has a number of goals, some immediate, some long range. The immediate goals are to boost corn-based ethanol production to address clean-air requirments, energy independence and balance of trade issues. The longer range plan is to develop the cellulous ethanol industry which will dramatically reduce the production of green-house gases in the United States.
I am willing to accept that cellulosic ethanol might be a small piece of the puzzle of coming to terms with global warming. Larger pieces are the development of plug in hybrid vehicles, replacement of coal fired plants with solar or wind, and international efforts to rein in the steeply rising carbon emissions of china and india. There is no one single magic bullet. The habit of prevaricating with half-truths and reliying on the hope that we will develop the perfect technological tool ten years from now are both doomed to failure. Those of both political parties who so long backed Bush on his inaction for various reasons will need to face reality after his departure. The word sacrifice is okay, because this is important. If it can be done without sacrifice, great. Personally, I would not look upon replacing a Hummer with a plug in Chevy as a sacrifice of convenience, but clearly if you just bought the Hummer recently, you may balk at the idea of running it to the junkyard. could the Hummer be fueled by switchgrass ethanol five or ten years from now? Well, in theory, but todays Hummers will be old vehicles by then. Why don't we just stop buying them and making them instead?
I don't think the question is "How can we solve this problem while completely holding onto every last convenience we have developed in the 20th century". No, I think the question is actually "how can we solve this problem".
But speaking directly to the matter of current policy, the only problem I see is a lack of public leadership. I see plenty of UNACKNOWLEDGED programs and funding, but mostly I see a number of areas where we all, conservatives and liberal activists can agree.
We all can agree that replacing our oil dependency should be the top priority.
So, given that it takes 2.15 gallons of crude oil to produce 1 gallon of gasoline you could replace your 0.05 gallons of (oil) with 0.02 gallons of gasoline.
But the point is that a 'fossil fuel equivalent' is an energy equivalency allowing for relative comparison of fuels using a common baseline, yes?
So P&P's saying that it takes two 'Fossil Fuel Equivalents" to make one of Gasoline really DOES make sense... no?
So your derision at P&P's 'methodology' that you said one has to "pay close attention to" doesn't REALLY make sense... does it? because, at least in that case, their 'methodology' DOES seem pretty accurate...
Not only does a gallon of crude 'pumped out of the ground' not equal a gallon of gasoline, but the Refining process is energy intensive as is the 'harvesting' process (discovery, drilling, and pumping) as well as transport. So in going to produce an Energy unit of X they are saying it takes 2X.
Your statement attempting to disregard P&P and what they are saying falls flat in that case...
Also, the current Democratic candidates proposed policies on Global Warming or on Energy for that matter are nothing like Bush's are/were. I'm not sure how a statement like that can be said with a straight face.
Regardless of stated policy, it is Bush's track Record that I was including (he speaks with two sides of his mouth really, doesn't he?).
And in fact, it is his (and others) stated policy (at least in words) to join the ideas of Global Warming with Energy Independence by using Cellulosic Biofuels. I believe he cast it that way in at least one of his State of the Union Addresses.
Either way, ethanol as a primary/major fuel source poses serious concerns worth considering...
You need to read P&P. You have not grasped what they are saying.
They are NOT saying that 1 gallon of gasoline is produced from 2.5 gallons of crude. They are saying that it takes almost as much energy as is contained in 2 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of gasoline.
It appears that you are thinking that for every barrel of crude we get 19..5 gallons of gasoline, 9.2 gallons of distillats, 4 gallons of jet fuel, 2.5 gallons of residential heating fuel --- etc.
That is NOT what P&P are saying.
They are saying gaoline takes twice as much energy to produce as we get.
P&P's methodology is not accepted by their peers.
Show me the Bush plan.
Show me the Clinton's plan.
Show me the Obama's plan.
Show me the Nancy Pelosi's plan.
Show the Harry Reid's plan.
Show me how they differ.
Other than rhetoric that is.
Better yet show me how Senators Clinton and Obama stood up to Sen. Ted Kennedy when he shut-down all wind-farm installation in the United States for over a year by slipping a nasty little rider into a Defense Authorization Act because he got pissed at the prospect of having to look at wind-mills from his yatch on Cape Cod.
Kennedy set back wind-power well more than the year he stopped it. In Western Minnesota, we had a company from the Netherlands bow out of building a blade factory because of the political climate that Kennedy created and Senators like Clinton and Obama failed to do anything about.
Talk is cheap. Political talk is utterly without value.
Why is that hard to understand or accept? Have you seen an oil refinery? How much fuel oil does it take to transport a super tanker across the ocean? How much energy does it take to pump? and before pumping to drill? and before drilling to explore?
Have you read P&P? What do they discuss goes into energy costs of producing every unit of gasoline? If they are talking about energy equivalents then they are not trying to sham anyone, it right up front there. X amount of energy equivalents are being put into producing this or that type of fuel...
Creating a fuel of a specific type is an uphill process, not a downhill process. If it is not 2X to create gasoline then how much is it? What part of their "methodology" don't you (or someone) agree with?
I don't think YOU fully understand what it is P&P are saying. They are not saying it takes two gallons of gasoline to make one gallon of gasoline!!!
They are taking it from start to finish and saying "it takes this much energy to create this kind of fuel."
That's the point... Isn't it? Taking a range of things into consideration... That's what these recent studies/reports are saying as well...
Where did Kennedy and the wind farms come from?
Greg: "In Western Minnesota, we had a company from the Netherlands bow out of building a blade factory because of the political climate that Kennedy created and Senators like Clinton and Obama failed to do anything about."
That's an amazing connection ... truly...
In the vein of "show me the..." Can you show me the evidence that the Dutch company's decision was based on Kennedy's "political climate" ? and further still that Clinton and Obama were somehow involved with that decision?
In Texas (far away from Nantucket as Western Minnesota is) the wind turbine business is booming, as it were, and blades are being built and transported quite a bit. I'm not sure what "Kennedy's atmosphere" has done differently up in Minnesota?!?!?
With "political talk being utterly without value" - discussing it further here would seem pointless wouldn't it?
With "political talk being utterly without value" how do you assess that Clinton, Obama, et al. would have the same out comes as Bush or anyone else? What valuation do you use to assess that and make the type of statement that you did?
What exactly do you eValueate to determine the sameness or difference of Obama's energy policy/plans from Bushes? Do you have copies of Obama's strategy sessions? You are stating that you are dismissing "Rhetoric" which I assume to mean anything the candidate or campaign is saying to explain their position... That doesn't leave much left... Does it?
So when you say: "Show me how they differ. Other than rhetoric that is."
How would one do that?
Well one way to at least attempt that task though you state they do indeed differ in what they say (i.e., rhetoric) is to look at Bush's track record as I have already described above (see my comment above)...
I am saying that you are putting Bush next to Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, & Reid (& McCain) and saying what's the difference it terms of Energy Policy and Expectations!!! And you are saying this with a straight face???
(the windfarm thing was sort of a pathetic stretch, no? was that the example of the Obama et al. track records showing ... well... showing what exactly???)
Should biofuel receive subsidizies? In my view, there are better alternatives than subsidizing and burning biofuel, such as using more solar and wind power for electricity and shifting to zero emission vehicles. That could improve the situation regarding foreign debt, oil imports, it could create many good jobs, save precious water, leave more land for forests and to grow food, require less fertilizers and pesticides, and it would be cleaner and better for the environment as well. Our top priority should be to implement a policy that most effectively facilitates a shift towards such better alternatives.
You tell me.
Having, obviously, never read P&P, you are accepting P&P's methodology on faith. This is not a religious exercise. This should be about science and science is not about belief, it is about facts.
A logical person would assume that if it cost more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than was contained in a gallon then gasoline would uneconomical.
A rational person would also assume that if it took more energy than a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of gasoline that the oil industry would be the greatest consumer of energy.
It is not. That honor goes to the transportation industry.
I gauge politicians by what they do, not what they say.
We have seen bio-fuel production soar under Bush. We have seen tax-credit extension for wind-farms rejuvenate the industry under Bush.
We have seen funding and subsidies for cellulous ethanol production move the process from proto-type to pilot to production under Bush.
We have seen funding for solar, wind, and bio-fuel research project increase dramatically under Bush.
We have seen Bush deliver over 42 speeches advocating the development of a cellulous ethanol economy.
Congress passed and Bush signed The Clean Air Act of 2007 to upgrade the CAFE standards.
I would have liked more...but I have seen no substantive difference between Bush and the Democrats. By the way, I define substantive by what politicians do, rather than what they talk about doing.
My point about Kennedy was simple. If the Democrats were truly committed to alternative energy they would have stopped Ted's temper tantrum.
Both solar and wind are heavily subsidized but neither solar nor wind can power our fleet of automobiles. Bio-fuels can.
By the time, solar and wind is developed to the point where that might be practical, we will be well into a cellulous ethanol economy.
In reality, corn-based ethanol is approaching the zero-subsidy level. We spend about $5 billon in ethanol subsidies ---- but the rise in commodity prices has reduced corn support payments by an equal amount.
If we take away corn-based ethanol and the price drops back to $3 a bushel - the taxpayers are on the hook for supports.
It's a wash.
You might say, we shouldn't be subsidizing farmers. Good luck with that.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about!!!
Yes, I just read the paper by P&P referenced by Sam above (one of the first comments).
Two things:
1) I was not indicating that the amount of 'fossil fuel equivalents' was doubled because of the smaller amount of gasoline produced out of every barrel. It is related though, because it takes more crude oil to produce gasoline than a straight 1:1 ratio (or something close to that). I understand it appeared that way. If you read what I wrote, I indicated that the energy required to produce any type of fuel (including gasoline) included all the processes to get to the end product.
I had asked (my first comment above) what you meant by your statement because it truly seemed off. (partly the terminology you used regarding petroleum and pumping it out of the ground).
2)You haven't a clue what you are talking about. I'm not sure you read the P&P article Sam had referenced... I also am not sure where you got the info about P&P (or just one of the P's) saying that it takes two 'fossil equivalents' to produce one of gasoline. Could you provide that reference PLEASE? Is that something P&P published or is that something 'someone' else calculated using their 'methodology'? (either would in itself be valid if done properly).
If you had read the P&P paper you could have made a more meaningful statement about it (if still slightly mis-used) and have put a nice little feather in your Cap! But you didn't. You keyed in on something different and that is what raised the Red Flag for me and Prompted my original question.
P&P were saying in that paper that it requires more fossil fuels to create the "bio-alternatives" than the equivalent amount of energy in those "bio-alternatives". You yourself clearly stated this in one of your first sentences about it. Then you went on to say that using their 'methodology' it also takes more fossil fuels to create Gasoline itself than the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline. (<-- that is the part, by the way, I want a reference for)
You would have been fine there and you would have had your nice little feather in your Cap! Though still it would have been a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the P&P paper that Sam had referenced (but you could have lived with that, yes?).
But Instead you keyed in on the seeming improbability that it takes more energy to create a usable form of energy... But that is the way the universe is!!! It takes energy to create or change forms of energy. Otherwise, we would have that Panacea of the "Perpetual Motion Machine" No? The closest we get is the energy released in nuclear reactions and that takes a lot of energy to control and contain (unless we jus' wanna blow stuff up, aye!!!???).
So YES, it CAN and DOES take more NET energy to create a new form of energy/fuel than that energy/fuel provides!!! We (humans) just deem it worthwhile because we want the fuel in a particular form to meet our needs (i.e. to work in our machines the way we want them to). That NET cost of energy put into creating the new form of fuel is Spread out, and it is spread out enough to allow an Economy to work within all its parts. It is Spread out among various fossil fuel sources. While there is still more Fossil Fuel available to "pump" into that equation... Hey Presto it WORKS!!!
That system becomes less "efficient" the more energy it takes to create the end product.
You could have instead, made the point in favor of Bio-fuels that Given the 'fossil equivalency' values that P&P calculated, IT is still LESS than the "Fossil equivalent" values required to produce GASOLINE (assuming your statement regarding that equivalent is Verifiable).
Do you see how that would have made the argument that Bio-fuels would be more Efficient than Gasoline??? (again, assuming your value for gasoline production is verifiable).
But then, that's NOT what P&P were saying in that paper!!! That wasn't their point!!!
Their paper discussed getting off oil as the source for fuel. Their work showed how much fossil fuel derived energy was required to produce the bio-fuels that is all.
Supposing Bio-fuels completely replaced fossil fuels eventually, it would be a zero fossil fuel energy use or requirement right? But you would still have those problems that Sam was talking about among some other.
Or supposing wind/solar/hydrogen replaced fossil fuels, then creating bio-fuels would still be a zero fossil fuel process...
But as it is, the stated purpose of the P&P paper was to show that under the current energy regime (use of fossil fuels) creation of Bio-fuels still uses Fossil fuels to a greater degree than the amount of bio-fuel energy created.
from the P&P paper Sam cited:
"The United States desperately needs a liquid
fuel replacement for oil in the future. The use of oil
is projected to peak about 2007 and the supply is
then projected to be extremely limited in 40–50 years
(Duncan and Youngquist, 1999; Youngquist and
Duncan, 2003; Pimentel and others, 2004a)"
...
"...numerous
scientific studies have concluded that ethanol
production does not provide a net energy balance,
that ethanol is not a renewable energy source, is not
an economical fuel, and its production and use contribute
to air, water, and soil pollution and global
warming (Ho, 1989; Citizens for Tax Justice, 1997;
Giampietro, Ulgiati, and Pimentel, 1997; Youngquist,
1997; Pimentel, 1998, 2001, 2003 NPRA, 2002;
Croysdale, 2001; CalGasoline, 2002; Lieberman, 2002;
Hodge, 2002, 2003; Ferguson, 2003, 2004; Patzek,
2004)."
...
"The objective of this analysis
is to update and assess all the recognized inputs
that operate in the entire ethanol production system."
...
"Ethanol production in the United
States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its
agriculture, the economy, or the environment."
...
"Two panel studies by the
U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) concerned
with ethanol production using corn and liquid fuels
from biomass energy report a negative energy return
(ERAB, 1980, 1981). These reports were reviewed by
26 expert U.S. scientists independent of the USDOE;
the findings indicated that the conversion of corn into
ethanol energy was negative and these findings were
unanimously approved. Numerous other investigations
have confirmed these findings over the past two
decades."
above excerpts from:
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf
I found a 'rebuttal' letter by a Dr. Bruce Dale of the University of Michigan.
(is this the source you used for your information?)
Dale does not dispute the energy equivalency that P&P used in the production of the various bio-fuels. He calls the Net Energy approach "irrelevant" on Economic grounds of measuring & comparing the dollar values of the different fossil energy fuels.
from Dale's letter:
"All MJ are not created equal and cannot be added in this way. If all MJ were equal, then energy markets would reflect that fact. But the energy markets do no such thing. At current energy prices, a MJ of natural gas is worth about 3.5 times a MJ of coal, and a MJ of petroleum is worth more than five times a MJ of coal. Clearly, all MJ are not created equal."
Dale is not disputing the calculations of fossil energy equivalents used to create the various bio-fuels... He's talking money... We have been talking about the actual energy sources and fuels here.
Dale:
"Using precisely the same net energy methodology and assumptions of the ethanol critics, one quickly finds that gasoline has a net energy that is less than -45%. Thus ethanol is actually superior to gasoline in its (I repeat: irrelevant) net energy metric."
For one, Dale's value of the Fossil Equivalent to Gasoline production is much smaller than the one you stated above (which is the correct value and why?). More importantly, Dale does not raise ANY issue that it could come to a greater Energy IN value than an Energy OUT value! His issue is ECONOMIC. He calls the exercise "irrelevant" on an economic basis. And he states what I said YOU should have stated in your first Comment... and you would have got your Feather in your Cap! (Dale also does NOT provide his treatment of P&P's 'methodolgy' or calculations for how he arrived at his value)
But that isn't the point. We are talking about Weaning off Oil for national security reasons and to reduce the impact of Fossil Fuels on Climate Change!!!
But then... That's what the push for the Bio-fuel Paradigm seems to be about... Money... Not Energy Policy or Climate Change...
Bruce Dale's Letter excerpts taken from the following site:
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/020607ThinkingClearlyAboutBiofuels.pdf
You haven't a clue what you are talking about Greg...
Bicycling Wastes Gas
You got to ask where is this guy getting his numbers?
When you find out, you ask "why is anyone listening to this guy?"
It's correct that producing meat takes huge amounts of energy, feed, water, fertilizers, pesticides and land and produces with huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Producing biofuel also takes a lot of energy, water, fertilizers, pesticides and land and furthermore causes greenhouse gas emissions when burned. So, the conclusion is that we should reduce meat consumption and the use of biofuel.
Here is one place where Pimentel makes the claims that I attributed to him.
The Ethanol Equation
Note: if gasoline is a net energy loser, as Pimentel claims, we must consume more than a gallon of fossil fuel equivalent to produce a gallon of gasoline. Pimentel says we consume 1.1.
If one is to parse the English language correctly, Pimentel is claiming that one must start with 2.1 gasoline fossil fuel equivalents to produce 1 gallon of gasoline.
Again welcome to the wacky world of David Pimentel.
I found this statement rather odd. "It takes about 1.3 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol," says Pimentel.
Note the word oil. I hope that is a misquote. I doubt even Pimentel is that sloppy. Fossil Fuel Equivalent, I would believe Pimentel would, wrongly, believe howere oil - is totally out of the question.
Pimentel has been caught misrepresenting the corn-yields and energy inputs into growing corn for Ethanol - but not by that much.
Both solar and wind should get more support, as should zero-emission vehicles. Electricity can power automobiles, about a century ago there were more electric cars than gasoline cars.
Greg: "By the time, solar and wind is developed to the point where that might be practical, we will be well into a cellulous ethanol economy."
Solar and wind energy are practical and growing rapidly. After the elections, we will see a huge push to reduce emissions and we'll see even more growth in solar and wind energy. As the studies that I gave you point out, biofuel causes too much emissions and comes at the cost of too much use of water, fertilizers, land, etc, in the light of better alternatives.
Greg: "In reality, corn-based ethanol is approaching the zero-subsidy level. We spend about $5 billon in ethanol subsidies ---- but the rise in commodity prices has reduced corn support payments by an equal amount."
So, why support biofuel?
Greg: "If we take away corn-based ethanol and the price drops back to $3 a bushel - the taxpayers are on the hook for supports."
Why should taxpayers support such farmers? They should do better things with the land.
Greg: "You might say, we shouldn't be subsidizing farmers. Good luck with that."
The Bush administration has given an obscene amount of subsidies to farmers who don't deserve it. I have no doubts that this destructive policy will soon come to an end.
Contrary to what Pimentel is saying, and contrary to a lot of ethanol's critics who use his methodology, ethanol has a positive energy and green house gas balance.
And the trend is toward greener ethanol. One corn-based ethanol plant in Nebraska has closed the loop.
See Wet cake vital to efficiency of Nebraska closed-loop system
I am not sure why you apply one standard to solar and wind and another standard to Ethanol.
Solar is not there yet. It will take years of research and development and infrastructure changes to adopt to a Solar economy.
By that time, cellulous ethanol will be a reality.
Cellulous ethanol does not take ANY fertilizer, pesticides, or herbicides inputs and the land that will be used will be marginal land such ditches, western prairie and CRP.
You keep acting like cellulous ethanol requires high energy inputs it does not..
I am not sure why you assume that. You need to read up on the subject.
In the final analysis, energy independence and reduced green-house gas emissions will be accomplished by a variety of initiatives: conservation, more efficient automobiles like plug-in hybrids, cellulous ethanol, solar and wind.
Each is an important component.
In case you missed it in the flury of comments read post - Greg Schiller, Feb 11, 2008, 6:12pm EST.
You have left out a few things, Greg, such as the huge amount of methane released by cattle. I see no reason to subsidize this. I rather see biowaste burned by means of pyrolysis to create agrichar and hydrogen. Why subsidize a dirty industry when there are cleaner alternatives?
I don't. In both cases I look at what is most beneficial in the public interest. Subsidies for ethanol are not.
Greg: "Solar is not there yet. It will take years of research and development and infrastructure changes to adopt to a Solar economy. By that time, cellulous ethanol will be a reality."
Like any other industry, it has improved over the years and will continue to do so, solar energy has been ready for many years. As said, I have given you the links to studies that raise enough concern about ethanol to stop subsidizing it. Instead, solar and wind energy should receive more support.
Greg: "Cellulous ethanol does not take ANY fertilizer, pesticides, or herbicides inputs and the land that will be used will be marginal land such ditches, western prairie and CRP."
Good, so let's not subsidize this thing, to prevent it spreading out beyond "marginal land". Also, is this really the best vegetation to improve this land? Ask yourself why this land has become "marginal" in the first place. Loss of top soil, due to bad farming practices? Farmers typically take out the few trees that are left on such land, to make it easier for tractors, but I'd rather see a more diverse vegetation and more efforts to improve soil quality.
Greg: "You keep acting like cellulous ethanol requires high energy inputs it does not. I am not sure why you assume that. You need to read up on the subject."
Burning ethanol results in emissions of carbon dioxcide. Why encourage this when there's plenty of clean energy? Enlighten me as to where I can read up on that.
Greg: "In the final analysis, energy independence and reduced green-house gas emissions will be accomplished by a variety of initiatives: conservation, more efficient automobiles like plug-in hybrids, cellulous ethanol, solar and wind."
In the final analysis, energy independence and reduced green-house gas emissions will be accomplished by a feebate policy that discourages polluting practices and encourages clean alternatives, such as wind and solar energy and zero emission vehicles.
Uh Sam,
The Great Plains WERE dominated by switch grass ecology for several hundred thousand years. Perhaps several million years. Switch grass is the natural state of the plains. It builds soil, requires no pesticide, no herbicide, no fertilizer.
I am utterly amazed that anyone would object.
What an odd statement.
You tell me that solar and wind are evolving -- they don't quite work now and so they have to be heavily subsidized.
In the next breath, you tell me that dubious outdated and just plain wrong studies on ethanol show that it doesn't quite work and has to be subsidized.
Then you tell me that solar and wind are evolving yet you refuse to acknowledge that ethanol is evolving.
The truth is ethanol is evolving much faster than solar or wind energy.
As a matter of fact, solar is evolving but wind is completely stagnant. We have taken wind about as far as it will economically go. We can get more energy from it by building more mills, but unlike ethanol and solar, we will not get more efficiencies out of it.
What are you suggesting, Greg? That switch grass can be brought back without using pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers? That commercial intense farming of switchgrass was possible without government support and that there was some wider public benefit in this?
Greg: "I am utterly amazed that anyone would object."
I do question government support for ethanol, in the light of better alternatives. If you advocate government support for ethanol, then you'll have to come up with arguments, Greg. Being utterly amazed is no ground for receiving subsidies.
Greg, I would appreciate it if you could discuss things in a mature way without twisting things. I've given you good arguments for what I advocate. If you advocate government support for ethanol, then you'll have to come up with arguments that make sense.
That is precisely what I am suggesting.
Again, you need to read up on the subject.
I was simply straightening out the things that you twisted.
The studies I mentioned raised serious points. Pity that you're not mature enough to discuss them seriously. Perhaps you'll be able to do so one day, but for now I don't want to waste the time of readers any further. Cheers, Sam Carana
I am appalled that you oppose something you do not understand. I am appalled that you would point to studies by Pimentel and Patzek that have been so thoroughly discredited.
There is a place for solar, for wind-power, for corn-based ethanol and cellulous ethanol in our efforts to achieve energy independence and mitigate the effects of global warming.
What there is no place for is closed-mindedness and ideologically driven environmentalism.
The primary reason we are where we are is the irrationality and religious fundamentalism of the environmental movement. I hope that changes - before it is too late.
Your math is truly Dizzying!!!
(I also get the sense that you don't actually fully Read what people write)
It both reinforces my understanding that you haven't a clue about what you are relaying
and it points to the misunderstanding you are having about P&P's work and the amount of energy required to produce a given amount of energy...
You stated it requires 2 gallons of 'petroleum' "pumped out of the ground" to create one gallon of gasoline. (that statement itself is faulty, besides just your math, in your concept of where the 'fossil equivalent' is coming from. It is faulty due to your Misunderstanding or your intentional mis-use the visualization).
When someone says a fuel is -45% efficient. It means that it takes almost half as much again of the "fuel equivalent" in energy to produce the Product Fuel.
That Means (leaving the Parsnips aside) that it takes ONE full equivalent of the fuel you are producing PLUS 45% of that equivalent to GET the ONE actual Volume (gallon) of your target Fuel.
I am not sure you will actually read that. And I am not sure you will accept the validity of that... but there it is all the same...
Your twisting of that math sort of reveals itself... and you... No?
(Your other PROBLEM is your misunderstanding (willful or not) of what an equivalent is. I asked you out of honesty, because I didn't know what it was referring to and I think it is an important thing to understand the units being used when making comparisons, and I think you have shown that you do not full comprehend the concept (again, willful or not). You seem to have the idea that you are sitting in a room of fixed size without any doors by yourself and you are told to make Gallon of Gas with THE energy from a Gallon and a Half of THAT Gas that you need to make. P&P are neither suggesting that you use the energy from the product itself to make itself nor are they suggesting that you are USING only ONE energy source to produce the end product. They are suggesting that we look at the REAL world in an Ultra Realistic fashion to see what it takes to make something.)
So...
You said it takes errr... two gallons of "equivalent" to make the one gallon of Gasoline...
Dale said it takes one and a half gallons of "equivalent" to make the one gallon of Gasoline...
And P in his own words said it takes one and one tenth Gallons to make one gallon of Gasoline...
Again, I ask... Which is the correct value? and Why?
Well, I know yours is just kooky wrong... Dale does not provide his math or work... and well P uses his own work to come up with the value... (Personally, I'm going with P)
I think it is also worthwhile to point out that in your derision of P&P, you included things like the cost of making big screen TV's... I find both the derision and that cynicism disingenuous if you are trying to have what you are saying Taken Seriously...
Why are the Values given for the Energy Required to make gasoline so different when they each are supposed to be the same (that is, P&P's value for the energy required to make gasoline using P&P's methods)???
Using P's value he gave... Gasoline is MORE favorable than most Bio-fuels regarding the energy required to make it... using Dale's value, Ethanol and others are more favorable... (and your value is just nutty)...
Hmmmm....
Let's see... this bears repeating:
"Two panel studies by the
U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) concerned
with ethanol production using corn and liquid fuels
from biomass energy report a negative energy return
(ERAB, 1980, 1981). These reports were reviewed by
26 expert U.S. scientists independent of the USDOE;
the findings indicated that the conversion of corn into
ethanol energy was negative and these findings were
unanimously approved. Numerous other investigations
have confirmed these findings over the past two
decades."
above excerpt from:
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf
Dale says:
"Thus ethanol is actually superior to gasoline in its (I repeat: irrelevant) net energy metric."
Why would he say this if Net negative energy is Impossible? Sort of silly of him to talk about the economic shortcomings of the P&P "methodology" if it is pointless on "Logical" grounds as you claim... I give Dale more credit than to do something like that...
Greg... You are Entrenched in your Position for Economic Reasons and you Don't see Clearly!!!
Do you understand that???
So... At this point Greg says "Bush's plan is Obama's is Clinton's is Pelosis is Reids (is McCains?!?!?)..." Bush is no different from those folks...
?!?!?!?
I am Agast!!! I am Agog!!! I am all Agimbled!!! I am Grumbling (oh, no wait, that was just my stomach ;) ) ....
There was a time in days past when those "libs" those "Dems" those "Leftys" (those fake Republicans?!?!?) ... weren't worthy to wipe the feet of George himself!!!
Now... they are equals!?!?!? No better No Worse!?!?!?! Half a dozen here... Half a dozen there!?!?!?
If I were to "Parse" your words out carefully... What would they really mean???
Bush has SUNK so far so as to be actually EQUAL with all those Scum???
Or Bush is in such a position that the Usual Hyperbole that accompanies anything about him can only stretch up to the level of Obama et al. (yet still be a kooky thing to say)...
Greg, "Rhetoric" being what it is... You're full of it...
You are correct. I was wrong. Pimentel is saying you need input 1.1 gallons of fossil fuel equivalents into the process to get 1 gallon output. I said, 2.1 that was incorrect.
I was wrong, you were rude and abusive.
Of course the reality of corn-based ethanol is that it is used as an oxygenator and octane booster for gasoline -- which means it helps us get more energy out of energy inefficient gasoline.
If ethanol, admittedly (by Greg), does not address climate change, then it is not an adequate choice, although it may have in stimulating other solutions, e.g., as a fuel for plug-in hybrids.
Sam asks if it should be subsidized. IMO, to the extent that it has "energy independence" value, and can be produced in the short run as a "transitional fuel", and later integrated into a larger energy infrastructure, I would not oppose subsidies - so long as it does not delay expansion of more promising energy solutions.
The discussion between David and Greg seems to be an efficiency issue. It always takes more energy to produce X amount of fuel than the energy in that X amount of fuel. That is the efficiency issue, by definition. For example, coal is only 30+% efficient from the coal mine to the electric meter. BTW, efficiency, in this sense, is probably the MOST fertile area for addressing climate solutions.
Second to efficiency, the quickest (and perhaps the only) way to address climate change is a large-scale deployment of renewables (wind, solar, wave, geothermal - and hydrogen as an energy storage/carrier). Greg has argued (in other places) that such a large deployment would take decades. My response is to ask what makes more sense - to subsidize and invest in such a deployment, or keep throwing borrowed $Hundreds-of-Billions down the mideast toilet? Germany is on track to produce 30% of their electricity from solar alone by 2020. Japan is already phasing out solar subsidies because solar electricity is cost-competitive with grid electricity. Even China is headed for producing 15% of its electricity from renewables by 2020, and 30% by 2050.
Finally, I've got to agree with Greg that the Kennedy's are full of it on the wind energy issue. But to extrapolate from that to a conclusion that it's a wash between republicans and democrats on climate change and clean energy issues is an over-reach, to put it kindly. There is no doubt that there are republicans at the state and local level, which are extremely cognizant of the climate change issue. For example, Schwarzenegger and Pataki have been very good on the issue. At the federal level, however, republicans are clearly protecting established interests, despite some incentives for renewables. Of course, you have to look at the comparisons with fossils and nuclear (republicans, who are admitting that climate change is a problem are moving strongly toward nuclear) and you have to look at what exactly is appropriated. Many times, funding for renewables is cut, as we saw with the embarrassing situation when w. visited NREL after his "America is addicted to oil" speech a couple of years ago. The government had to reinstate funding that had been cut - it was a real political double bind for the administration.
I got your attention enough to get you to actually read through what I had to say...
I was put off by your 'tone' regarding the P&P paper given what you had stated about it!
You are still doing some kooky math there in you last comment and I'm not entirely sure why...
If gasoline is -10% efficient by P's calculations and Ethanol is -35% then Gasoline is The more efficient to produce fuel (though you still end up with a fossil FUEL which is burned and adds CO2 into the system that wasn't there before).
While it does take 1.1 gallon of fossil fuel equivalent to make 1.0 gallons of Gasoline ...
It does not take 1.0 gallon of fossil fuel equivalent to make to make 1.35 Gallons of Ethanol as you just stated above.
According to P, it takes 1.35 gallons of fossil fuel equivalent to make 1.0 gallon of Ethanol. (I don't know why you keep doing that! ... !?!?)
But with gasoline production you end up with a fossil fuel that gets burned...
With Ethanol you end up with a "bio-fuel" that gets burned...
So... Yes! Get off Oil!!
Ethanol & other bio-fuels have more issues than "just being a fossil fuel alternative" and those issues are worth raising and discussing...
I think Steve, Sam, and Chris have said it pretty well here...
Greg has been disingenuous to the utmost,
and reading his last comments to you... I'd say he owes you an apology...
Best,
DJE