<The White House: AEI in All Its Glory (SOTU Open Thread 3) The Oil Drum EPA's Green Power Partnership>

264 comments on Numbers and the State of the Union Energy segment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

NC on February 1, 2006 - 2:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Leanan,

This view point is absolutely correct IMO.  I am a strong believer in biofuels, but not as a total replacement of current petroleum usage.  Plant biomass can generate feedstocks for both chemical processes and transportation fuel but there is a limit to sustanable production.

The 1/27/06 issue of Science investigates both the gains to be made in biodigesters and ethanol production.  This is behind a paywall but the abstract of the biodiesters article is below for interested parties.

Biomass represents an abundant carbon-neutral renewable resource for the production of bioenergy and biomaterials, and its enhanced use would address several societal needs. Advances in genetics, biotechnology, process chemistry, and engineering are leading to a new manufacturing concept for converting renewable biomass to valuable fuels and products, generally referred to as the biorefinery. The integration of agroenergy crops and biorefinery manufacturing technologies offers the potential for the development of sustainable biopower and biomaterials that will lead to a new manufacturing paradigm.

They make special not that until around 1900 most ingredients for industry came from plants.  It wasn't until the mid to late 1900's that production of these components switched to petroleum based.

While I agree with the goals of the article at some point there is only so much energy that can be taken out of the ecosystem each year and have it remain sustainable.  That is where we need to focus some research.  How do we have sustainable production of plants with a large decrease of fossil fuels?  How much of that crop can be dedicated to non food uses?  How much energy (electric, liquid fuels, methane, etc.) can be generated from that surplus biomass?  We would then have a target to shoot for in conservation of energy and replacement of existing transportation systems.

I think there are opportunities in these directions but they all fall apart if not underpined by conservation.  Reduction in current energy usage, especially transportation fuel, has to be the start of the process.  Not some after thought, that people are expected to do on their own.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 2:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
While I agree with the goals of the article at some point there is only so much energy that can be taken out of the ecosystem each year and have it remain sustainable.

Precisely.  

And, I suspect, it's going to take more than conservation.  If current trends continue, the U.S. population will be 45% higher by 2050.  Peak oil aside, by 2020, the U.S. and Canada, the last remaining major food exporters, will be consuming all the food that they produce.  We have some tough choices to make.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stormy on February 1, 2006 - 4:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We have to distinguish between exporter and producer here.

Being the biggest exporter does not mean you are the biggest producer.  I am trying to do a little research on the largest producers in various foods.  I suspect that Russia and China will excel in some areas, even though as in the case of China, their production may not meet their needs in some areas.

Consider the following:

"U.S. processed food imports grew 5.9 percent in 2000 to a record high of $36.8 billion. In the same year, U.S. processed food exports grew 4.0 percent to $30 billion. The $6.8 billion trade deficit in 2000 marked the third consecutive year of progressively larger processed food trade deficits for the United States."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/septdec01/

The issue is far more complicated than the above; nonetheless it does reveal that we are not quite in the cat bird's seat.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on February 1, 2006 - 4:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi I am pretty new to this forum and I don't always follow protocol very well. Sorry. Given that, I did post an opinion and reference on Switchgrass at the very end of this forum. In it I mention the ramification of using "waste" to power our infrastructure. I alsod referenced a peer-reviewed article on ethanol. It appears that these crop solutions are virtually impossible.

I agree with Leenan and wouldn't be surprised if the Brazilian cane-sugar program depends on the slash/burn paradigm: you get one or several free-rides before the tilth, health, and nutrition of the soil gives out and the energy return ins subsequent crops decrease below the new and necessary energy input required to grow the crop.

Again, I am sorry to disperse my opinions like this.

peter

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

264 comments on Numbers and the State of the Union Energy segment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version