“Finally, it must be understood by anybody genuinely interested in the truth that the full 2,216 page scientific report bears little resemblence to the 20-page summary report most media and political mouthpieces cite, and that the latter is actually a political consensus rather than scientific consensus document. For example, when the preliminary report was released earlier to governments, the politicians vested in climate alarmism were not pleased by its frank acknowledgement of the 15-yr hiatus in surface warming or its honest admission that all of the climate models had overshot actual temperature rise by more than a quarter of a degree C. In response, German politicians called for the reference to the warming slowdown to be deleted, saying it wasn't fair to consider trends shorter than 30 years. US politicians urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the missing warming went into the deep ocean despite a lack of consensus and even evidence contrary to that view. Is the NYT willing to show the world how the UN makes political sausage out of science? Here is a record of how each nation negotiated the language it wanted to see in the report. http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/.”
“It would really be gratifying to see the Times hold the line on all the emotional invocations of impending climate catastrophe and instead follow the moderate tone of this IPCC report. This document unequivocally states there is low confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of any abrupt climate events over the course of the 21st century, and that there is no evidence of any climate change symptom such as arctic ice loss being irreversible. It also clearly confirms there is no global warming threat to the world's forests, and that it would take a full millennium for Greenland to lose its ice sheet, so there is no sudden inundation of coastlands to fear.
In sumary, the full 2,216-page IPCC AR5 report on the physical science basis of climate change is actually quite honest and evenhanded. It does not support a dogmatic or exclusively anthropogenic view of global warming, but rather openly acknowledges lack of consensus, contrary evidence, failed model
predictions, alternative theories, and assumptions that are used in place of hard data in key areas. In other words, it is refreshingly scientific. The NYT editors would do well to take a step back and recognize the difference between science and dogma, and adopt the skeptical approach of the former instead of being censors and propagandists for the latter. The truth is not well-served by the NYT declaring itself the Torquemada the grand climate change inquisistion, especially if they haven't read the bible of the full report.”
“The new IPCC report acknowledges that 3 of 5 studies of ocean temperatures also show ocean warming slowed during the same period, which undermines the weak apologetic claim that many global warming enthusiasts are making that the missing heat energy went into the ocean instead of the atmosphere. Is the NYT open to printing the fact there really is no good explanation for where the missing heat has gone, and that this raises genuine doubts about the magnitude of CO2's influence on the climate and the calibration of the models?
The new report also acknowledges the variability of the sun's output in ultraviolet wavelengths that particularly affect production of stratospheric ozone and clouds, both of which are climate forcers. It admits, that, while they think other forcers dominate, they really don't know the magnitude of this solar fluctuation on climate. The report also finds that global cloud cover was decreasing during the same period as global temperatures were climbing from the early 1970s through the late 1990s, raising an interesting possible link between climate, clouds, and the sun which many outside the IPCC have previously said was too obvious to ignore. If anything, the overall thrust of the report is to diminish the prominence of CO2 as the single variable driving climate, and to give greater attention to a host of other climate forcers and alternative mechanisms. Is the NYT willing to open its aperture to these other credible and scientifically supported climate change mechanisms?”
“The LA times, having declared itself the arbiter of truth, had better get it right. If Paul Thornton and the rest of their editors haven't yet read the 2,216-page report (WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS (ACCEPTED DRAFT),” http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf) then they'd better get busy. If they do read it, they will find it indicts climate alarmists as much as climate deniers.
Is the NYT going to refuse to publish a letter that claims human activity or GHG emissions are causing global droughts, or increasing the severity of hurricanes and typhoons, or causing US wildfires? is the NYT editor going to refuse to repeat in print the claim that current warming is unprecedented, or that the weather during the 20th century was worse than the preceding centuries? This new IPCC report refutes all of the above, so these are all, in fact, "factual inaccuracies" that deserve no column-inches in the NYT.
The IPCC report frankly acknowledges the 15-yr hiatus in global warming since 1998 and recognizes that it was not predicted by any of the climate models, which all badly over-estimated today's temperature. Is the NYT going to properly discriminate against the "hiatus deniers"?”
“Now that rigorous life-cycle studies are finally emerging, it turns out that liquid biofuels are worse than fossil fuels across the board. 1. They are more damaging to the environment (deforestation and land use change, increased land and water poisoning from fertilizer nitrates, same or worse combustion emissions) 2. Larger greenhouse gas footprint (from carbon and nitrous oxide released from fossil fuels and fertilizers in cultivation). 3. Huge water footprint (~10,000 liters of water per liter of fuel, compared to less than 7 for gasoline). 4. Negative energy balance (costing more energy to make than they provide back to civilization). 5. More volatile in price than oil, and their price tracks with oil (when oil went up 6% over Libya crisis, ethanol went up 8%). 6. Contain less energy per gallon than diesel or gasoline unless hydrotreated (a process which delivers a small increase in performance and reduced emissions at high cost, and can also be done to diesel and gasoline if consumers want to pay the premium for it). Conclusion: When the billions in annual subsidies end and the water crisis afflicting 1/3 of the world today grows big enough to transform water from a subsidized free public utility into a priced global commodity, biofuels will finally expire with a whimper.”
“The Jan 2011 RAND study (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html) pointed out how wasteful and pointless are the US Military’s continuing rounds of biofuels publicity stunts. Over 55 blends of biofuels have already been tested in commercial aircraft, ships, and trucks. The issue is not that biofuels can be made into drop-in fuels (they can), it is rather that the fuels are astronomically expensive and consume more energy in growing and in processing than they yield for use. The Navy is paying $26 gallon for its most recent purchase ($12M for 450K gallon), but that is not close to the true cost, as the producers are also receiving other multi-million-dollar subsidies from DOE and USDA. To see the real cost, consider that DOE just awarded Honeywell UOP $1.1 million for 100 gallons of biofuel to be provided in 2012. That's $11,000 a gallon. The country is already littered with failed biofuel ethanol plants that died as soon as their subsidies ran out, yet we continue to throw our money away funding and building more. This is how the Administration spends our tax dollars while carrying a $15 Trillion debt. BTW, did you know we are actually importing biofuel? Look it up. There is no logic in this Administration's pursuit of the green agenda or national security.”
“It's true that many biofuels give you a negative energy delta in terms of raw thermodynamics. Still, you have to remember that our oil deposits came from hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis. Once an oil deposit is depleted, it isn't coming back on any timeline that is useful to us.”
“For those that will not read the full report for themselves, I offer this quote as an example of its content and tone.
“Abrupt climate change is defined in AR5 as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. . . . there is low confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century.””
“To put your comment into context, you need to let us know where you read this. If you can, you should also add a link. Also, the reference "AR5" is already showing up in different articles so it's not even certain that you're talking about the full IPCC report which is rather lengthy. I don't mean to be a stickler but it's really helpful if everyone knows the context, both literal and in general.”
“Rachel, like most commentators and reporters on this topic, obviously has not read the recent 2,216-page IPCC Report. Skip the 20-page summary which is a political-consensus document and read the full report which is the scientific consensus document. It doesn't say what the media and celebrities and Rachel assume it does (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf).
For example, the main report authors recant on every prior claim of imminent disaster or irreversible, runaway climate tipping points. They admit there has been a hiatus in warming since 1998, and that 3 out of 5 studies have also found a hiatus in ocean warming during this time, complicating attempts to use that as an excuse. They candidly express significant doubt about the current crop of climate models and their predictions. They acknowledge that the best research now shows that floods and damaging weather were worse in the centuries before the 20th, and that THERE IS NO TREND of increasing hurricanes or cyclonic weather intensity.”
“Carol Browner and Heather Zilchal have done tremendous damage to our economy and environment by pushing alternative energy with negative energy balances, critical hidden dependency upon fossil fuels, higher lifecycle GHG emissions, and huge land and water footprints. Ignorance and ideology have run roughshod over reason and empiricism in the Obama Administration. Calling it pseudo science is to give it too much credit. Even staunch environmentalists have begun to see through the veil and question proposals to burn our forests for fuel and carpet our open lands with solar panels, and crowd the horizon with wind turbines. Economists and those who read the news of Germany and Holland know that these global leaders in solar and wind have the highest residential electricity rates in the world (approaching 50 cents per kWh), and are making electricity a luxury for the rich. The EPA, DOE, USDA, and DOD have been accomplices to this damaging agenda in the US, led by political sycophants. Despite all the objective evidence, this administration continues to pour billions into biofuels and solar and wind via these agencies without any return on investment for the American taxpayer.”
“HON GREG HUNT MP Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage
CHOOSING THE RIGHT MARKET MECHANISMS FOR ADDRESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS:
Incentives for Action under the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan for the Environment and
Climate Change
Lays out EXACTLY how the EU and Aussie Carbon Tithes and Cap-and-Trade schemes have DESTROYED the EU and Aussie economies, cost their countries BILLIONS in lost economic gains and LOOTED TAXPAYER CARBON CREDITS, detailing the economic research by Nobel Laureates to validate the claims as obvious as their balance sheet.
Warmists refuse to engage in scientific debate, instead calling anyone who protests their dogma and their tithes a 'Denier™', and at the same time, refuse to accept any economic or political consequences for their actions, even though economic science and political science are every bit as much 'Science' as reading ice cores, tree rings and tea leaves.
"It's not about the Science. Science doesn't matter. It's about (control of) Public Policy." IPCC internal strategy memo, laying out their real agenda. TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.”
“When rigorous lifecycle analyses are done on alternative energy candidates including wind, solar, and biofuels, it is found that each have huge plumes of CO2 due to the fossil fuel energy used in capitalizing their necessary infrastructure (mining, manufacturing, installing, operating, repairing, recapitalizing, decommissioning), in load balancing intermittent sources on the power grid, in fertilizing and harvesting and processing biomass, and in the destruction of natural carbon sinks and biodiverse habitat such as forests to make way for crop land and solar farms and wind farms. Most scientifically-rigorous lifecycle analyses published since 2008 have found these alternative energy candidates to be equivalent to or worse than fossil fuels in GHG emissions per unit of energy delivered to the economy, and much worse in environmental impact (water footprint, land use, soil and groundwater pollution, etc).
Blanket claims of renewability have also been proved false. Corn ethanol is only about 27% renewable energy (66% fossil fuel and 7% nuclear) and growers should have to purchase RECs to cover the 73% non-renewable balance before being able to claim it as "renewable fuel" and collect EPA RINs. But of course the EPA doesn't pay any attention to this, even though it is federal law (16 CFR 260.15).
This is the illegitimacy and insanity now abetted by the highly politicized and scientifically bankrupt EPA, USDA, DOE, and DOD pushing presidential agendas (of both Bush and Obama) instead of serving citizens and taxpayers. There is no national security or energy security here.”
“There were very significant improvements in efficiency (heat rates) across the fleet of conventional power plants since 1990, but the matching reductions in CII have now been offset by all the CO2 emitted by saddling the grid with billions of dollars of new solar and wind that, as implemented at utility scale, cannot justify the label of "renewable" under even an ounce of scrutiny. The way to reduce carbon emissions is to produce power with the smallest consumption of resources. What the government has forced upon the grid since 2005 is the opposite. We have released a huge, unnecessary plume of CO2 in creating a cancer of free-riding, obscenely subsidized, abysmal power density, zero dispatchability, marginal to negative energy balance, intermittent solar and wind plants built by the dictates of pork barrel politics instead of need and economics, that offload their backup generation inefficiencies and costs to the larger grid. To see where this is going, look at the Germans and Dutch, with the highest fraction of solar and wind in the world, paying the highest residential electric rates on the continent (3-4 times the 11.47 cent/kWh US average), and increasing not decreasing their use of fossil fuel power generation. Coal use in Germany rose 8% just in 2012 to carry the load for all the "renewables."”
“This is the same Pickens that pushed taxpayer-subsidized wind on us all--an inexcusable act for someone who claims to know energy. To paraphrase the Duke, "stupid should hurt." Begging for a government energy plan from the criminals in DC is to beg for our energy economy to go the way of Amtrak, the Post Office, Social Security, and Fannie Mae. Our international competitors and enemies could only wish we'd be that dumb. All the innovation that has revolutionized fossil fuel energy in the past decade has been accomplished by the non-nationalized, privately-capitalized oil companies of the United States that are now less than 10% of the global industry. Hopefully what remains of the US free market will prove the foolishness of Pickens and Khosla by relieving them of their billions or wising them up before they do any more damage.”
“In 1990 the EPA focused on reducing carbon monoxide emissions to the detriment of all its other responsibilities. It pushed for fuel oxygenation and was quite pleased when industry responded with MTBE in gasoline. But the folks responsible for air quality did not consult with the folks responsible for the soil and groundwater, and water-soluble MTBE proved to be a disaster for the environment--a consequence unintended by all parties, but an example of the folly of demonizing one thing disproportionately and destroying other things of value in trying to stamp it out. The EPA continues in this vein today in blocking super high-efficiency diesel engines like the 87 MPG VW Polo because their particulate emissions are too high. EPA has now moved from carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide as Satan incarnate, and is happy to promote policies that spew conventional pollutants and destroy biodiversity so long as they promote the combustion of more green plants. Imagine the EPA telling loggers in Washington State in the 80's to clear-cut trees and destroy spotted owl habitat because it is "carbon-neutral." It used to be a sin to use a paper bag for groceries because we were killing trees. Now many greens are pushing for big agribusiness forest grabbing and tree slaughter on an unprecedented scale. Keep preaching it, Rachel, until the clue light goes on about the negative energy balance and environmental destructiveness and bill of lies we have been sold by biofuels snake oil salesmen.”
“Consumer food prices around the world are up 50% since 2007 due to diversion of food resources to biofuels, and a united front of more than a dozen international aid agencies led by the WHO and UN FAO have formally petitioned the G20 to drop all renewable fuel mandates (Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses. World Bank, 2011). The most fuel-productive crop in the US is corn ethanol, and it produces only 0.315 Watts of energy per square meter of land, only 1/19th of the 6.0 W/m2 of recently deployed solar farms. It would take more than 700 million acres of land cultivated in corn to replace US consumption of diesel and gasoline transportation fuel. But cultivating and fertilizing and harvesting and processing that crop into fuel would require 27 quadrillion BTUs of fossil fuel energy. The end result is more overall use of fossil fuel rather than less, higher net GHG emissions from CO2 and from nitrous-oxide and methane released from fertilizers, widespread environmental damage and loss of biodiversity in irreversible land use change, greatly increased nitrate poising of surface water from fertilizer runoff, one-thousand times more water usage than for petroleum extraction and refining, and millions more humans pushed into malnutrition. The myth that cultivated biofuels are "clean and green" is one of the great hoaxes of modern politics.”
“Really? Food prices are up 50% since 2007 because of biofuels production? Hmmmm, let me think here for one second. World-record droughts devastating crop production can't be why food prices have gone up, can it? Oil costs -- our biggest transportation fuel source -- haven't increased at all in price since 2007! Our transportation system -- transporting consumer goods and foods -- isn't reliant on a fuel that cost $4.50 a gallon before the recession of 2008, is it? If oil prices go up, food prices stay the same...if biofuels go into our car, food prices go wayyyyyyyyy up! Oh, i get it!”
“Excellent article that actually addresses all the issues, from photosynthesis to human rights. The politically-motivated pursuit of biofuels in the US is not just foolishness, but a criminally negligent policy that is destructive of the environment and causing real harm to people around the world right now. We don't see it in the US because economics drives us to displace these crimes to less developed countries. Land confiscation and food competition are current realities affecting millions of people and hundreds of millions of acres in Africa and South America and Indonesia. As pointed out above, the food/non-food distinction is meaningless. All agriculture competes with all other agriculture for the same resources of land, water, fertilizer, agrichemicals, machinery, financing, etc. Biofuel labels such as "Gen2" or "Advanced" are merely Orwellian attempts to hide the truth and assuage investor consciences.”
Case 1 Petroleum: Depending upon a fuel from an energy source that is produced in over 80 countries and available globally at every port and airfield, that is completely fungible and benefits in price from a truly global market, that has global proved reserves of over 1.6T barrels and growing, that has an 8:1 or better EROI, that generates huge tax revenue for US federal and state government, and that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans today in a sector of industry with a $10T market capitalization.
Case 2 Biofuel: Depending upon a fuel that derives 80% of its energy content from fossil fuels above; is subject to weather, drought, freeze, and flood; has zero proved reserves but must be made season-by-season; would have to be shipped to the front lines all the way from the US; does not benefit from global energy market price advantages, but has the added price volatility of being subject to agricultural market forces; has negative energy balance/poor EROI; is a huge sinkhole for billions in subsidy money; that study after study are now showing actually increases net GHG emissions and increases environmental and ecosystem damage due to agrichemical runoff and irreversible land use change; and that is causing widespread injury to human rights and political stability because of "green grabbing" of land and water rights in poorer countries, and the doubling of food prices around the world.
“It is not the Army and Navy asking for biofuels, it is the political appointees who run the Army and Navy.
When all the facts are considered, liquid biofuels turn out to be a way to consume finite fossil fuels even faster and more wastefully. It takes more petroleum to make biofuels than to make gas and diesel, and they are so expensive for precisely this reason. Natural gas makes their fertilizer, petroleum makes their herbicides and pesticides, diesel and gasoline fuel their farm equipment, fossil fuels power the mills and distilleries, petroleum makes the enzymes and organic chemicals used in the newer high-tech processes, hydrogen from natural gas is added to hydrotreat the end-product alcohol or lipid into true hydrocarbon "drop-in" fuel.
Even E85 corn ethanol, after 8 years of $6B a year in subsidies, is still 40 cents more a gallon than premium gasoline when corrected for MPG according to AAA's daily survey (http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp).”
“Readers are surely sophisticated enough to recognize the story above is a propaganda piece from the founder of a lobby--is this paid or free advertising?. Thanks for bringing up subsidies, Nicole. Here are the total federal subsidy numbers just for 2010 as provided by the Department of Energy to Congress:
- Total federal assistance in subsidies and tax breaks from all federal departments and agencies to oil and gas companies: $2.8B
- Total federal assistance to alternative energy: $14.7B of which $7.7B went to biofuels.
It is even more informative to show the taxpayer money paid out divided by units of energy delivered back to the US economy in barrel of crude oil equivalents (BOE).
Consider also that the federal government COLLECTED $9.01 per barrel of gas & oil in oil company corporate taxes and consumer-paid excise taxes. It gets no such ROI on its green energy spending. States and local governments collected similar shares from the oil and gas companies.
We need the federal government to stop spending our money on wasteful things to buy votes and pay back campaign bundlers, and instead balance its books. The first place to start is to end ALL energy subsidies, and all FARM subsides as well. It's all corporate welfare and croney capitalism.
“We don't need Congress or the President to give us an energy strategy. Politicians are essentially a criminal class that uses public money to buy votes to win the next election. They are inherently short-sighted and self-centered in their strategies. We also don't need a panel of Dr. Chu's who are experts in narrow fields but think they know better than everyone else in subjects beyond their experience and have hidden agendas of raising petroleum fuel prices to force people to uneconomic and infeasible alternative energy fantasies like biofuels and wind. The military answers more to its partisan political masters rather than national security imperatives as its failed propaganda effort of boondoggle biofuel spending for the "Great Green Fleet" demonstrate. Investment bankers are probably the best at long-term strategies, but who trusts them for anything anymore? In the final analysis, we are better off with an open press and robust open source information on the internet, a free market (free of government subsidies and tax gimmicks and other manipulation), and individual investors able to make their own educated choices. The last thing we want is China's "Great Leap Forward" or Soviet style five-year plans that empowered central planners to starve tens of millions to death with their well-meaning ignorance.”
Commented
Sep 24, 2012 at 18:00:16
in
San Francisco
“Nothing in the article supports the concluding statement that any of these technologies yield cleaner air, fewer GHG emissions, or "clean energy jobs" that are somehow different from regular jobs (other than being exceedingly temporary). In fact, the preponderance of recent lifecycle analyses for alternative fuels and energy are finding that these initiatives are greatly accelerating the use of fossil fuels for their manufacture, are causing large-scale permanent land use change that is harmful to the environment and biodiversity, and are actually increasing GHG emissions more in the near term than likely to be offset in the long term. Just because the Malibu Institute of Technology says something is "clean" and "green" doesn't make it so. While they drive around their biodiesel Hummers and fly their personal jets to climate change conferences, the scientific facts say that more efficient use of conventional oil and natural gas and nuclear are far more kind to our planet than manufacturing and erecting hundreds of thousands of square miles of solar and wind farms. California Condors beware, the Tehachapi Turbines are spinning their blades to welcome you home to your previous habitat. Desert Tortoises of the Mojave, you have to adapt to the industrialization of the desert into solar farms. Forests and wilderness throughout the continent, prepare to be turned into cultivated monocultures doused with agrichemicals and burned for fuel. This is what the Left has done. O the irony.”
Commented
Sep 24, 2012 at 17:36:10
in
San Francisco
“Spending millions on projects that don't perform according to their promises is par for the course on the Left Coast. A grade schooler (from another state), could predict that the cost of desalinating water with fossil fuel electricity will go up if the price of the fuel goes up, but local politicians never saw that coming. California continues to display to the world that it elects government officials with no clue about the laws of either physics or economics. They are running the state to ruin. This is what you get when self-important celebrities from Malibu dictate state policy in Sacramento. We can only hope the spectacular crash and burn coming to the Golden State at least serves as a lesson to the rest of the Union about what not to do. When that day comes I will miss reading the latest idiocy to come out of CARB and the comical contest between the loopy left and its own lawyers simultaneously promoting and blocking wind turbines and solar power because of conflicted values and NIMBY hypocrisy. Californians have even managed to tax the movie industry and Apple HQ out of California. Reap what you sow. Back to the pre-industrial ages and droughts and plagues and foreign invasions.”
“And do tell what state you live in that gives you the right to insult another state, the way you are talking i am willing to bet you are one of those states that recently went through a drought and still dont believe in man made climate change. i am also willing to bet that you are from one of those states that receive more in federal tax dollars then your state pays in. i am also willing to bet that your state is also one of the least educated ones. So just exactly where are you from to make such accusations?”
“While you make some good points I can tell by your rant you're still the wingnut you were back on Cheers The movie industry and Apple (especially) are VERY guilty of being just plain GREEDY.They don't want to pay a good living wage to workers when they can get people in other countries to work for a fraction of what it would cost them here in Ca.BTW Celebrities don't run the government or dictate policy here you're smart enough to know better.Nice try Say hi to Sam and Norm”
“It's nice of you to visit from another state and tell us how messed up we are. Please, don't forget the earthquakes. As I drive my oil guzzling car on the freeways I will get some satisfaction knowing that the tradewinds will be carrying my exhaust your way, while the coastal breezes bring fresh air to me. Ahhhhhhhhh
BTW, Apple is still here and going strong. Housing is going up, employment is good for those who have an education. And did you know, California is one of those states that makes a net contribution to the federal government? Most red states TAKE money from the feds. Oh, and you're probably eating fruit and vegetables from our state too, though, personally I wish we wouldn't waste our water growing food for you. Noone is forcing you to watch the celebs, but go ahead and talk em up since you seem to like them. Maybe the one worthy point of your post lost in your rant is the "crash and burn" that may take place (and I assume you mean the debt crisis).”
“Don't confuse political appointees running the military (e.g., the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy) with the uniformed military. Also don't confuse retired military officers working as paid lobbyists for ACORE or the Truman Project Operation Free or SAFE, or those with huge financial stakes in Growth Energy or Solazyme or Gevo to be representatives of the rank and file military.”
“Neither Solazyme nor Gevo have produced net revenues but are living off of investor money. Gevo was established to make cellulosic ethanol from forest waste, but has admitted failure in that venture and retooled itself for butanol. This is a new strategy to backdoor a new form of alcohol into the Renewable Fuel Standard. The virtues of butanol are that it provides 22% more energy per gallon than ethanol (still 20% less than gasoline), and that it is less absorbent of water and more compatible with existing pipelines. Even better from Gevo's perspective, it has a market price twice as high as gasoline. Of course, this is bad news for consumers who are already paying more for E10 ethanol-blended gasoline in MPG-corrected prices than for conventional gasoline (http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp ), in addition to the subsidies they are paying for with their taxes. The news is even worse if a true drop-in diesel or jet fuel replacement is desired. UOP was paid $11,000 a gallon for butanol jet fuel last year by the Department of Transportation, and the the U.S. Navy just paid $4,454.55 a gallon to Albemarle in February to convert biobutanol into jet fuel. There is not enough waste biomass to power our economy with waste-stream biofuels, and any feedstock based on cultivated biomass is also fatally dependent upon petroleum for fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, farm equipment fuel, distillation heat, and hydrotreating hydrogen. This is a bottomless hole.”
“Startups live on investor money. That's how they start. When they finally get large contracts or sales, they can make money. Clearly you don't know much about business.”
“Bottomless hole - absolutely not - it is perfect repayment for the crony green capitalism that has become a poster child for the green energy zealots. Fits right with the current administration.
Putting Green first - national defense and common sense second.”
“America, please keep track of the names of the people who are leading you down the biofuels path of economic self-destruction, water depletion, food competition, deforestation, and increased lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The idea that biofuels are clean and green is a myth. The best ones yield only the same amount of energy as was required to make them, and the worst are hugely negative in energy balance. Biofuels are actually accelerating our use of fossil fuels and global warming. A retired general should know that the US only gets 20% of its total energy from imported oil and only 3.6% from Persian Gulf states (US Oil Imports: Context and Considerations. Congressional Research Service, April 1, 2011). We intentionally maintain a diverse portfolio, and the fact that we import some oil from the Gulf reassures our allies, who are absolutely dependent upon oil traveling trough the Strait of Hormuz, that we will continue our military commitments to global freedom of commerce and navigation. The National Academy of Sciences and RAND and the UN World Food Program and the World Bank and scores of recent university lifecycle analyses of biofuels are all painting a much darker picture of biofuels than the greenwash propaganda that has been pushed by various special interests and swallowed whole-heartedly by the mainstream media and the uninformed.”
“excellent points. We must not trade energy security for some other evil - like food security. If we mix our food and fuel supplies, fuel will likely win out and impoverished peoples around the world will starve when producers realize they can make more money from making fuel from food stocks than selling the food itself.”
View mobile site
Edit Preferences
Logout
