OT: Biofuels not environmentally friendly

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

The only biofuel in usage today that seems sustainable--and I'm sure
it's got some problems as well, is alcohol made from cane in Brazil.
That's why the majority of cars there are flex fuel.

In the states, biofuel is just empty panacea. We need to look at the
real problem, which is our outrageous energy consumption. Tokenist
behavior like purchasing a Prius isn't Panacea either. Better to drive
a 97 Civic at 5K per year and 35mpg, than a Prius 20K that gets 45mpg.

It's not just transportation--it's elemental city design and the fact
that 'mericans think that 5K sq/ft is a normal house floor print.
Wanna get real vomity, check out John Edwards' 20K sq/ft jobber.

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

Hahaha. Funny that this is news when it's been known for years.

\\paul

landotter said:

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

The only biofuel in usage today that seems sustainable--and I'm sure
it's got some problems as well, is alcohol made from cane in Brazil.
That's why the majority of cars there are flex fuel.

In the states, biofuel is just empty panacea. We need to look at the
real problem, which is our outrageous energy consumption.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy consumption.

So long as you don't get the energy by burning fossils (which, quite
apart from possible global warming effects, are going to run out one day
anyway) help yourself to as much as you like.

Our civilization is based on consuming energy. There's no reason to
knock it or having feelings of misplaced guilt about it.

landotter said:

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

The only biofuel in usage today that seems sustainable--and I'm sure
it's got some problems as well, is alcohol made from cane in Brazil.
That's why the majority of cars there are flex fuel.

In the states, biofuel is just empty panacea. We need to look at the
real problem, which is our outrageous energy consumption. Tokenist
behavior like purchasing a Prius isn't Panacea either. Better to drive
a 97 Civic at 5K per year and 35mpg, than a Prius 20K that gets 45mpg.

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and long lived.

Quoted message said:

It's not just transportation--it's elemental city design and the fact
that 'mericans think that 5K sq/ft is a normal house floor print.

It's the "my house is a trophy" mentality. Not only the 5K sq/ft floor
plan, but the 10ft ceilings, 4/5/6 car "garages", 4 bathrooms,
swimming pools (a true energy sink), etc.

Quoted message said:

Wanna get real vomity, check out John Edwards'  20K sq/ft jobber.

When was the last time we had a president who truly aspired to live
(somewhat) simply? Carter?

Instead, we elect clueless [censored] who live like 'movie stars' and/or
tycoons.

Paul M. Hobson said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

Hahaha. Funny that this is news when it's been known for years.

I think it's news because the corn is now hitting the fan, so to
speak. Before it was just a prediction.

Ozark Bicycle said:

landotter said:

On Jan 23, 8:01 pm, still just me <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

Quoted message said:

The only biofuel in usage today that seems sustainable--and I'm sure
it's got some problems as well, is alcohol made from cane in Brazil.
That's why the majority of cars there are flex fuel.

Quoted message said:

In the states, biofuel is just empty panacea. We need to look at the
real problem, which is our outrageous energy consumption. Tokenist
behavior like purchasing a Prius isn't Panacea either. Better to drive
a 97 Civic at 5K per year and 35mpg, than a Prius 20K that gets 45mpg.

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and lo

ng lived.

Quoted message said:

I had one of those cars between 92-97, a Daihatsu Charade 1.0L 3 cyl.
Simple car. Safe enough, cruised leisurely at 70mph and got 43 city/49
highway.

this model:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just transportation--it's elemental city design and the fact
that 'mericans think that 5K sq/ft is a normal house floor print.

It's the "my house is a trophy" mentality. Not only the 5K sq/ft floor
plan, but the 10ft ceilings, 4/5/6 car "garages", 4 bathrooms,
swimming pools (a true energy sink), etc.

Quoted message said:

Wanna get real vomity, check out John Edwards' 20K sq/ft jobber.

When was the last time we had a president who truly aspired to live
(somewhat) simply? Carter?

Instead, we elect clueless [censored] who live like 'movie stars' and/or
tycoons.

To be fair, big name politicians, especially those with security
detail need quite a bit of room. That's why Gore lives in his family's
mansion over in Belle Meade, instead of on this side of the river with
us Nashville separatists. But I do judge a candidate partly on their
display of ostentation. By that meter, Huckabee (barf), Obama, and Ron
Paul (giggle) get a pass from this cynical dude.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and lo

ng lived.

I had one of those cars between 92-97, a Daihatsu Charade 1.0L 3 cyl.
Simple car. Safe enough, cruised leisurely at 70mph and got 43 city/49
highway.

this model:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just transportation--it's elemental city design and the fact

loved that video, loved that girl, and I wish I could have gone to
that track with every car I ever had, before they went to the junk yard.

futrino said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and lo

Quoted message said:

ng lived.

Quoted message said:

I had one of those cars between 92-97, a Daihatsu Charade 1.0L 3 cyl.
Simple car. Safe enough, cruised leisurely at 70mph and got 43 city/49
highway.

Quoted message said:

this model:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It's not just transportation--it's elemental city design and the fact

loved that video, loved that girl, and I wish I could have gone to
that track with every car I ever had, before they went to the junk yard.

After mine got some good damage in a hit and run, I had no
reservations about taking it on fire roads. I even removed the rear
seat and passenger seat in order to make it as light as possible. Even
my mechanic, who is from Slovenia and usually works on high end cars
loves the Charade--that's what he had his kids drive when they were
young so they'd understand that good simple design doesn't have to be
expensive or fancy. Man, I miss winding up that little three banger!
They still sell them in Europe. Damn merikan safety standards, I want
another!

Ben C said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy consumption.

True... Energy is what allows any society to transfer labor from
"slaves" to machines and technology. But there is certainly something
wrong with stupid and wasteful energy consumption... ie driving way
more than necessary, and using a 6,000lb vehicle to haul a <200lb
payload.

Ozark Bicycle said:

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and long lived.

Or even simpler and cheaper and more efficient, 600cc 2 cylinder:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp

If Honda or Toyota made one for twice the price, I'd bite...

Ben C said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy consumption.

So long as you don't get the energy by burning fossils (which, quite
apart from possible global warming effects, are going to run out one day
anyway) help yourself to as much as you like.

Think of biofuels as "burning soil" and you'll have a better
perspective on it. It ain't local organic farmers producing this
stuff.

Quoted message said:

Our civilization is based on consuming energy. There's no reason to
knock it or having feelings of misplaced guilt about it.

When we consume energy at an unsustainable rate, we hasten the
collapse of our civilization. All the great civilizations of the past
had their declines because their built-in needs exceeded their
resources in one way or another. You can say "there's nothing wrong
with energy consumption", but in context that's like saying "there's
nothing wrong with the mighty being laid low", or "there's nothing
wrong when a great empire ends with several generations of misery,
poverty and war".

Chalo

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Ben C said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy consumption.

So long as you don't get the energy by burning fossils (which, quite
apart from possible global warming effects, are going to run out one day
anyway) help yourself to as much as you like.

Think of biofuels as "burning soil" and you'll have a better
perspective on it. It ain't local organic farmers producing this
stuff.

Quoted message said:

Our civilization is based on consuming energy. There's no reason to
knock it or having feelings of misplaced guilt about it.

When we consume energy at an unsustainable rate, we hasten the
collapse of our civilization. All the great civilizations of the past
had their declines because their built-in needs exceeded their
resources in one way or another. You can say "there's nothing wrong
with energy consumption", but in context that's like saying "there's
nothing wrong with the mighty being laid low", or "there's nothing
wrong when a great empire ends with several generations of misery,
poverty and war".

Chalo

Well said.

The 'feelings and misplaced guilt' do not stem from our consumption of
energy, they arise from its effects: a defiled environment and a
squandering of natural endowments that will be our legacy to posterity.
Great gift for the kids.

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

My question is: Has Peak Oil Passed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/worldbusiness/19palmoil.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=0428f9e64240cc22&ei=5087%0A

A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 19, 2008

KUANTAN, Malaysia -- Rising prices for cooking oil are forcing
residents of Asia's largest slum, in Mumbai, India, to ration every
drop. Bakeries in the United States are fretting over higher
shortening costs. And here in Malaysia, brand-new factories built to
convert vegetable oil into diesel sit idle, their owners unable to
afford the raw material.

This is the other oil shock. From India to Indiana, shortages and
soaring prices for palm oil, soybean oil and many other types of
vegetable oils are the latest, most striking example of a developing
global problem: costly food.

The food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, based on export prices for 60 internationally traded
foodstuffs, climbed 37 percent last year. That was on top of a 14
percent increase in 2006, and the trend has accelerated this winter.

In some poor countries, desperation is taking hold. Just in the last
week, protests have erupted in Pakistan over wheat shortages, and in
Indonesia over soybean shortages. Egypt has banned rice exports to
keep food at home, and China has put price controls on cooking oil,
grain, meat, milk and eggs.

According to the F.A.O., food riots have erupted in recent months in
Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

"The urban poor, the rural landless and small and marginal farmers
stand to lose," said He Changchui, the agency's chief representative
for Asia and the Pacific.

**** A startling change is unfolding in the world's food markets.
Soaring fuel prices have altered the equation for growing food and
transporting it across the globe. Huge demand for biofuels has created
tension between using land to produce fuel and using it for food. ****

A growing middle class in the developing world is demanding more
protein, from pork and hamburgers to chicken and ice cream. And all
this is happening even as global climate change may be starting to
make it harder to grow food in some of the places best equipped to do
so, like Australia.

In the last few years, world demand for crops and meat has been rising
sharply. It remains an open question how and when the supply will
catch up. For the foreseeable future, that probably means higher
prices at the grocery store and fatter paychecks for farmers of major
crops like corn, wheat and soybeans.

There may be worse inflation to come. Food experts say steep increases
in commodity prices have not fully made their way to street stalls in
the developing world or supermarkets in the West.

Governments in many poor countries have tried to respond by stepping
up food subsidies, imposing or tightening price controls, restricting
exports and cutting food import duties.

These temporary measures are already breaking down. Across Southeast
Asia, for example, families have been hoarding palm oil. Smugglers
have been bidding up prices as they move the oil from more subsidized
markets, like Malaysia's, to less subsidized markets, like
Singapore's.

No category of food prices has risen as quickly this winter as
so-called edible oils -- with sometimes tragic results. When a
Carrefour store in Chongqing, China, announced a limited-time cooking
oil promotion in November, a stampede of would-be buyers left 3 people
dead and 31 injured.

Cooking oil may seem a trifling expense in the West. But in the
developing world, cooking oil is an important source of calories and
represents one of the biggest cash outlays for poor families, which
grow much of their own food but have to buy oil in which to cook it.

Few crops illustrate the emerging problems in the global food chain as
well as palm oil, a vital commodity in much of the world and
particularly Asia. From jungles and street markets in Southeast Asia
to food companies in the United States and biodiesel factories in
Europe, soaring prices for the oil are drawing environmentalists,
energy companies, consumers, indigenous peoples and governments into
acrimonious disputes.

The oil palm is a stout-trunked tree with a spray of frilly fronds at
the top that make it look like an enormous sea anemone. The trees,
with their distinctive, star-like patterns of leaves, cover an eighth
of the entire land area of Malaysia and even greater acreage in nearby
Indonesia.

More details on the web site.

Luke said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Ben C said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with energy consumption.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our civilization is based on consuming energy. There's no reason to
knock it or having feelings of misplaced guilt about it.

When we consume energy at an unsustainable rate, we hasten the
collapse of our civilization. All the great civilizations of the past
had their declines because their built-in needs exceeded their
resources in one way or another. You can say "there's nothing wrong
with energy consumption", but in context that's like saying "there's
nothing wrong with the mighty being laid low", or "there's nothing
wrong when a great empire ends with several generations of misery,
poverty and war".

Chalo

Well said.

The 'feelings and misplaced guilt' do not stem from our consumption of
energy, they arise from its effects: a defiled environment and a
squandering of natural endowments that will be our legacy to posterity.
Great gift for the kids.

Consuming energy does not defile the environment. Side-effects of some
forms of energy production do, but in spite of great population and
industrial growth in the last 50 years, in many places the environment
is much cleaner-- the streets of London aren't full of manure and dead
horses any more for example.

As for the decline of civilization, it's not clear that energy
consumption can't continue to grow indefinitely. At some point the next
thing (probably nuclear fission IMO) will become cheaper than oil and we
will gradually switch to using that (and probably electric cars). No
sudden disruption, no reason for generations of misery, poverty and war.

Our gift to our kids is unprecedented scientific knowledge which they
can build on, long lifespans, high standard of living, and extraordinary
computer power (don't forget that computers are based on the economics
of mass production, and, according to a recent news story, consume
almost as much energy as transport). Would you rather be born in
2008 or 1808?

In article <[email hidden]>,

still just me said:

For folks with green edges, this is interesting. I scoffed at the
headline, but after a little reading, it seems to be a legit problem:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html

It's funny old world, isn't it?

--
Michael Press

landotter said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, the overly complex 'hybrid' is mostly the wrong answer, at least
as currently available. Why not a new generation of simple,
lightweight, compact cars? 1.5L 4-cyl engines, 5/6sp manual tranny,
manual windows, seats, etc., etc. Simple, cheap, fuel efficient, easy
to maintain and lo

ng lived.

They used to call those Datsun's. I used to have a little pickup with a
1.6L engine. Then they went to 2.0L in 1976. In the '80's they started
calling them Nissan's and they went to 2.4L. But starting around 1998, I
think they added 1,000 pounds, then another 1,000 in 2002. Now I have a
2003 that weighs 4,000 pounds, but still has the 2.4L engine and it is a
real dog. The gas mileage isn't anywhere near as good as it used to be
either.

I suspect that a lot of the reason they began adding weight and size was
for fashion, but I wonder how much of it had to do with the crash testing.

Ben C said:

Consuming energy does not defile the environment. Side-effects of some
forms of energy production do

Some... as in all of them. It is only a matter of degree... and most
of the energy we use today have very bad side effects.

Quoted message said:

but in spite of great population and
industrial growth in the last 50 years, in many places the environment
is much cleaner-- the streets of London aren't full of manure and dead
horses any more for example.

Oh, that's a good example! Horseshit and dead horses are rather
organic and wholesome... toss them in your field and the plants grow
better. Not true of the stuff we are polluting with these days.

Quoted message said:

As for the decline of civilization, it's not clear that energy
consumption can't continue to grow indefinitely.

Like I said, energy isn't "evil". Any advanced civilization requires a
large amount of inexpensive energy.

Quoted message said:

At some point the next
thing (probably nuclear fission IMO) will become cheaper than oil and we
will gradually switch to using that (and probably electric cars). No
sudden disruption, no reason for generations of misery, poverty and war.

When did fission become even remotely benign? And we currently have
"misery, poverty, and war"... always have, and likely will for the
foreseeable future if a large portion of the population are as blind
and selfish as you seem to be.

Quoted message said:

Our gift to our kids is unprecedented scientific knowledge which they
can build on, long lifespans, high standard of living

Our standard of living has been declining for at least 30 years! The
*real* lifespan is no longer than it was thousands of years ago...
only now they save every baby no matter how sick, and will spend
millions of dollars to keep an 80 year old alive for another month. We
are not healthier and our natural lifespan has not increased.

Another great example is the "stimulus" being proposed for the economy
now. Bush has been "stimulating" the economy since he took office, and
now the only solution is to stimulate it some more! This is always
nothing but a short-term solution. Like getting more a more credit
card debt, we can ride on that for awhile, but eventually we pay one
way or another.

Quoted message said:

Would you rather be born in 2008 or 1808?

Tough question for me to answer actually... does it have anything to
do with this topic? I'm not anti-technology or anti-energy... I'm anti
ostentatious consumption, waste, and polution.

Lack of knowledge or technology isn't the problem, rather our lives
are at the mercy ever larger corporate interests... and our government
caters to them rather than the well-being of the populous. We exist
only to consume... more and more, always more. Everyone would be
better off if we were much more particular about the "stuff" that we
introduced into out lives, and more efficient in our use of energy.

Odd that many European countries with higher standards of living than
ours get by with half the per capita energy consumption. They are also
willing to reduce their CO2 emissions while the "US" is not. Do you
know why they hate us? It isn't about freedom I assure you...

Ron Ruff said:

On Jan 25, 1:24 am, Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but in spite of great population and
industrial growth in the last 50 years, in many places the environment
is much cleaner-- the streets of London aren't full of manure and dead
horses any more for example.

Oh, that's a good example! Horseshit and dead horses are rather
organic and wholesome... toss them in your field and the plants grow
better.

Not so organic and wholesome when tossed into the drinking water supply.

Quoted message said:

Not true of the stuff we are polluting with these days.

Well, carbon dioxide, which a lot of the fuss is about these days, is
plant food!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for the decline of civilization, it's not clear that energy
consumption can't continue to grow indefinitely.

Like I said, energy isn't "evil". Any advanced civilization requires a
large amount of inexpensive energy.

Quoted message said:

At some point the next
thing (probably nuclear fission IMO) will become cheaper than oil and we
will gradually switch to using that (and probably electric cars). No
sudden disruption, no reason for generations of misery, poverty and war.

When did fission become even remotely benign?
And we currently have "misery, poverty, and war"... always have, and
likely will for the foreseeable future if a large portion of the
population are as blind and selfish as you seem to be.

The point (I thought) Chalo was making was that a civilization that used
up its resources too rapidly was heading for some kind of collapse which
would involve a sudden spike of extra misery, poverty and war for
everyone. Like something out of Mad Max. It is a reasonable point.

It might not happen though. As one resource runs out, or you figure out
that it's a bad idea to carry on using it, or another one becomes
cheaper, you switch to the alternatives, and progress can continue.

If the transitions are reasonably smooth nobody has to get hurt.

Yes there's lots of misery poverty and war anyway, I'm not claiming
there isn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our gift to our kids is unprecedented scientific knowledge which they
can build on, long lifespans, high standard of living

Our standard of living has been declining for at least 30 years! The
*real* lifespan is no longer than it was thousands of years ago...
only now they save every baby no matter how sick, and will spend
millions of dollars to keep an 80 year old alive for another month. We
are not healthier and our natural lifespan has not increased.

Another great example is the "stimulus" being proposed for the economy
now. Bush has been "stimulating" the economy since he took office, and
now the only solution is to stimulate it some more! This is always
nothing but a short-term solution. Like getting more a more credit
card debt, we can ride on that for awhile, but eventually we pay one
way or another.

I tend to agree that completely unrestrained economic growth is
counter-productive. It needs to be restrained just the right amount.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would you rather be born in 2008 or 1808?

Tough question for me to answer actually... does it have anything to
do with this topic? I'm not anti-technology or anti-energy... I'm anti
ostentatious consumption, waste, and polution.

Plenty of that in 1808 I'm sure.

Quoted message said:

Lack of knowledge or technology isn't the problem, rather our lives
are at the mercy ever larger corporate interests... and our government
caters to them rather than the well-being of the populous.

This is always a problem with capitalism. But if you elect a big
socialist state, some things get better, but they also just take
everyone's money and most of it disappears by way of corruption. It's a
matter of degree how big the state should be to balance all the pros and
cons.

The US is probably a bit too far right though.

Quoted message said:

We exist only to consume... more and more, always more. Everyone would
be better off if we were much more particular about the "stuff" that
we introduced into out lives, and more efficient in our use of energy.

Quoted message said:

Odd that many European countries with higher standards of living than
ours get by with half the per capita energy consumption. They are also
willing to reduce their CO2 emissions while the "US" is not.

There's all kinds of complex politics going on there. Of course the
French are more than happy to dig the US in the ribs whenever they get
the chance. As a very big producer of nuclear energy I would expect a
lot of anti-CO2 rhetoric from them.

Quoted message said:

Do you know why they hate us?

No. I don't hate you.

Quoted message said:

It isn't about freedom I assure you...

I suspect some of it might be rivalry.

Ron Ruff said:

...
Our standard of living has been declining for at least 30 years! The
*real* lifespan is no longer than it was thousands of years ago...
only now they save every baby no matter how sick, and will spend
millions of dollars to keep an 80 year old alive for another month. We
are not healthier and our natural lifespan has not increased...

The US government has deliberately messed with the accounting in the CPI
to make the situation look better than it is.

The US culture has also lost sight of when it is time to go - there are
things in life worse than death.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth