Quote:
Yes, I read them. As I said before, everything I have read, comes with it's own inherent bias.
A peer reviewed study does not come with 'bias', after all thats the point of a peer review. Read the link posted by Johnny Corvette. While the web site itself has its own take, the studies referenced do not, they are simply statements of facts.
Quote:
I read the UCD guy's paper and it appears that he is using a benchmark of carbon balance and CO2 to the land being old growth forest versus U.S. idle farmland. There hasn't been old growth forest in the U.S. since before my time. Only large government subsidies that keep the land idle so as to not overproduce.
Please do not confuse what others are doing around the world with what the U.S. should do for itself first.
Since hte US does not have adequate farmland to do mass production on its own, what is done around the world to make this work is absolutely relevant. Just as the middle eastern situation is a result of our current production methods. Do you wish to see terrorists from African nations blowing things up in the US due to our exploitation of thier natural resources? Don't think they exist? Ask the former colonial powers about that. We'd be trading the middle eastern problems for another set of problems.
Quote:
It seems that hydrogen fuel cells may be the way to go, maybe. Or even perhaps, fuel from algae. However, these technologies are what, 10 years away from being viable alternatives? What do we do in the meantime? Nothing? Dream? Hold hands and sing kumbyah?
I listed what to do several times. I'll list it again below.
Quote:
I Googled "biodiesel scam" this afternoon and sifted through the modern hippie sites and came onto a link that no doubt you have seen, read, and subscribe to it's mantra. Then there was one that did however make perfect sense. By trading one fuel for another does not solve the problem [ it's like a heroin addict being placed on methadone "therapy" to wean him off of the heroin. It just trades one addiction for another .]. There are just toooooo many cars in the world and the U.S.
If you want to talk land use, think about all the land we damage by building roads, to drive cars on. Land we use to build plants to make the cars to drive on the roads. The land we use to acquire the resources to make the cars to drive on the roads we build. By the end of the article, I was about to sell my car and my house, move to a city center buy a bike and live in a commune. The guy was RIGHT! the problem isn't the fuel, the problem is our lifestyle. So I took a drive by myself to clear my head. What the guy, and I fear you are trying to do is change the entire lifestyle of the 21 century.
Are you familiar with the concept of building a Strawman? That is where you take someone's arguments, find someone more extreme who encompasses parts of the first person's actual statements, and then attribute the extremists point of view to the first person. In other words, your building your own case, and then attacking it, while attributing that case to me. I have not called for any of that. All I have done is warn that Biofuels present a clear and present threat to the ecosystems that rivals what oil is doing, and a threat to our foreign policy that is also just as great. Pointing out that threat is not the same as calling for the US to become a nation of hippies living on communes. You'll note that I have yet to tell people to change thier lifestyle anywhere in this thread.
Quote:
If using and promoting biodiesel and wvo/svo use gets Soccer Mom Sally to at least begin to think about the damage being done to the planet and then, that further compels her to vote for eco-friendly pols.... Then my friend, I will continue to support it's use.
The problem is that society tends to be 'out of sight, out of mind'. If 'soccer mom' thinks that biofuels solve her problems, and that she no longer has to worry, it will then take a LOT of work to get her concerned again in the future when the inevitable overuse of Biofuels creates its own set of issues. Furthermore, this leads to the misconception that scientists 'invent' a new crisis every couple decades to stay relevant. The better question to ask is: Why do we not take a long term view with our 'solutions' in the first place, which would prevent continuing crisis, or at the least minimize them. The answer is that politicians do not have any real vested interest in the long term, only the short term as their political life is lived election to election, not 50 year accomplishments.
Quote:
The tweaking you referred to, what I meant was if to decrease the Monsanto chemical fertilizers we readjust our expectations of crop yield. Use genetically modified plants [ don't even go there ] to make them drought resistant, bug and disease resistant. After-all, we are talking fuel stock here not feed stock. On, and on. Adjust the numbers that have been used to vilify the use of renewable fuel sources. I'd love to talk to one of those guys in person and ask a few questions.
This is already being done. But it is not magic. Its not going to make a crop that requires no water. Furthermore its a system of tradeoffs, one genetic tweak that reduces water usage might also reduce yield, another that requires less fertilizer may also reduce its energy density. As for reducing our expectations of crop density, if we do that then we eliminate the ability to ever make a 'net positive' in terms of harvest and processing. If a biofuel is produced as a 'net negative' on energy, then it costs us more fuel to manufacture than it produces post-refinement, and that means it won't help at all(it actually would make the problem worse).
Quote:
Most of what I read all talked about what "can't be done". B.S. tell me what CAN be done.
I am not certain why I have to keep repeating this. I have said it several times in both threads. Right now there is a bill in congress called the New Apollo Energy Initiative. It is sponsored by Representative Jay Inslee, and Senator Maria Cantwell. It mandates solving the energy crisis as a federal budget priority on the same level as the Apollo project to land men on the moon back in the 60's. Call your congressman and ask them to support that measure.
On a personal level there is also much you can do. For instance spend more effort recycling(especially plastic, as it is an oil product and accounts for around 60% of our oil imports). Get low energy appliances. Use sleep mode on your computers. Don't leave the tv running when your not watching it. Everything else that every energy conservationist would tell you. Simple conservation alone would save the US millions of barrels of oil. Hell, just if 30% of the US population switched to diesel for their vehicles the oil savings would be enough to eliminate the imports of this nation from Saudi Arabia.
There is plenty you can do.