Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Ethanol's Dirty Little Secrets ---

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Ethanol's Dirty Little Secrets ---
  • Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:12 -0600


I wish I could agree that many other sources combined could make a big
difference. In theory, they should. And we've both seen these ideas batted
around endlessly on other lists. But the thing that occurs to me
frequently is, if these alternatives are practical or affordable, why
aren't they being pushed by energy-hungry governments and big energy
dependent industries all over the world? Don't they want to lower their
energy costs to be more competitive? Why isn't China shipping on biodiesel?
Why isn't the US navy running on some other form of energy? Why aren't they
building wind generation plants everywhere? Why aren't other countries
harnessing the tides already? Why isn't industry using PV solar? Why do
huge corporate corn farms need our tax subsidies to grow corn for ethanol?

Some have argued that alternatives will magically appear when oil gets too
expensive. But as they say, the Devil is in the details. They haven't
figured out that when oil energy gets too expensive then the cost of
building alternative energy plants and infrastructure will skyrocket. Ain't
gonna happen.

All those ideas cost money to start up. Solar, tides, and ethanol (hydrogen
is a bust) cost a LOT of money, and to build enough new energy plants and
infrastructure to make up for the decline in oil would cost more than any
government has - or is willing to invest. We're not talking millions here,
but trillions. Think of the total cost of the installed electrical grid and
power plants. We have no excess capacity. Why not? It would cost more.

The real problem is in the math. As a fuel, refined oil gives many times as
much energy in diesel and gasoline as it takes to produce it (EROEI). But
other sources don't. So for alternatives you may need ten or twenty times
the production capacity that you have now for oil production and
refineries. Suppose you invest $100 billion in an oil field and refinery.
To get the same energy output from some alternatives you'd have to invest
$1 or $2 trillion. No government, no industry is doing this. Example: those
tar sands of Alberta are barely producing a trickle. Our own government is
running half a trillion in red ink year after year, so where's the money
coming from to do all this?

But I'm not concerned with winning arguments. My concern is so many people
out there want to believe we can relax in comfort because someone or
something will save us. They want to believe life will go on like it has
with the US consuming 25% of the world's oil, and the lion's share of many
other resources from all over the world.

Our technological, energy-intensive lifestyle is unsustainable on several
fronts. We've ruined much of our land this way. Someone once said, we owe
our existence to a 6-inch average layer of topsoil and the fact that it
rains. In my small corner I want to encourage caring for that layer of
topsoil and promote sustainable use of it for our own survival and future
wellbeing. I don't have a better idea.

paul, tradingpost@riseup.net
---------------
The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worthy, and after all
our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to
foster its renewal is our only hope.
- Wendell Berry

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 7/14/2006 at 9:40 AM Pat Meadows wrote:

>This is something that occurs to me frequently: how come few, if any,
>people ever mention that there are MANY partial substitutes for oil? No
>one thing (solar, wind, tides, ethanol, etc.) can substitute for oil - no
>one thing can even come into the same ballpark. Not even into the parking
>lot....not even down the street from the parking lot.
>
>But how about a combination of many other sources of energy?
>
>Combined with strict conservation, this would seem - to me - to be the
only
>way forward.
>
>So why is everyone discussing it pushing only their one pet source of
>energy?
>
>Pat







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page