biofuels are bad?
Today's news report (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114055974) stating the likelihood of biofuel laws actually causing higher levels of global warming or climate change is just one more example of how we humans still haven't managed to get a grip on managing our occupancy of this planet.
Specifically, we continue to consume disproportionately compared to our ability to renew and replenish. Haven't we learned anything from over-hunting, over-fishing, over-building... and oh yea, over polluting?
My blog post on Jan 27th speaks to much of this, as it relates to biofuels production/usage in Bolivia. Notably, I make mention of deforestation concerns as well as opportunity costs.
So lets continue this conversation in light of today's revelation that current methods of "accounting" for carbon emissions do not paint a complete picture. Gee, there's a f-ing surprise!
In general, we as humans lack balance. Not that we don't have the ability to find balance, but by nature, we take actions based on self-gratification and personal gain rather than global, or even regional, balance. And this inevitably takes the form of monetary pursuits.
Does today's report on "carbon accounting" mean we shouldn't be using biofuels? OF COURSE NOT! But no doubt, the argument will be made that "biofuels are bad", and we should simply continue down our path of petroleum infrastructure.
As I am well know for saying... ENOUGH!
EXTREMES, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE STATUS QUO OR THE LATEST AND GREATEST, ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUSTAINABILITY. ACTIONS OR POLICIES DON'T HAVE TO BE EITHER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THEY NEED TO BE BALANCED TO REPRESENT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY.
Referring back to my very first blog post Nov 22, '08, this is called OPTIMIZATION.
Further, while economic growth is a component of well-being, it is not synonymous with well-being. We don't NEED to maximize economic growth/development to be better off. In fact, massive economic growth often comes at great cost.
Here's an eye-opener.... environmental stewardship is a component of economic development. It's not the only component, but it is a significant piece of the puzzle because... it represents the space in which we all live! Without taking care of our space, we cannot live. Duh!
Petroleum isn't bad. Fossil fuels aren't bad. Biofuels aren't bad. Producing and/or consuming any of these isn't bad.
But over-production of any, driven by over-consumption of all, IS bad.
You see, attempting to satisfy ALL of our needs, whatever they may be, from ONE source IS a bad idea. And wrecking any particular ecosystem in attempting to do so IS REALLY BAD. This is especially evident when considering the destructive nature of typical economic development.
When human motivation is driven solely by monetary gain, we tend to overlook the ancillary or downstream effects of our actions. We then try to “fix” things with “affirmative action” initiatives (whether it's to rectify racial, social or economic inequalities) in hopes our reactive policies counterbalance our lack of foresight.
Truth: They rarely, if ever, do.
This is of course the paradox of humanity: our growth, our desire for advancement and development, may ultimately bring our demise.
Showing posts with label biofuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biofuel. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
bolivia on biodiesel... oblivious
A news report out this morning exemplified the state of bass-akwards thinking, perpetuated by bureaucratic and political stagnation (fueled most likely by fear of loss of power, money or other "stuff"), that is suppressing both environmental balance and long term global economic sustainability.
Specifically, Bolivia.
It is currently illegal to use oil from soybean crops as a feedstock for biodiesel. The reason? Because it's a food crop.
OK, fair enough. People have to eat. And don't forget soybeans aren't just for feeding people. They feed livestock... which feeds people. And so the food chain continues.
But, the food needs to be planted, grown, harvested, shipped, and ultimately "processed" as food for it to actually become consumable.
At what point does the inability or failure of the afore mentioned to be achieved (harvesting and shipping), do we have a driver for common sense to take over?
Ironically, the reason the crops cannot be harvested or shipped is because of the lack of FUEL available to run the necessary equipment. This fuel, historically and typically petroleum diesel, has been on a roller coaster ride in terms of both price and availability over the last year.
So rather than allowing a portion of the soy beans to be crushed, and the oil to be used as FUEL, the Bolivian authorities are willing to allow the crops to rot in the fields and become completely wasted.
I suppose this is par for the course. This comes from country that 30 years ago began devastating the global ecological balance by deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of rain forest and jungles in order to clear the way for industrial mega-farms. If the fact that this area is no longer being utilized for its original, natural, and dare I say, "evolved" purpose of carbon scrubbing isn't bad enough, the fact that these renewable crops cannot be used to produce a clean burning renewable fuel is simply criminal.
Soy oil isn't the only thing to make biodiesel out of. But when its available, abundant and inexpensive, it makes darn good fuel.
Using a portion of a crop to sustain the crop is just common sense!
The alternative is simply this: If there is no fuel to power the equipment to harvest and ship the crop, and there is no alternative equipment that can do the job, then the crop stays in the field, rots, and NO ONE get it for food, fuel or any other purpose. BRILLIANT!
In fact, the environmental damage caused by this exercise is truly exponentially multiplied at this point because all of the investment that originally went into planting the crops in the first place (time, energy and money) produces absolutely no return on investment- a down stream effect that is truly immeasurable because we can only estimate:
(1) how much carbon scrubbing the original rain forests would have been naturally occurring,
(2) how much financial loss is realized by not bringing crops to market,
(3) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the clearing of the rain forests,
(4) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the planting of the crops,
(5) how much environmental (land, water, etc) damage is being done by use of pesticides, chemicals, erosion, etc.,
(6) how much ecosystem damage is caused by loss of balance among all the inhabitants (great and small) of the land,
(7) and on and on...
Common sense says this is beyond dumb. It's galactically stupid!
Bolivia, President Evo Morales, Vice Minister of Environmental Affairs Juan Pablo Ramos... open your eyes and get a clue! Arguing that using soy for biodiesel "cuts into food supplies and harms the environment", yet promoting/perpetuating destruction of rain forest/deforestation, land erosion, elimination of natural carbon scrubbers, use of pesticides, chemicals and petroleum based infrastructure is both ignorant, immoral and insane.
Either you're padding your pockets with kickbacks from industry, or you have a serious lack of usable gray matter between your ears.
Do the world a favor... rethink your positions and policy, or get out of the way of reasonable people with better, more sustainable ideas.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/27/bolivian_soybeans/
Specifically, Bolivia.
It is currently illegal to use oil from soybean crops as a feedstock for biodiesel. The reason? Because it's a food crop.
OK, fair enough. People have to eat. And don't forget soybeans aren't just for feeding people. They feed livestock... which feeds people. And so the food chain continues.
But, the food needs to be planted, grown, harvested, shipped, and ultimately "processed" as food for it to actually become consumable.
At what point does the inability or failure of the afore mentioned to be achieved (harvesting and shipping), do we have a driver for common sense to take over?
Ironically, the reason the crops cannot be harvested or shipped is because of the lack of FUEL available to run the necessary equipment. This fuel, historically and typically petroleum diesel, has been on a roller coaster ride in terms of both price and availability over the last year.
So rather than allowing a portion of the soy beans to be crushed, and the oil to be used as FUEL, the Bolivian authorities are willing to allow the crops to rot in the fields and become completely wasted.
I suppose this is par for the course. This comes from country that 30 years ago began devastating the global ecological balance by deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of rain forest and jungles in order to clear the way for industrial mega-farms. If the fact that this area is no longer being utilized for its original, natural, and dare I say, "evolved" purpose of carbon scrubbing isn't bad enough, the fact that these renewable crops cannot be used to produce a clean burning renewable fuel is simply criminal.
Soy oil isn't the only thing to make biodiesel out of. But when its available, abundant and inexpensive, it makes darn good fuel.
Using a portion of a crop to sustain the crop is just common sense!
The alternative is simply this: If there is no fuel to power the equipment to harvest and ship the crop, and there is no alternative equipment that can do the job, then the crop stays in the field, rots, and NO ONE get it for food, fuel or any other purpose. BRILLIANT!
In fact, the environmental damage caused by this exercise is truly exponentially multiplied at this point because all of the investment that originally went into planting the crops in the first place (time, energy and money) produces absolutely no return on investment- a down stream effect that is truly immeasurable because we can only estimate:
(1) how much carbon scrubbing the original rain forests would have been naturally occurring,
(2) how much financial loss is realized by not bringing crops to market,
(3) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the clearing of the rain forests,
(4) how much petroleum fuel was consumed and exhausted in the planting of the crops,
(5) how much environmental (land, water, etc) damage is being done by use of pesticides, chemicals, erosion, etc.,
(6) how much ecosystem damage is caused by loss of balance among all the inhabitants (great and small) of the land,
(7) and on and on...
Common sense says this is beyond dumb. It's galactically stupid!
Bolivia, President Evo Morales, Vice Minister of Environmental Affairs Juan Pablo Ramos... open your eyes and get a clue! Arguing that using soy for biodiesel "cuts into food supplies and harms the environment", yet promoting/perpetuating destruction of rain forest/deforestation, land erosion, elimination of natural carbon scrubbers, use of pesticides, chemicals and petroleum based infrastructure is both ignorant, immoral and insane.
Either you're padding your pockets with kickbacks from industry, or you have a serious lack of usable gray matter between your ears.
Do the world a favor... rethink your positions and policy, or get out of the way of reasonable people with better, more sustainable ideas.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/27/bolivian_soybeans/
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
detroit is all talk
If you haven't seen the docu-tainment (documentary-entertainment) film titled "Who Killed the Electric Car", you've got to. Period. If you have seen it already, then you probably know where I'm going with this conversation.
The pending auto bailout for Detroit's big 3 is nothing more than a band-aid for a much larger, and grotesque ailment- specifically GM's uncanny ability to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
HISTORY
GM acquired 51% of Sweeden's car maker Saab in 1990. To be fair, Saab is much more than a car maker. Since 1937, Saab has been one of the world's most innovative builders of civilian and military aircraft, heavy trucks, buses, and other technology. Saab was the first car maker to turbo charge a production passenger car in 1978, giving a standard 2.0 liter 4cyl engine the power and performance of 6 or 8 cylinders, yet maintaining the fuel economy of the smallest Asian imports. Since then, Saab has led the way in powerful fuel efficient automobiles.
Jump to 1985 where Saab introduces the EV-1 (Experimental Vehicle One: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_EV-1). So advanced and cool looking, this car was even featured "as is" in the second Back to the Future movie. Beyond that, this car featured 66 PV solar cells on the all-glass roof that powered a ventilation system and a 285HP 4cyl, 16 valve turbo charged engine capable of pushing the car 0-16 in 5.9 seconds. Take that, Lotus!
OK, so GM acquires Saab in 1990, and by 1996, had hijacked the EV-1 brand name. It took the name, slapped it on a hap-hazard effort at putting an electric vehicle on the road, and ultimately bastardized the brand.
Here’s how: The GM EV-1, leased through Saturn dealerships in California and Arizona, was an unmitigated disaster, not because the cars weren't up to task, but because GM had no intention of continuing support for the cars past their 3 year leases. Further, GM “robbed” the Nickle Metal Hydride battery technology from a small battery maker, Ovonic Battery Co, it “partnered” with, and then sold the patents to Texaco in 2000. What does an oil company want with rechargeable battery technology? http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/9321068-1.html
Also during this time, GM's engineers imposed their Detroit Will on the design and engineering of the Saab product line. Consequently, beginning in 1994, the NG (new generation) Saab began a major decline in quality and customer satisfaction. By 1999, GM handed the majority of design work back to Saab, and there was a resurgence of innovation and quality.
A NEW AGE
In the early 2000s, Saab begins experimenting with biofuels, specifically, E85 ethanol "dual fuel" engines. Jump to 2006 and Saab showcases its 310HP "BioPower" touring sedan (aka, stationwagon!) powered by, you guessed it, a 2.0 liter 4cyl turbo charged engine. Super efficient, super clean and super fast. Did I mention it has the cargo/payload capacity of most SUVs!
Then in 2007, Saab goes one step further showcasing a 100% ethanol powered hybrid-electric convertible at the Detroit auto show. The engine was the standard Saab 4cyl turbo, but get this, the hybrid-electric components were all GM! This car reportedly can be operated on battery alone, or with battery/engine working together.
Oh, did I mention that Saab has sold 100,000 BioPower cars in Sweeden! In other words, Detroit not only has the technology, but it has the ability and resources to put this stuff on the road.
TODAY
So where am I going with all this?
How about... GM is at it again! They killed the EV-1, and now with the market and economy in the toilet (including the pending auto-bailout), even though they say they want to be “clean and green”, they are willing to toss aside Saab and everything it has achieved. Additionally, GM is looking at allowing the Saturn brand to go away as well. FYI, Saturn has the most fuel efficient hybrid SUV on the market today. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/12/saab-volvo-satu.html
Enough already! It’s time for the Big 3 and the UAW (which is holding Detroit hostage) to step aside, and allow the smaller, more nimble, less burdened, and truly innovative companies take the helm for our transportation future!
Detroit, you say you want to build more fuel efficient cars, lower emissions and help build a greener future. You talk it, now walk it... or take a hike!
The pending auto bailout for Detroit's big 3 is nothing more than a band-aid for a much larger, and grotesque ailment- specifically GM's uncanny ability to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
HISTORY
GM acquired 51% of Sweeden's car maker Saab in 1990. To be fair, Saab is much more than a car maker. Since 1937, Saab has been one of the world's most innovative builders of civilian and military aircraft, heavy trucks, buses, and other technology. Saab was the first car maker to turbo charge a production passenger car in 1978, giving a standard 2.0 liter 4cyl engine the power and performance of 6 or 8 cylinders, yet maintaining the fuel economy of the smallest Asian imports. Since then, Saab has led the way in powerful fuel efficient automobiles.
Jump to 1985 where Saab introduces the EV-1 (Experimental Vehicle One: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_EV-1). So advanced and cool looking, this car was even featured "as is" in the second Back to the Future movie. Beyond that, this car featured 66 PV solar cells on the all-glass roof that powered a ventilation system and a 285HP 4cyl, 16 valve turbo charged engine capable of pushing the car 0-16 in 5.9 seconds. Take that, Lotus!
OK, so GM acquires Saab in 1990, and by 1996, had hijacked the EV-1 brand name. It took the name, slapped it on a hap-hazard effort at putting an electric vehicle on the road, and ultimately bastardized the brand.
Here’s how: The GM EV-1, leased through Saturn dealerships in California and Arizona, was an unmitigated disaster, not because the cars weren't up to task, but because GM had no intention of continuing support for the cars past their 3 year leases. Further, GM “robbed” the Nickle Metal Hydride battery technology from a small battery maker, Ovonic Battery Co, it “partnered” with, and then sold the patents to Texaco in 2000. What does an oil company want with rechargeable battery technology? http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/9321068-1.html
Also during this time, GM's engineers imposed their Detroit Will on the design and engineering of the Saab product line. Consequently, beginning in 1994, the NG (new generation) Saab began a major decline in quality and customer satisfaction. By 1999, GM handed the majority of design work back to Saab, and there was a resurgence of innovation and quality.
A NEW AGE
In the early 2000s, Saab begins experimenting with biofuels, specifically, E85 ethanol "dual fuel" engines. Jump to 2006 and Saab showcases its 310HP "BioPower" touring sedan (aka, stationwagon!) powered by, you guessed it, a 2.0 liter 4cyl turbo charged engine. Super efficient, super clean and super fast. Did I mention it has the cargo/payload capacity of most SUVs!
Then in 2007, Saab goes one step further showcasing a 100% ethanol powered hybrid-electric convertible at the Detroit auto show. The engine was the standard Saab 4cyl turbo, but get this, the hybrid-electric components were all GM! This car reportedly can be operated on battery alone, or with battery/engine working together.
Oh, did I mention that Saab has sold 100,000 BioPower cars in Sweeden! In other words, Detroit not only has the technology, but it has the ability and resources to put this stuff on the road.
TODAY
So where am I going with all this?
How about... GM is at it again! They killed the EV-1, and now with the market and economy in the toilet (including the pending auto-bailout), even though they say they want to be “clean and green”, they are willing to toss aside Saab and everything it has achieved. Additionally, GM is looking at allowing the Saturn brand to go away as well. FYI, Saturn has the most fuel efficient hybrid SUV on the market today. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/12/saab-volvo-satu.html
Enough already! It’s time for the Big 3 and the UAW (which is holding Detroit hostage) to step aside, and allow the smaller, more nimble, less burdened, and truly innovative companies take the helm for our transportation future!
Detroit, you say you want to build more fuel efficient cars, lower emissions and help build a greener future. You talk it, now walk it... or take a hike!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
