 | Is this Cowes Week? Or the return of a happy memory. | The Oil Drum | Better Together Instead of Bowling Alone |  |
DrumBeat: May 30, 2006
Posted by threadbot on May 30, 2006 - 9:00am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
I know ethanol is not THE solution to our fuel problems but a 5% solution is better than no solution and I think the technical challenges on improving the EROEI for ethanol are something we can get a handle on when compared to hydrogen fuel cells. It's clear that many in the investment community have seen the light, so think twice before poo pooing bio fuels.
I don't agree.
Ethanol using corn or other crops is a rape of the land.
Be it celluse or starch based you're still depleting the soil on a scale that is not sustainable. Corn farming as it's done is not sustainable - the depletion of aquifers, salination of the soils not to mention the petro intensive fertilizers and pesticides.
Ethanol is just another way to destroy the earth more for future generations so that we can keep on living our unsustainable fantasy!
This interview with Tad Patzek is most informative:
http://www.thewatt.com/article-1166-nested-1-0.html
I'm also of a similar view regarding carbon sequestering and nuclear fuel containment - it endangers the future for present day gain. Fuels which were generally sequestered, safe and inaccessable are now lethally potent, at the surface of the earth, and presenting a danger for time immemorial.
The technical challenges of ethanol would be fertilizers made from something other than NG, better yeasts, better enzymes, more efficient processes, and perhaps a strain of corn that requires less fertilizer... or maybe go away from corn to some other plant entirely--these are all problems with roadmaps (unlike hydrogen which requires a breakthrough type solution) we can handle these types of problems and perhaps bring bio fuels from a 5% solution to a 10% or 15% solution. Conservation could add another 20% to 30%. So already we're half way to a solution with no major die-offs. I'm not saying we won't have a major recession or even depression but I'm not willing to concede to a mad max future quite yet. Don't forget, we still have oil. It just won't come out of the ground as quickly as we would like.
Ultimately aquafir depletion will do in high productivity corn growing. Without irrigation, yields in the midwest will drop to around 30-40 bushels/Ac. Further, some semi-desert areas would have to stop growing corn altogether.
(Additionally, corn also needs P and K. From what I have read, we are approaching peak P in 30 or so years.)
New Farm (Rodale), http://www.newfarm.org has done a lot of work on organically grown corn at their PA research farm. They have obtained excellent yields. But I do not believe similar yields would be obtained throughout all corn growing areas without irrigation.
Most corn in the midwest is not irrigated now.
For example, 90% of Iowa corn is unirrigated, yet average yields are 170-180 bushels/acre. Even during the 1983 drought the state average yield was 80 bushel/acre.
Something happened to me about two years ago (a new partner with deep roots in the environmental community might have had something to do with it) and it was like suddenly waking up. There was this flash of realization that the world is nothing like we're being told it is. The more I read, the more I realized that this veil of misdirection was being spread over all the important aspects of modern life - politics (especially the theft of two American Presidential elections), the environment and Global Warming, economics and what is really driving the markets, American domestic and foreign policy (even though I'm Canadian, since such policies influence the entire world), and then finally Peak Oil.
The
feeling I am left with is that there is a deliberate attempt underway to conceal the real state of affairs from the average man, to misdirect his attnetion and outrage, and to keep solutions that might hamstring the corporatocracy from even being discussed, much lessfreeblog only best
A 5% solution of ethanol is small beer.
The bittersweet thing is probably that someone will have a nice day at the beach, in another 60-70 years, even while naming a few more things as missing.
Just that this comment from Seadragon:
I personally don't see the US mindset moving anytime soon on this. We will continue to build McMansions, guzzle fuel and bathe in oil as long as we possibly can afford to do so.
I've already seen reports that hybrid sales are down... this in the wake of high gas prices... why is that? The answer was... "pretty much everyone that wanted a hybrid purchased one and really didn't do it because of expensive gas." In fact the hybrids cost on average 3K more.
-- My 2 cents
But now we are up again:
US Hybrid Sales in April Back Over 21,000; Second Highest Month Yet
The suburban home/car lifestyle is common, but not universal. I find the beach/condo/bike lifestyle to work as well.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/us_hybrid_sales.html
That one should be less of an infinite loop.
US hybrid vehicle sales cooling despite high gasoline prices
And on that note...
Of course this comes from some analyst at Edmunds... so...
FWIW, I think Leanan was the first to point to this story:
"For example, a 2005 Toyota Prius that, when new, had a sticker price of $21,515 could now sell for $25,970, even with 20,000 miles on the odometer, according to data from Kelley Blue Book. Since Toyota dealers usually charge a few thousand dollars over sticker for new Priuses, the buyer in this example probably wouldn't have made a profit, but nearly so."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/05/17/used_compacts/
Weird. Prius sales are still limited by the numbers produced (perhaps as Toyota tries to 'guide' consumers to higher end hybrids), resale values are exceeding original cost, and some expert sees that as 'down.'
What are you going to do, eh?
As appears in Jan Lundberg's Culture Change Newsletter #130
----------------------------------------------------
More bad news for the four-wheeled technofixers and optimists of status-quo continuity: Richard Register of Ecocity Builders reports to Culture Change that:
"A market analysis group called CNW Marketing Research, Inc. out of Bandon, Oregon did a two year study of hybrids and found they were worse, not better in terms of life cycle energy consumption than comparable gasoline powered cars. That includes energy used in manufacture and recycling and disposal of very complex systems including loads of batteries. Then they are $4,000 to $6,000 more expensive than comparable non-hybrids. They are virtually un-reparable by anyone without a PhD in repairing hybrids, and many auto repair shops are declining to fix them - they go back to dealers where the price for repair is four to five times repairing similar problems on a conventional car. This means they are for the rich faux environmentalist crowd who want to keep driving and feeling good about themselves all at the same time. Shops have to gear up by buying $20,000+ in special tools, which means the home mechanic and person aware of peak oil would be an idiot to buy one even if they believed the hype that they were supposed to be better cars for the environment. Forget fixing it yourself. In addition to the $20,000 the car repair shop owner needs to train the mechanics in completely unfamiliar territory, which is advanced electronics and computers, a yet greater though widely variable cost. I learned most of this from the San Francisco Examiner, Car and Driver Magazine and interviews in the Sacramento Bee of many car shop owners in the Sacramento area who are refusing to repair hybrids."
I learned most about them here:
Dust-To-Dust Energy Balance Of Hybrid Cars
but a lot more details emerged later on:
The Scoop On Dust-To-Dust Energy Cost
I added a bit of info myself here:
Important Details on Hybrid Costs
In other words, watch out who is feeding you questionable facts. (are "$20,000+ in special tools" questionable facts?)
Clearly people judge the reliability of the source by how closely it agrees with their opinions. With the level of information available to us, we can get information that will prove anything.
I am a lot more doubtful of small blogs with a mission to convince, or hired hands like CNW, than most MSM outlets that at least have a track record. I am not saying they are perfect, but I do think the MSN takes a ridiculous beating on this site. Virtually every day I see someone post on how the MSN is not covering a certain story when you could find dozens of links to MSN stories on Google in seconds
For what it's worth though, I think the trick to reading either the blogs or the traditional media is to take each article as a data-point. Don't weight it to highly. And keep reading. Try to spot the trends.
... it sure is easier to read "across" the news with google than it ever was.
I do think you need to be skeptical of everything you read and take each article as a data point (weighted by evidence, etc). However, I see the right wing crying about how the MSM is biased to the left and the left wing crying about how the MSM is biased to the right.
Usually, I think it means "reject public information sources and listen to me". I certainly don't think USA Today is a great source of in depth analysis on every issue, but don't buy the concept that we are being deceived or don't have access to information. I think the opposite is true. We have more sources of information available to us than at any time in history.
When people claim that others are "in denial" it just means people aren't listening to them.
I agree that "denial" is thrown around kind of glibly, but I've saved my favorite quote (from about a year ago):
http://odograph.com/?p=267
One year ago, I was already a peak oil convert, but two years ago I might have thought oil prices would go down. Two years ago, we would have said the idea of the general public speculating on the direction of oil prices is foolish. Today, we not only expect them to have an opinion, but to be right.
I just don't see that. I think we already had enough price trend, supply and demand, and geopolitical data, to know something was up.
I don't think you even need to buy into 'peak oil' to question that kind of self-serving prediction.
GM is a huge company with massive oil exposure. They should be a sophisticated observer. "We" at TOD are on record a year ago saying prices would go up. This was based on transparent evidence, so the info was out there.
But a lot of people have been, and still are, predicting lower prices. Many big financial istitutions are still calling for lower prices and making bets on it. Witness future markets.
I do agree that "self-serving" may have something to do with it. However, I suspect that GM was actually committing resources to this wrong bet, not just trying to deceive customers.
- I think they picked an outcome, rather than putting odds on the high and low outcomes. If you think of it as odds, you can hedge your bets.
- They didn't hedge their bets. They didn't keep a viable small car division running, just in case the high oil prices rolled in.
That combination, picking a low price, and then betting the whole company on it, puts them where they are today.Geez, look what I just found. GM is still predicting lower prices:
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/04/gm-expects-price-of-gas-to-fall-blames-media-for-misconceptions/