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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 6) On physics, and in conclusion: You wrote, 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. 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... cheers Eric B jmc@sfgreens.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:01:58AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
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.
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.
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.
In a total collapse of civilization, even evil folks wouldn't be able to enjoy their current lifestyle.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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