<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
1) On algae: It will take massive inputs of other nutrients besides
solar rays and atmospheric carbon to grow algae in sufficient
quantities to meet liquid fuel needs. (See point 6 below.)<br>
<br>
2) On cellulosic ethanol: There is no such thing as a 'free byproduct'
in nature and agriculture. Those plant stalks need to be returned to
(composted back into) the soil from which they came. If they are not,
the soil will become much more heavily depleted of nutrients, requiring
higher fossil fuel inputs for future fuel crop production, which will
-increase- warming gases in the atmosphere because of releases of
methane, as the fertilizers, et al. are created. This not to mention
the fact that such petro-inputs of course, further deplete fossil
fuels. Taking plant matter away from soil in this way is known as
'mining' soil. Currently, through industrial agricultural practices
begun in the false 'green' revolution, this is causing such a collapse
in land quality all over the planet, that we will soon be producing
less food per capita on the Earth, than is needed for adequate
nutrition. Piling biofuel soil mining on top of this already growing
catastrophe would be insane.<br>
<br>
3) On the conflict between biofuels and transit: My argument is crystal
clear. If the general public is given any shred of hope to cling to,
that enables them to believe they can continue to drive their personal
automobiles, they will, hands down, choose personal automobiles over
mass transit. I haven't the slightest idea what makes you think that
most people will choose transit. All transportation infrastructure
requires capital and subsidies. Every dollar that is put toward
personal automobile infrastructure, is a dollar that cannot be used to
build mass transit.<br>
<br>
4) On collapse of civilization: The collapse will happen -far- more
rapidly if we allow players like Bush and Kissinger Associates to
launch their multi-billion dollar boom production of genetically
engineered biofuel crops. One need only look at the devastation that
has been wrought by the activities of Monsanto corporation to see the
truth of this. Genetic biofuel production would dwarf Monsanto's
current GE food exploits, which, even in their current rather limited
scope, among other results, has helped trigger the suicides of tens of
thousands of Indian farmers.<br>
<br>
5) On fuel density: There is enough solar, wind, wave and tidal
capacity (if built) to run a global electrified mass transit system.
Under such a scenario, the pursuit of liquid fuel density is simply
unnecessary and therefore extremely wasteful. Solar and wind are
already off the shelf technologies that are fully competitive with
fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
6) On physics, and in conclusion: You wrote, <br>
<pre wrap="">Which basic laws of physics are you referring to? Biofuels don't
violate any of them any more than other energy sources that are
ultimately solar powered.</pre>
I am referring primarily to conservation of energy. My comment above
about soil depletion is key to this point. In regards to algae, no
matter how efficient the photosynthetic process, there must be massive
inputs of growth medium (energy in, to get energy out). This is simply
unavoidable. Solar power requires no such inputs because it is a
process that only relies on sunlight flying in from space being
directly converted to electricity, with no need to feed a living being
(algae) to fuel the process. Other than the energy required to build
the panels (which is quickly regained) all of the generated electricity
is excess energy that would have dissipated or returned to space
without being used. A quick search on the internet showed me that the
inputs being considered for algal fuel production are fossil fuel power
plant wastes ('nuff said), and sewage wastes (imagine the toxins, heavy
metals, etc, that would end up in the algae oil from this latter
process, later to be burned into the air we breathe). Another ominous
note that I saw sounded out there, is that biofuel algae will be
genetically engineered to greatly increase yield. Imagine massive
amounts of genetically engineered biofuel algae released into the
biosphere. Bad, bad plan...<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
Eric B<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org">jmc@sfgreens.org</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20070405060809.GB20714@sfgreens.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:01:58AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We can't get around conservation of energy here. The algae has to be fed
with something. The carbon has to come from somewhere. There is no free
lunch. Hence anything that will give us massive amounts of burnable
fuels, will have massive amounts of impact on the planetary ecosystem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The energy is solar, and the carbon comes from carbon dioxide.
The cellulosic ethanol by itself won't be sufficient to replace our
current oil needs, but every little bit might make the difference
between a gradual "powerdown" in a peak oil scenario and total
collapse. Cellulose (stalks) is essentially a free byproduct of
growing food crops, and the energy we put into growing them already
(for the food) is currently wasted. It's like the difference between
letting the sunlight heat up your roof or putting on some solar panels
to take advantage of it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And as my previous post noted, the players that are getting into this
biofuels game are some of the most evil people on the planet.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
In a total collapse of civilization, even evil folks wouldn't be able
to enjoy their current lifestyle.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">They mentioned algae. They dovetailed it and all of the other crops with
genetic engineering. This stuff is all bad news that must be stopped
before it distracts us from taking real action to end the climate
crisis, while we instead wait a precious, deadly, decade or two for some
magic bullet that will allow us all to drive cars.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is a false dichotomy; there's no reason we can't both build
mass transit and also develop biofuels. The amount of money necessary
for either project is tiny compared to the cost of the war. Biofuels
aren't a "distraction" from building mass transit when the public
barely knows about them. I think in a poll, the public would prefer
mass transit.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why are we talking about convoluted esoteric ways to get liquid carbon
fuels out of algae, when we could meet our energy and transportation
needs with solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc. and electrified mass transit?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Liquid carbon fuels are convenient, and more technologically practical
to develop than other high density fuel storage options such as
hydrogen or high density batteries. Almost all our existing
infrastructure is built on them, so the transition would be much
cheaper.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">These are off the shelf, affordable technologies, that can be employed
now; not speculative scientific processes which seek some sleight of
hand with which to defy the basic laws of physics.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Which basic laws of physics are you referring to? Biofuels don't
violate any of them any more than other energy sources that are
ultimately solar powered.
JMC
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>