 | Peak water in Saudi Arabia | The Oil Drum: Europe | Understanding the current energy crisis in South Africa |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
First, I just want to say that I think a grid supported transportation system is the most preferable option. So I'm a major supporter of an electric based transportation system and bridge energy systems like hybrids and PHEVs. I see ethanol and other biofuels, which I don't believe will ever be produced in volumes great enough to match current oil production, as part of the solution. At best, I can't see biofuels ever topping more than 10mbpd. But if a high cost fuel can delay the peak a little longer while incentivizing the transition then I'll support it as a practical option.
That said, I want to address your statement directly and I'm not doing it out of any disrespect whatsoever for your research. Just to say it seems strange that you'd attribute this increase to an accounting change. Can you show me, in the report, where they changed the accounting? Otherwise, it's your word against the USDA.
In the interest of fairness, I'm going to post a number of related reports:
http://www.calrenewablefuels.com/pdfs/Energy%20Balance.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.html
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_...
Some state the USDA's findings. Others support the debate.
And Robert, I saw your R2 blogs, so you needn't repost them here. I guess I fall in the camp that supports ethanol as a bridge fuel and doesn't agree with the negative EROEI arguments.
So for my part, here is my opinion/analysis:
1. Biofuels help mitigate the peak.
2. Corn ethanol eeks out a net energy return with more positives in sugar cane, and potential cellulosic.
3. All biofuels help lead us away from oil and promote energy independence which is, overall, a good thing.
4. Energy diversity is, in my opinion, the best way to deal with contracting supply. IMO the preference should be on the options that move us away from fossil fuels.
5. The US is strong in agriculture and, long term, can win with biofuels.
6. I think that all sides of the field are likely to have skewed their reports to bias their respective interests. A shame, really.
Biofuels are going to be remembered as a great tragedy. Read Stuart's "Fermenting the Food Supply" and this article:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm
At maximum we could get 10% of our liquid fuels at a cost of billions starved. The energy returns are marginal, so biofuels buy us very little time for a huge capital investment. Far better, cheaper, and more ethical to require more efficient vehicles by law.