<Drumbeat: April 13, 2009 The Oil Drum Three Energy Stories to Watch>

20 comments on The 2009 EIA Energy Conference: Day 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

majorian on April 13, 2009 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

The conference just proves that DOE isn't going to push any national energy policy whatsoever and will merely produce salaries for eggheads. They think energy policy is someone else's job, probably Big Oil and the electric utilities. Chu and most of these fools need to be fired ASAP.

There is obviously a huge disconnect between the administration commitment to GW reductions and energy independence and the 'green economy' and the behavior of the Obama's appointees.

On ethanol, obviously it is going to continue to be the biggest part of the US liquid fuels mitigation, everything else being off-the-table.

The studies which R^2 uses to support his anti-ethanol bias are as silly as ever.
The idea biomass crops produce more greenhouse gas emissions than oil is downright stupid on its face: With oil you dig up billions of tons of carbon and put it into the atmosphere, with biomass you harvest crops that get their carbon from the atmosphere(carbon neutral). The Searchinger indirect land use study is an unbalanced worse-case analysis. Really, it is silly to blame US ethanol for land use changes in Asia, Latin America and Africa(there is a tariff on Brazilian ethanol). Obviously if we use wood in cellulosic ethanol we would'nt be changing land use.

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/2298/scope_report.pdf

And the paper ignores the depletion of oil completely so it's a red herring IMO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on April 13, 2009 - 1:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The studies which R^2 uses to support his anti-ethanol bias are as silly as ever.

First, I don't have an anti-ethanol bias. If I did, I would never have anything positive to say about ethanol (of course you and Kdolliso never seem to find any fault with ethanol; negative peer-reviewed studies are rejected in favor of science fair projects and statements from the ethanol lobby). Ethanol as a fuel is just fine as far as I am concerned. I have an anti-propaganda, pro-scientific method bias. Second, which studies are you talking about that I used to support my 'bias'?

The idea biomass crops produce more greenhouse gas emissions than oil is downright stupid on its face: With oil you dig up billions of tons of carbon and put it into the atmosphere, with biomass you harvest crops that get their carbon from the atmosphere(carbon neutral).

That comment itself is downright stupid without context. If as a result of the conversion of the biomass you end up using a lot of fossil fuels, then it is certainly possible for biomass crops to result in more greenhouse emissions. For instance, here's one I bet you would admit (that is, if you didn't have such an ethanol bias). Produce ethanol in Nebraska, which has one of the worst energy balances because of the need to irrigate. Ship that ethanol to California for use. Positive net energy balance? Doubtful. Or produce ethanol at a Pacific Ethanol plant and ship it to New York. Positive energy balance? Not a chance. So it should be clear that it is indeed possible for biofuels to produce more carbon emissions even without considering the land usage changes. It's just a matter of whether in any specific case they actually do. What I have said is that I think they are slightly better than fossil fuels, but also very dependent on cheap fossil fuels to keep the show running.

The Searchinger indirect land use study is an unbalanced worse-case analysis.

Yet it survived peer review in Science, one of the most prestigious journals out there. The same can't be said of your link, written by an ethanol lobby paid to promote ethanol. I see the sorts of tactics from Dinneen that Creationists like to use to push pseudo-science. Yet I am the one being silly? Sometimes it's hard to believe that you are being serious.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on April 13, 2009 - 2:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How did I get dragged off into this? :)

This statement interests me though. "I see the sorts of tactics from Dinneen that Creationists like to use to push pseudo-science."

I've never noticed this. Do you have any examples?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on April 13, 2009 - 3:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK. Enough. We don't need an argument about this.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on April 13, 2009 - 3:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Do you feel I was being argumentative?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on April 13, 2009 - 6:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No. Just that the discussion was not likely to go anywhere.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on April 13, 2009 - 8:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So it's not okay to question a hit-and-run ad hom on someone if they're connected to biofuels. Is that about it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on April 13, 2009 - 9:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So it's not okay to question a hit-and-run ad hom on someone if they're connected to biofuels.

This from the master of the hit and run ad hom. Pimentel, Patzek, and the oil industry as a whole have all been targets of your ad homs. But since Gail wishes to keep this from degenerating, I will simply point out what I was talking about. Popular Creationist techniques include framing the arguments of the opposition with overusage of the kinds of negative adjectives the RFA used in the release. Creationists characterize the arguments of evolutionists as the RFA did: "oft-repudiated", "highly speculative", "repeatedly disproven", "disputed science", and "unsubstantiated." They figure the more negative adjectives they throw out, the worse the arguments look. They like to talk about "gaps in scientific knowledge" as if this means we really don't know anything and therefore we really shouldn't take any of this seriously.

But the real kicker is the signed statement. Creationists love to trot out the signed statements of "100 scientists who dispute evolution." Here we have "111 scientists" who wrote to the governor to suggest that the science on land usage was controversial. No actual direct rebuttal from those scientists; just an argument from authority. Like I said, tactics perfected by Creationists. I debated them for years, so I am quite familiar with the techniques.

I thought you at least deserved to know what I was referring to, but that will be all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

20 comments on The 2009 EIA Energy Conference: Day 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version