 | Cyclone Gonu Thread 3 (Last Updated 10pm EDT, 6/6) | The Oil Drum | Relocalization: A Strategic Response to Climate Change and Peak Oil |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
If you can find a quote from a biofuel proponent who believes that petroleum demand will decrease because of biofuel usage... then by all be means post up!
What is this, a trick question? Must you post challenges that I can meet, all day long, with half my brain tied behind my back?
President Bush, Please Declare a War on Oil!
Says Vinod Khosla, who is also making these claims to the folks formulating our energy policies.
No Robert not usage - demand.
There's quite a difference between biofuels replacing petroleum usage vs. biofuels reducing petroleum demand.
I've cordially stated as such on prior occasion so please untie your brain and find a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will be reduced because of biofuels.
There's quite a difference between biofuels replacing petroleum usage vs. biofuels reducing petroleum demand.
If biofuels replace 150 billion gallons of gasoline usage, then they have replaced 150 billion gallons of gasoline demand. Perhaps you can clarify what you think the difference is.
To save yourself some time, Google ethanol and "reduce petroleum demand." You will find many instances of ethanol advocates stating that ethanol can/will/may reduce petroleum demand.
As I said, there is nothing to your challenge. Even if you do think that reducing gasoline usage by 150 billion barrels is not a reduction in gasoline demand.
And besides, wasn't reducing petroleum demand or usage kind of the point in developing ethanol? Or was it just to make a heavily subsidized buck? If it is not supposed to reduce demand or usage, then it is more worthless than I thought.
I am not interested in Google search parameters.
I've asked you and other TODers to find me a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will decrease as result of biofuel usage. This is a rather simple request that so far no one has been able to fill.
Nor for that matter, will the choosing of an arbitrary number deflect the standing of my position.
For example: If I were to replace 10 barrels of gasoline on the world market with 10 barrels of ethanol would demand for those 10 barrels of gasoline be removed? No, of course not. How about 100 million barrels? Same effect. Why?
Because demand for petroleum and its byproducts i.e. gasoline is ever increasing and for all intents and purposes, will not cease until it’s all gone.
If this assertion wasn’t fundamentally true, then the IEA and EIA would have nice charts detailing the future demand of gasoline as sloping down and away into negative territory.
I've asked you and other TODers to find me a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will decrease as result of biofuel usage.
That's what I gave you. You just wish to apply your own definition of demand in order to avoid the conclusion. I am pretty familiar with that tactic.
Do you know how the EIA, keeper of U.S. energy statistics, defines demand? Product supplied to the market. If gasoline supplied to the market went to zero, then demand went to zero. So I am really not interested in your special version of demand. Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline. You know, that whole 20 in 10 meme? So, the fact remains, no matter what your definition of "is" is.
You did not fulfill the request and the patronizing EIA comment is uncalled for.
Product supply and product demand are not the same -ECON 101- but since you’ve decided to 3rd party the EIAs definition as your own, are we to assume that during the Arab oil embargo when 1000’s of people were lined up in their cars at service stations that did not have gasoline to sell, that demand for gasoline did not exist?
“Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline.” – which has been the crux of my position all along.
Biofuel usage displaces gasonline usage. This is a measurable fact.
Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand. To erroneously infer otherwise and assign such inferences to participants in the biofuel sector is your own personal agenda.
Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand.
You are confusing fuel demand with gasoline demand. If I can put either ethanol or gasoline in my car, and I choose ethanol, then my gasoline demand went down. But my fuel demand did not.
And there was nothing patronizing about the EIA comment. I am just pointing out that my use of demand is exactly the same as theirs.
Syntec,
Yes he did fulfill the request. You are just posturing to avoid his clear answer. This is annoying.
ciao,
Bruce
Unfortunately, 40 gallons of petroleum are used to grow one acre of corn. Factor in the petroleum used to move corn to market and to get ethanol back to the market, other depletable energy sources like natural gas used to make fertilizer to grow the corn, to run the distiller...
Ethanol produced from corn is a scam.
Best case scenario gives a slight increase in energy. Best case scenarios rarely hold up in the real world.
I did inhale.
"There's quite a difference between biofuels replacing petroleum usage vs. biofuels reducing petroleum demand."
key part biofuels reducing petroleum demand
Maybe not that far from the truth. Food or fuel will become a serious issue IMHO just a matter of when.
Hay prices are way up $120- $130 ton vrs $85 - $90 last year.
Milk prices are up too.
Rising fuel costs is like a rising tide.
food "usage" will soon go down as the "demand" evaporates in the face of high prices.
People can live on 1000 calories/day. But they won't like it.
Think of it this way LNG.
You eat apples. LOVE apples, can't get enough of them. Apples in fact, are needed for sustenance by you, your family, your society and like a hamster on a treadmill, demand for these apples is ever increasing but there's a twist - the supply of apples is finite (which is key to the concept).
One day, someone brings you oranges. You now have the choice of eating either apples or oranges or BOTH.
Oranges are not finite. They're a nice change for certain and although you could switch to eating just oranges, there really aren't enough oranges to go around for everyone to do so.
Will demand for finite, society sustaining apples decrease because oranges are being eaten as well or will you not free up more apples for those who weren't getting enough in the first place?
Jevon's paradox no?
No one is bringing you anything - you're buying it. The apples are steadily getting more expensive and the oranges have always cost more than the apples, and still do. Even worse, for some reason the increased availability of oranges means that lots of other important goods are more scarce and cost more, too.
IOW, you are actually being less efficient by eating oranges, so Jevons Paradox does not apply.
Oh man this could turn into a messy fruit salad real quick =]
Ok, I buy the oranges and yes, I agree that the increased availabilty of some 'types' of oranges means that lots of other important goods may become more scarce and cost more too.
Would you not agree, however, that the orange-related scarcity and cost concerns of these other goods, are absolutely miniscule when compared to what is going to happen when apple prices go through the roof? Or worse, when apples are no longer available?
No, I suspect all those prices will rise together. More and more people will not get apples or oranges.