I think this would benefit from an in-person discussion, possibly at the next Transpo or Sustainability meeting. Writing all this in email is too slow, and I can't keep up: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:05:08AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote:
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.)
Depends how fast you want them to grow. I'm talking about net input; of course you need some seawater or other medium for them to grow in. But you can then recycle most of that; if the only thing you're taking out of the system is hydrocarbon, the only necessary inputs that you can't recycle are carbon (from the air) and water (from seawater). At this time, the technology is still immature, so it makes sense to develop it under conditions that make it easier, so the resulting oil will cost less. I'll respond to your 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.
Both you and Sue have a misconception that using the stalks to produce cellulosic ethanol somehow prevents you from doing that. You can break the cellulose down into sugar, ferment the sugar, distill out the alcohol, and then recycle the leftovers back into the soil. This is currently done with leftovers from brewers and distillers; the most important nutrients, such as phosphate, are not destroyed in the process.
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.
If you're talking about inedible parts of crops we currently plant, a biofuel plant in proximity to the farm wouldn't result in any more mining than is currently taking place. If we were to harvest crops specifically for biofuels (e.g., switchgrass), this is a valid concern to take into account.
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.
Studies have shown that transit ridership rises if it's cheap and/or convenient (e.g., in Europe, Japan, and on Spare the Air days in SF). If you're arguing that "general public" mean everybody would have to prefer cars, that's just a strawman. It is impractical to bring mass transit to the current suburbs, and biofuels will not become cheap enough for those people to sustain their lifestyle either--economics will eventually force them to move (as in "End of Suburbia"). As I said before, the amount we're investing in mass transit, and in biofuels, are each so small that it makes no sense to pretend spending on one precludes the other.
One need only look at the devastation that has been wrought by the activities of Monsanto corporation to see the truth of this.
Monsanto's current exploits have nothing to do with the argument over whether biofuels might be part of a sustainable energy solution or not.
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.
You still need liquid fuel for some applications (e.g., airplanes).
I am referring primarily to conservation of energy.
OK, look up how much energy you get from sunlight (e.g., per square foot), look at the conversion efficiency of algae, and the energy density of the resulting oil. The numbers work out. See the slashdot reference I gave you before for some calculations.
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).
The two main sources I've seen are power plants that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and sewage from pig/cow farms (which do not necessarily contain heavy metals, unless you've been feeding them to the pigs). Both are good places to build algae plants because the algae would break down the pollutants and at the same time produce usable energy. This would be economical now, while the technology is developed to the point where you could run it just off of atmoshperic level carbon dioxide. I don't buy the argument that remediating a current source of pollution is somehow encouraging more of that pollution; the demand for pig meat has nothing to do with whether we might produce biofuels from pig poop. Current methods of pig farming may turn out to be unsustainable in the long run even with bioremediation, but as long as we have them, it's better to use the waste for biofuel rather than letting it pollute the environment.
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.
We're talking about biofuel plants on dry land (e.g., in a desert with lots of sunlight), with algae that need seawater to survive. Therefore, I'm not too worried about mutant algae escaping into the biosphere. In most cases, I'm much less worried about genetically engineering microorganisms such as bacteria than I am about genetically engineering crops; the reasons why have to do with technical reasons that are outside the scope of this discussion, but I'd be happy to explain this another time. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/