Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Christopher Calder
Mar 21, 2009, 1:11:42 PM3/21/09
to globalchange
William Jaeger, an Oregon Science University agricultural economics
professor, recently spoke out against biofuel production to the Oregon
State Legislature. Below are two important quotes from his written
testimony.
"Can biofuels help us reduce our use of fossil fuels by a significant
amount, and can they do it at a reasonable cost? The answers from our
analysis to both parts of the question would appear to be “no.”
Concerning the second question: Can biofuels help us reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions by a significant amount and can they do it at
a reasonable cost? The answers to both parts of this question appear
to be an even more resounding “no.”
"If we place our analysis of biofuels in this context, relying on
biofuels to achieve the goals of reduced fossil fuel use and
greenhouse gas emissions, would be like having the Oregon Department
of Transportation pick a bridge design costing at least 900 percent
more than the least cost alternative, and one that would only reach a
fraction of the distance across the river."
In an earlier study, Jaeger found that to achieve a given improvement
in energy independence using ethanol from corn, biodiesel from
rapeseed (canola oil), and ethanol from wood-based cellulose could be
6 to 28 times more costly than other policy options, such as raising
fuel economy standards. Using all three biofuels at maximum estimated
scales of production in Oregon would lead to a net energy gain of just
two-thirds of one percent of Oregon’s annual energy use. None of the
biofuels were found to be marketable without large taxpayer subsidies,
and the much hyped cellulosic ethanol was found to be the most
expensive of all the biofuels to produce. Professor Jaeger doubts
that biofuels can ever replace more than 1% of United States fossil
fuel use on a net energy gain basis.
See Biofuels in Oregon from an Economic and Policy Perspective at:
http://arec.oregonstate.edu/jaeger/energy/Brief%20of%20Oregon%20Biofuels%20Jaeger%20v2.pdf
_______
The greatest threat to United States national security is biofuel
production, not terrorism. Biofuels do not contribute to "energy
independence." Biofuel production contributes to high food prices,
increased environmental damage, the speeding of global warming,
erosion of precious topsoil, water shortages, and global hunger.
Infecting millions of acres of US farmland with biofuel weeds is an
evil plot worthy of a James Bond villain, not a positive new energy
source.
When you try to grow both fuel and food at the same time, you greatly
increase the rate of topsoil erosion, because disturbing the land by
tilling and harvesting makes soils vulnerable to wind and rain.
Globally, topsoil is being lost ten times faster than it is being
replenished, and 30% of the world's arable land has become
unproductive in the past 40 years due to erosion. The human race
would quickly starve to death without topsoil, and the USA is in
serious jeopardy of losing adequate food growing capacity within 100
years or less due to erosion. Biofuel production is helping clog the
Mississippi and other rivers with topsoil from our prime growing
areas. In 1850, Iowa prairie soils had about 12-16 inches of topsoil,
but now have only about 6-8 inches. We are continuing to lose Iowa
topsoil at a rate of approximately 30 tons of topsoil per hectare
(10,000 square meters) per year. As it takes nature hundreds of years
to replace just 1 inch of lost topsoil, ask biofuel advocates if
helping to destroy the ability of future generations to grow food is a
worthy environmental goal.
For full scientific details of the biofuel disaster and better energy
alternatives, see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!"
at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
professor, recently spoke out against biofuel production to the Oregon
State Legislature. Below are two important quotes from his written
testimony.
"Can biofuels help us reduce our use of fossil fuels by a significant
amount, and can they do it at a reasonable cost? The answers from our
analysis to both parts of the question would appear to be “no.”
Concerning the second question: Can biofuels help us reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions by a significant amount and can they do it at
a reasonable cost? The answers to both parts of this question appear
to be an even more resounding “no.”
"If we place our analysis of biofuels in this context, relying on
biofuels to achieve the goals of reduced fossil fuel use and
greenhouse gas emissions, would be like having the Oregon Department
of Transportation pick a bridge design costing at least 900 percent
more than the least cost alternative, and one that would only reach a
fraction of the distance across the river."
In an earlier study, Jaeger found that to achieve a given improvement
in energy independence using ethanol from corn, biodiesel from
rapeseed (canola oil), and ethanol from wood-based cellulose could be
6 to 28 times more costly than other policy options, such as raising
fuel economy standards. Using all three biofuels at maximum estimated
scales of production in Oregon would lead to a net energy gain of just
two-thirds of one percent of Oregon’s annual energy use. None of the
biofuels were found to be marketable without large taxpayer subsidies,
and the much hyped cellulosic ethanol was found to be the most
expensive of all the biofuels to produce. Professor Jaeger doubts
that biofuels can ever replace more than 1% of United States fossil
fuel use on a net energy gain basis.
See Biofuels in Oregon from an Economic and Policy Perspective at:
http://arec.oregonstate.edu/jaeger/energy/Brief%20of%20Oregon%20Biofuels%20Jaeger%20v2.pdf
_______
The greatest threat to United States national security is biofuel
production, not terrorism. Biofuels do not contribute to "energy
independence." Biofuel production contributes to high food prices,
increased environmental damage, the speeding of global warming,
erosion of precious topsoil, water shortages, and global hunger.
Infecting millions of acres of US farmland with biofuel weeds is an
evil plot worthy of a James Bond villain, not a positive new energy
source.
When you try to grow both fuel and food at the same time, you greatly
increase the rate of topsoil erosion, because disturbing the land by
tilling and harvesting makes soils vulnerable to wind and rain.
Globally, topsoil is being lost ten times faster than it is being
replenished, and 30% of the world's arable land has become
unproductive in the past 40 years due to erosion. The human race
would quickly starve to death without topsoil, and the USA is in
serious jeopardy of losing adequate food growing capacity within 100
years or less due to erosion. Biofuel production is helping clog the
Mississippi and other rivers with topsoil from our prime growing
areas. In 1850, Iowa prairie soils had about 12-16 inches of topsoil,
but now have only about 6-8 inches. We are continuing to lose Iowa
topsoil at a rate of approximately 30 tons of topsoil per hectare
(10,000 square meters) per year. As it takes nature hundreds of years
to replace just 1 inch of lost topsoil, ask biofuel advocates if
helping to destroy the ability of future generations to grow food is a
worthy environmental goal.
For full scientific details of the biofuel disaster and better energy
alternatives, see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!"
at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
David B. Benson
Mar 22, 2009, 9:04:26 PM3/22/09
to globalchange
On Mar 21, 10:11 am, Christopher Calder <caldern...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
Just one state in India is setting up a million hectare Jatropha
plantation on unused land. There is a large Jatropha plantation in
Myanmar; there is something about it on a previous thread here. I am
sure similiar stories are unfolding in other parts of South Asia,
Southeast Asia and Africa. It would certainly be good to help the
Haitians do much the same in that devasted and devastatingly poor
country.
As for the U.S., I only know about a single 900,000 plant Jatropha
plantation being started in Florida. I gather that this will be
enough biodiesel to power the disel fleet of the county the plantation
is located in.
I agree that ethanol from corn and biodiesel from rapeseed are rather
poor ideas; biodiesel from Jatropha is another matter.
> [snip]
Just one state in India is setting up a million hectare Jatropha
plantation on unused land. There is a large Jatropha plantation in
Myanmar; there is something about it on a previous thread here. I am
sure similiar stories are unfolding in other parts of South Asia,
Southeast Asia and Africa. It would certainly be good to help the
Haitians do much the same in that devasted and devastatingly poor
country.
As for the U.S., I only know about a single 900,000 plant Jatropha
plantation being started in Florida. I gather that this will be
enough biodiesel to power the disel fleet of the county the plantation
is located in.
I agree that ethanol from corn and biodiesel from rapeseed are rather
poor ideas; biodiesel from Jatropha is another matter.
fernba...@yahoo.com
Mar 24, 2009, 8:30:48 PM3/24/09
to globalchange
Why is Jatropha better? Sorry if this is a simple-minded question to
people who have been following the biofuels debates, but not everyone
has been following them.
What is it about Jatropha biofuels that will avoid the pitfalls
associated with ethanol from corn or biodiesel from rapeseed?
people who have been following the biofuels debates, but not everyone
has been following them.
What is it about Jatropha biofuels that will avoid the pitfalls
associated with ethanol from corn or biodiesel from rapeseed?
Christopher Calder
Mar 23, 2009, 9:50:55 PM3/23/09
to globalchange
Jatropha, the new biofuel crop being promoted in tropical countries,
is effectively a giant toxic monster weed which will have a
destructive impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost
impossible to get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future
farming potential of the land.
SEE - http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG7593720070912
The idea that Haiti of all places should use up what little land they
have to grow Jatropha is absurd. Jatrophra is a unstable and
unpredictable producer of toxic seeds and oil. In India native people
are being run off their lands by rich developers who want to grow
biofuels, and these biofuel schemes are harming the environment,
wildlife, and native peoples all over Asia.
SEE - http://www.navdanya.org/news/5dec07.htm
Biofuels are the most evil idea of the 21st century. They have killed
more people, unleashed more greenhouse gas, and destroyed more
rainforests and native vegetation and wildlife habitat than anything
else. The idea that biofuels for automotive use can be good for
mankind is simply wrong. Biofuels should be used as calorie rich fuel
(food) for human beings and animals, not for machines.
"All sources of renewable liquid energy are inadequate when set
against the net energy density that is achieved from extracting oil
from wells, which we estimate as being the equivalent of capturing all
10,000 parts in 10,000 of insolation (incident solar radiation), or
even from producing synthetic gasoline from coal — equivalent to
capturing 2200 parts in 10,000 of insolation. 3 parts per 10,000 is a
pale shadow of the fossil fuel net energy densities which have been
the sine qua non of the 4400 million population growth in the last
century." - Andrew R.B. Ferguson, editor Optimum Population Trust
Journal
SEE - http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2456
Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
(all the facts on biofuels)
is effectively a giant toxic monster weed which will have a
destructive impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost
impossible to get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future
farming potential of the land.
SEE - http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG7593720070912
The idea that Haiti of all places should use up what little land they
have to grow Jatropha is absurd. Jatrophra is a unstable and
unpredictable producer of toxic seeds and oil. In India native people
are being run off their lands by rich developers who want to grow
biofuels, and these biofuel schemes are harming the environment,
wildlife, and native peoples all over Asia.
SEE - http://www.navdanya.org/news/5dec07.htm
Biofuels are the most evil idea of the 21st century. They have killed
more people, unleashed more greenhouse gas, and destroyed more
rainforests and native vegetation and wildlife habitat than anything
else. The idea that biofuels for automotive use can be good for
mankind is simply wrong. Biofuels should be used as calorie rich fuel
(food) for human beings and animals, not for machines.
"All sources of renewable liquid energy are inadequate when set
against the net energy density that is achieved from extracting oil
from wells, which we estimate as being the equivalent of capturing all
10,000 parts in 10,000 of insolation (incident solar radiation), or
even from producing synthetic gasoline from coal — equivalent to
capturing 2200 parts in 10,000 of insolation. 3 parts per 10,000 is a
pale shadow of the fossil fuel net energy densities which have been
the sine qua non of the 4400 million population growth in the last
century." - Andrew R.B. Ferguson, editor Optimum Population Trust
Journal
SEE - http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2456
Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
(all the facts on biofuels)
Christopher Calder
Mar 24, 2009, 11:30:46 PM3/24/09
to globalchange
On Mar 24, 5:30 pm, fernbach1...@yahoo.com wrote:
"Why is Jatropha better?"
- - - - - - -
Jatropha is most certainly not better; it is a nightmare for the
environment and the poor native peoples of Asia. Jatropha is
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG7593720070912
http://www.navdanya.org/news/5dec07.htm
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
"Why is Jatropha better?"
- - - - - - -
Jatropha is most certainly not better; it is a nightmare for the
environment and the poor native peoples of Asia. Jatropha is
effectively a giant toxic monster weed which will have a destructive
impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost impossible to
get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future farming potential
of the land.
See the two sites below for details.
impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost impossible to
get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future farming potential
of the land.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG7593720070912
http://www.navdanya.org/news/5dec07.htm
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
robert vocke
Mar 24, 2009, 10:23:40 PM3/24/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
If you consider energy returned on energy invested, return on investment ($), and carbon footprint as part of your life cycle analysis for biofuels "in general," they are not sustainable when it comes to energy security while mitigating anthropogenic global warming and ensuring security of food and water.
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:30:48 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3168] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: fernba...@yahoo.com
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:30:48 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3168] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: fernba...@yahoo.com
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
prag
Mar 25, 2009, 3:59:30 PM3/25/09
to globalchange
Christopher,
I notice you reference Lovelock. Lovelock seems to have moved on from
Nuclear to Biochar. See this reference:
"Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a
global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction
measures.
So are we doomed?
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of
carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true
(But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
something else by now ;-).
Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
reasoning is, or how sound.
I notice you reference Lovelock. Lovelock seems to have moved on from
Nuclear to Biochar. See this reference:
"Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a
global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction
measures.
So are we doomed?
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of
carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true
(But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
something else by now ;-).
Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
reasoning is, or how sound.
prag
Mar 25, 2009, 9:43:19 PM3/25/09
to globalchange
On Mar 25, 3:59 pm, prag <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Christopher,
>
> I notice you reference Lovelock. Lovelock seems to have moved on from
> Nuclear to Biochar. See this reference:
>
> "Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
>
> It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a
> global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction
> measures.
>
> So are we doomed?
>
> There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
> massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
> agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
> the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
> it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of
> carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."
>
>
> (But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
> something else by now ;-).
>
> Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
> gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
> elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
> reasoning is, or how sound.
Now I think I get it, You need sinks to counteract all the pre-
> (But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
> something else by now ;-).
>
> Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
> gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
> elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
> reasoning is, or how sound.
existing sources that will be around for decades. Nuclear just
displaces future sources, as a practical matter.
Makes sense if we are truly hanging by our fingernails on the rim of
the Abyss, I guess.
Christopher Calder
Mar 25, 2009, 10:43:28 PM3/25/09
to globalchange
I remember reading a news story about a biochar experiment in
Scandinavian forests, used to increase carbon sequestration, but the
experiment failed. I did a web search for the story, but could not
find it. I did find these two skeptical sites, however.
"International Biochar Conference Uses False Claims to Promote
Dangerous Technology in the name of Climate Change Mitigation"
SEE - http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/20817
SEE - http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
Christopher
Scandinavian forests, used to increase carbon sequestration, but the
experiment failed. I did a web search for the story, but could not
find it. I did find these two skeptical sites, however.
"International Biochar Conference Uses False Claims to Promote
Dangerous Technology in the name of Climate Change Mitigation"
SEE - http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/20817
- - - - - -
"Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction?"
SEE - http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
Christopher
Christopher Calder
Mar 25, 2009, 6:31:02 PM3/25/09
to globalchange
The problem with turning "crop waste" into non-biodegradable charcoal
and burying it, is that there is very little true crop waste.
Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under
increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most
potent greenhouse gas of all: nitrous oxide. Much of the residual
crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy we will end up
committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire.
SEE http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/542626/
I hope the extreme global warming theories and predictions are wrong.
If they are true, then we are doomed. Even if you used the charcoal
scheme, you would still have to use nuclear energy to eliminate fossil
fuel emissions. It's not an either-or proposition.
Christopher Calder
and burying it, is that there is very little true crop waste.
Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under
increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most
potent greenhouse gas of all: nitrous oxide. Much of the residual
crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy we will end up
committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire.
SEE http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/542626/
I hope the extreme global warming theories and predictions are wrong.
If they are true, then we are doomed. Even if you used the charcoal
scheme, you would still have to use nuclear energy to eliminate fossil
fuel emissions. It's not an either-or proposition.
Christopher Calder
robert vocke
Mar 25, 2009, 5:03:02 PM3/25/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
Biochar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monbiot-response
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:59:30 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3172] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: tada...@yahoo.com
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:59:30 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3172] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: tada...@yahoo.com
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
James
Mar 26, 2009, 6:24:10 PM3/26/09
to globalchange
On Mar 26, 7:31 am, Christopher Calder <caldern...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem with turning "crop waste" into non-biodegradable charcoal
> and burying it, is that there is very little true crop waste.
> Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under
> increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most
> potent greenhouse gas of all: nitrous oxide. Much of the residual
> crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
> integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
> dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy we will end up
> committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire.
high that it actually soaks up nitrogen from the soil on burial. There
have been long periods where crop waste is fully removed (admittedly
there is a limit to how low the straw can be cut!) and the UK's yields
are among the highest in the world.
James
Richard Fletcher
Mar 26, 2009, 5:13:20 PM3/26/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
I'm
wondering if the US commuter fleet of cars should be converted to the
technology proposed by:
http://www.afstrinity.com/ a range of 40 miles per charge-up/150 miles per gallon and the entire long-haul fleet of trucks and buses and local municipality buses converted to compressed natural gas as proposed by the Pickensplan.I wonder what that would do for us?
Fletch92131
http://www.afstrinity.com/ a range of 40 miles per charge-up/150 miles per gallon and the entire long-haul fleet of trucks and buses and local municipality buses converted to compressed natural gas as proposed by the Pickensplan.I wonder what that would do for us?
Fletch92131
David B. Benson
Mar 27, 2009, 9:51:17 PM3/27/09
to globalchange
Jatropha (only one species of that genus) was discovered in
Central America. The small-holders there found it
advantageous to surround their gardens with Jatropha
plantings because it is poisonous; pests won't go through
hedges of it to eat the crops.
For this reason it also became popular for small holders in
Vietnam; possibly elsewhere but I have no knowledge.
It produces oil seeds and eventually it was noticed that the
resulting vegatable oil can be burnt for (1)cooking fires
(2)modified diesel motor or (3)easily refomulated into
biodiesel for unmodified diesel engines. As the price of
fossil fuels went through the roof, the economies of
developing countries were badly damaged; as a result some
rather large Jatropha projects have been started. In the
countries I know about the small-holders can press and sell
the Jatropha oil at the processing plant for the same price
as from the nearby plantation; this provides a cash crop to
what might well othrwise be a subsistence farmer.
As for Haiti, just now they can neither feed themselves nor
have enough fuel for even cooking. Converting most of the
land, all barren, to producing Jatropha is feasible. It may
take a very long time before the destroyed soils, most of
Haiti, are able to grow enough food of the Haitians to feed
themselves; I am not sure about that but I am sure that after
last summer hurricanes, Haiti needs considerable help to
become self-sufficient; Jatropha will grow on their wrecked
hills.
I have further read of two successful projects in India
where, in each case, one or a few villages agree to grow some
Jatropha and take the oil to a central location where it is
burnt to generate some electricty. For one of these projects
this is enough so that the homes in the co-operative each
have a single electric light for 3 hours in the evening and
also street lighting for 3.5 hours.
Jatropha tolerates degraded soils and does not require much
water. So far, at least, nobody seems to have found a need
to apply chemical fertilizers to Jatropha shrubs AFAIK.
Central America. The small-holders there found it
advantageous to surround their gardens with Jatropha
plantings because it is poisonous; pests won't go through
hedges of it to eat the crops.
For this reason it also became popular for small holders in
Vietnam; possibly elsewhere but I have no knowledge.
It produces oil seeds and eventually it was noticed that the
resulting vegatable oil can be burnt for (1)cooking fires
(2)modified diesel motor or (3)easily refomulated into
biodiesel for unmodified diesel engines. As the price of
fossil fuels went through the roof, the economies of
developing countries were badly damaged; as a result some
rather large Jatropha projects have been started. In the
countries I know about the small-holders can press and sell
the Jatropha oil at the processing plant for the same price
as from the nearby plantation; this provides a cash crop to
what might well othrwise be a subsistence farmer.
As for Haiti, just now they can neither feed themselves nor
have enough fuel for even cooking. Converting most of the
land, all barren, to producing Jatropha is feasible. It may
take a very long time before the destroyed soils, most of
Haiti, are able to grow enough food of the Haitians to feed
themselves; I am not sure about that but I am sure that after
last summer hurricanes, Haiti needs considerable help to
become self-sufficient; Jatropha will grow on their wrecked
hills.
I have further read of two successful projects in India
where, in each case, one or a few villages agree to grow some
Jatropha and take the oil to a central location where it is
burnt to generate some electricty. For one of these projects
this is enough so that the homes in the co-operative each
have a single electric light for 3 hours in the evening and
also street lighting for 3.5 hours.
Jatropha tolerates degraded soils and does not require much
water. So far, at least, nobody seems to have found a need
to apply chemical fertilizers to Jatropha shrubs AFAIK.
prag
Mar 30, 2009, 4:31:40 PM3/30/09
to globalchange
Lovelock is fighting back, and he still likes charcold as of
last Tuesday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02
Is it true the biosphere cycles 18 times more CO2 than we emit each
year?
On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, robert vocke <ecos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Biochar:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monb...
> Internet Explorer 8 – Now Available. Faster, safer, easier.http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/141323790/direct/01/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
last Tuesday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02
Is it true the biosphere cycles 18 times more CO2 than we emit each
year?
On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, robert vocke <ecos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Biochar:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monb...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:59:30 -0700
> > Subject: [Global Change: 3172] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> > From: tadams...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:59:30 -0700
> > Subject: [Global Change: 3172] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> > To: global...@googlegroups.com
>
> > Christopher,
>
> > I notice you reference Lovelock. Lovelock seems to have moved on from
> > Nuclear to Biochar. See this reference:
>
> > "Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
>
> > It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a
> > global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction
> > measures.
>
> > So are we doomed?
>
> > There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
> > massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
> > agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
> > the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
> > it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of
> > carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to...
>
> > Christopher,
>
> > I notice you reference Lovelock. Lovelock seems to have moved on from
> > Nuclear to Biochar. See this reference:
>
> > "Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
>
> > It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a
> > global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction
> > measures.
>
> > So are we doomed?
>
> > There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
> > massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
> > agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
> > the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
> > it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of
> > carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."
>
>
> > (But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
> > something else by now ;-).
>
> > Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
> > gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
> > elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
> > reasoning is, or how sound.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> > (But this site is 3 months old, perhaps Lovelock has moved on to
> > something else by now ;-).
>
> > Maybe Lovelock thinks we could gear up Biochar faster than we could
> > gear up Nuclear? And maybe a sink-inhancement is better than source
> > elimination if you think the matter is urgent? Not sure what his
> > reasoning is, or how sound.
>
> Internet Explorer 8 – Now Available. Faster, safer, easier.http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/141323790/direct/01/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Christopher Mims
Mar 26, 2009, 10:05:50 PM3/26/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
What happens when we hit peak natural gas, 10-20 years after peak oil?
At some point Canada has to stop being a net exporter -- do we really want to, for instance, ruin the water supply of NYC just to get at the gas that's upstate?
There aren't enough LNG terminals in the world to slake our thirst -- especially as we (wisely) switch from coal to natural gas in order to generate all the electricity that all those plug-in hybrids will be using.
robert vocke
Mar 28, 2009, 8:53:40 AM3/28/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
A couple of new papers on ethanol:
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/09wp488.pdf
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/09wp487.pdf
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:51:17 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3179] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/09wp488.pdf
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/09wp487.pdf
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:51:17 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3179] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
robert vocke
Mar 28, 2009, 8:37:30 AM3/28/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:51:17 -0700
> Subject: [Global Change: 3179] Re: Strudy shows biofuels have no value and are a waste of money
> From: dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
> From: dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu
> To: global...@googlegroups.com
Jason Patton
Mar 30, 2009, 5:02:15 PM3/30/09
to global...@googlegroups.com
Close enough:
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3066.aspx
Though that displays all carbon, not just CO2.
Jason
Tom Adams
Apr 1, 2009, 8:49:53 AM4/1/09
to globalchange
I guess slowing down emmissions from plant decay would have all sorts
of bad side effects?
> > year?- Hide quoted text -
of bad side effects?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages