97 comments on More on biofuels
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
97 comments on More on biofuels
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
http://www.ageratec.se/biodiesel_index.asp?lang=EN
I still have concerns for global EROEI, since most studies don't include all energy requirements like construction and maintenance of all the engines (ever seen how a wheel on a tractor is changed ?), irrigation (in our countryside water has to be pumped for irrigation. Water volume required has been increasing in the past years). Volumes of fertilizer and pesticides vary enormously from one published study to the other as do the estimated BTU's for the manufacturing of these products (see links provided by robert rapier for an estimation of these spreads).
And for the long term I keep asking my brother in law to please consider soil depletion (a very real issue, since plants do need other elements than N,P,K and CO2 to grow), surface of arable land (in slight excess in France but already competing with agriculture for food). Also don't forget that EROEI of our whole transportation system is <<1. This means that energy taken from biomass is taken out and isn't put back into the system except for CO2. For now there is an excess biomass with regard to the whole ecosystem, otherwise oil wouldn't have formed. So we can sacrifice some of this ... but at what ecological cost and in what places ? Moreover, if we increase the area of arable land, will we really increase the total biomass (i.e. the carbon sink) ? I stay with stuart staniford on this point, increasing our total C02 emission is probably very deleterious.
I must say that these arguments don't hold for someone involved in agriculture. In Europe biodiesel will increase, regardless of what we say or may think, unless the consequences become disastrous or the economy breaks down.
This points toward using zero-till, leaving an optimum amount of organic matter on the surface and returning all nutrients either as liquid effluent or ash. If some of the carbon can be returned as charcoal (inorganic) and tilled in every ten years or so, the nutrient-holding capacity of the soil could be substantially increased at the same time as carbon is sequestered for millennia.
You are absolutely right!
(I don't often find myself agrreeing with you so wholeheartedly ;-)
No-till, leave as much as possible in place or return everything you don't use.
These principles are the essence of the Masanobu Fukuoka philosophy of natural farming. I believe such principles can be applied in varying situations with positive long-term results.
i.e. lower external inputs (energy, materials) and healthy soil.
Mr. Fukuoka has been analysing energy inputs versus energy outputs of farming since the 1930s.
Blinded by the "Green Revolution", most people dismissed his valid concerns about the disaster being created by "modern" farming methods.