BIODIESEL, Try it youll like it.

solar power units are very efficient these days. To do an entire house to be energy independent would cost about 50 K in the US (tax credits were wiped out years ago, but as a generator you would qualify for some state programs) I dont know about Australia but, Ive been down there in blazing sunlight . Youd think a solar system with an industrial inverter could give you 3-10Kw to run your house and then that would do wonders for your self esteem dadpad.

dadpad, call your power company and ask whether you may have your allotment of greenhouse gas sent to you UPS . I dont like paying for something I cant see.

You still have the problem of OPEC's taps.They will compete downwards,as will all fading beauties,and the alternatives will be priced out of the market as foolish people think up new systems.Under free trade principles I mean.Of course.One musn't forget those.

I've forgotten what it costs the get a gallon of gas under free enterprise conditions but at $25 a barrel it's next to nothing.I couldn't see solar panels being a good bet for the bargain hunting millions although they might be useful to those who like to be different.

I read somewhere once that gas was a bit of a waste product at one point and that they gave us all a car and some communal planes so we could use it all up in an advantageous manner.

spendi, and one time, wagon wheels were the ideal form of translating to rolling motion. Thats the difference between science and philosophy, scientists see a problem and want to jump in and fix it, philosophers want to cry and slit their wrists.

It is true, as Spendius claims, that oil producing nations can, and likely will, reduce their prices to the extent that such action can materially thwart competitive forces and alternative energy sources. Howeveer it is a great stretch to assume that, based only on this acknowledged fact, (1)this effort will fully succeed in its intended purpose of destroying alternate sources or even that (2) this is the only point of government encouragement of alternative fuels.

Extant oil reserves are a strong function of the prevailing price. An ubiquitous, economically efficient and environmentally safe alternative fuel source effectively puts a ceiling on the competitive price of oil. This is a powerful restoration of power to the consumer in what ought to be a cpompetitive market.

Future developments by independent entrepreneurs are likely to further improve the efficiency and yield of biomass fuel sources. Associated modifications to internal combustion engine design (relatively minor) are likely to increase the utility of the biomass fueld so produced. Brazil has alreadt - admittedly to a limited extent and with some artificial government protectionist forces - demonstrated the great potential of ethanol, and, as others here have noted, the technologies are improving rapidly.

The government's role here is merely to accomodate the technical innovation that naturally emerges in a competitive economy. The last thing we need here (or almost anywhere else) is a government - directed program of "technical innovation" and control of public behavior.

fm wrote-



It is a teeny bit more complex than that.I know "it" is only a short,almost insignificant word but in this particular discussion we are not talking about wagon wheels.At least not those on carts.

On the great rolling wagon wheel to which we all cling and which your "it" represents things are more advanced and this debate may well help to fix it.


I wouldn't know what a philosopher would do.Your implication that you are going to fix "it" and that I'm just philosophising about it is a function of your simplistic view of the "it" and a profound underestimation of those dealing with the BIG "IT".

George-

Much of your post is obviously true.

If OPEC has the power it "will" compete downwards.Not "can" or " likely will.It will.

The current price might partly be set to offer a temptation to squander material and ingenuity,a human resource for all time,on a wild goose chase.
Which would weaken our "It" (see last post).

I do tend to make my basic comparisons starting from a street full of hungry prostitutes.

I'm aware that job creation may be a factor and also testing these new technologies and improving them.There could be grants and contracts and barrels of pork.

I can't agree with your last remark.The idea that public behaviour was uncontrolled would keep me awake at night if I thought there was the remotest possibility of it happening.

It is certainly not what happened 120 years ago, when coal was the dominant energy source, leading economists worried about the world running out of it, and oil was a niche product. The transition from coal to oil mostly happened automatically through the price system. Why wouldn't the same system handle the transition away from oil? The only reason to doubt it is Social Creationism -- the belief that societies can only mature if wise leaders show them the way. What poppycock!

georgeob
Extant oil reserves are being tapped at the rate of about 83million barrels a day. The oil producing countries are no longer the "gatekeepers" of the value of the commodity.Price is on an inexhorable climb upward due to the fact that we can "see" the bottom of the barrel. Economics of alternative (bio fuels) and coal gasification and JP90 are already competitive. I pay less for biodiesel than diesel. (as long as I use a greater than 50% mix)
Ken Deffeyes new book "Hubbert's Peak" is a great synthesis of what we know about how much oil is left coupled with the increasing and diverse demand.
OPEC can pout and attempt to lower prices by opening the pumps, but its self defeating So we may get a 3 year reprieve from soaring prices of the commodity Thats not going to stop the innovation and bringing to market of alternative fuels. Government, like Brazil, must not stand in the way by imposition of disincentives (as our govenrment has done since Reagan). Alternative fuel credits, R&D credits need to be extended (the entire redefinition of R&D needs to be made, so that longer term expensing can spur innovation) Tying real environmental performance to production has still not been a majopr market driver in the US (weve tried pollution exchanges for air and waterbut thats just a fools chase)

One of my first jobs as a geologist was in 1979 to extra refine Mesabi iron ore from the Minn "range" .Then the companies were not able to afford better production of 2% ores.They needed to refine low grade ores to be competitive The way we worked it out was to increase the efficiency of removing the asbestos from the "gangue" The recovery process was expensed as an environmnetal benefit and allowed the bean counters to make the system profitable by an imposed "environmental benefit" 2 years after the mills were open , that bald headed Interior dude Watt, recommended the limitation of environmenatl benefit expensing for mining .

The example is one where a profitable mill was then shut down and Reagan could claim money saved (creativity and machinery went to Nigeria) where we helped set up a tantalum mill using Mesabi equipt.

Yep, OPECS not the driver anymore, supply is. Supply's reaching the nexus where alternatives will yield entirely new "Middle Easts" Fortunately the US is one of the countries that can bio itself out of this.


I know that right-wing talking heads are explaining about abiogenic oil and drilling deepre to untapped wealth. I usually dont listen to Rush if I want any sense made.

Thomas wrote-



At bottom coal and oil are the same.They are both a store of sun's energy from millions of days of sunshine.The change from one to the other is a bother but technically simple.These other sources,apart from nuclear,which is a store of goodness know what,rely on this years sunshine to power this years activities.

The price system will obviously handle the transition away from oil but not while oil is at $65 or even,in my view,at $200.

Your "poppycock" Thomas cannot be discussed until we are clear what you mean by "mature".You might be an anarchist who would see chaos as mature.

fm wrote-



I listen to everybody.One can soon develop blind spots otherwise.

Uranium stores some of the energy of a past supernova. Also, I see nothing wrong with using this year's sunshine to power this year's economy.


I don't know at which oil price the price system will handle the transition away from oil; all I know is that it will do that at a lower cost of transition than government investments into alternative energy.


`Mature' was careless wording; I meant `progress'. It doesn't matter what I mean by it. Whith very few exeptions, whatever improvement society can achieve it can achieve it through voluntary cooperation, without government leading the way.

spendius,
Im aware that you do. Youre problem isnt blindspots as much as tunnel visionthomas said

Theres a difference between not leading the way and being a "stone in the road" Liberal tax incentives on oil production have lasted whereas no incentives for fuel alternatives remain in the US, we are at the mercy of a petroleum plutocracy with a core cabal of oil field execs.. No matter what Bush spoke of in his speech, we are still stuck with no real energy policy that does anything but ask to drill more and conserve more. Very near sighted, but not unexpected from this crowd.

Thomas wrote-



Neither do I.It is just that at current rates of consumption it would not meet requirements by a long way.But it's a happy thought.It would need a lower population or a lower set of expectations or a combination.I do what little I can to promote the latter, and if I'm successful I'm a source of energy in proportion to my success.But I get shouted down on pesky trivia like the Chicago meet so I'm probably not worth much.

I think I'm in rabid left-wing company here.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear and perhaps we are all talking past each other.

Oil is plentiful and relatively cheap, but rapidly rising demand may restore power to a cartel that attempts to regulate the price. There are now no readily available, competitive alternate sources of energy, particularly for transportation. There is an aroused environmental activist interest that seeks to change the world's habits through treaty, government regulation of energy production, and government control and direction of investment and economic activity, through both direct regulatory control and distortion of the economics of production and consumption. These methods are likely to kill the goose that lays the golden economic and technological eggs and lead to far worse outcomes than the things the advocates seek to prevent. New technologies are arising that have lowered the monetary and energy cost of production of biomass fuels for transportation. Meanwhile marginal improvements in solar and other technologies make them a growing (but relatively insignificant) source of "alternate" energy production.

All this is something in which we all can take great satisfaction. We can argue (as does spendius) that the oil producers will not go quietly into that good night. However, I can see no scenario under which ethanol production and use as a transportation fuel will not grow and will not have a beneficial effect on a market with a large demand - supply imbalance and which is currently too much in the control of sellers. Further real environmental benefits may be a result.

We can argue about the proper role of government in this situation. My view is that less government interference is better than more, and that government should generally beware of attempting to distort economic markets through "incentives" and controls. Markets are MUCH smarter than bureaucrats.

I manage a company that employs lots of engineers and geologists. There is a continuing cultural war between them ("there's one under every rock", is what the engineers say of the geologists. As an engineer, I don't listen to what the geologists say about us.). I am always fascinated by the descriptions of nature offered by geologists, but often find it hard to follow their arguments to any definite conclusion. I find Farmerman's descriptions and arguments much the same. He clearly knows more and has more experience than I in many aspects of biomass fuel. However, I don't follow his arguments about government incentives.

My company has a rapidly growing practice designing and installing anerobic methane recovery systems in engineered landfills, and, more importantly, from the waste streams of the food production industry (animal and vegetable). The methane is delivered at less than 20% of the price of natural gas otherwise used as a heat source in the processing plants. These and other like sources of alternate fuels are arising naturally in the normal economic activity of producers and designers. The last thing we need is further "help" from the government.

George-

Do you write the brochure's George?You have given us there a quite fancy version of the sales pitch of a waste wood burning system salesman in a sawmill manager's office.
Our long gone pitchers in this field used to tell us how long they could run the lights in a town of 20,000 people.

Can you give us your estimate of your company's capacity in terms of time running New York at today's price levels.To the nearest minute will do.

It has got past the point of more or less government interference.I think we are more concerned with the competence of the interference than with reducing it.Government interference is here to stay and growing.Ordinary people are now out of the loop.

Lord Halifax once commented in other circumstances-

"perhaps the greatest difficulty in the conduct of foreign affairs,and the one least appreciated by those not actually engaged in it,is the fact that the ideal policy is scarcely ever practicable.....and we go badly wrong if we allow our judgement of practical steps to be taken to be perpetually deflected by our moral reactions against wrong that we can in no circumstances immediately address."

Even if we allow that this debate isn't concerned with foreign affairs,which I don't,I think the good Lord's view is appropriate to it.

I'm not trying to blow cold on your efforts at all and I hope your company is a success.

But 7 billion want the lights on now and a few other things and they don't want the generating plant in the back yard.

How come George,as an ex senior officer,that you don't live for the more refined aspects of intellectual life in a book lined study.Messing about in waste tips and with rotting potato peelings is really for young men who have yet to make their mark.

I do have a book-lined study, but too much time there leaves me restless. Leading an enterprise has a good deal in common with leading a squadron, or ship, or battle group - one merely keeps score by different means. I also like the money (and it keeps the heat on in the book-lined study.)

George-

I'm quite the opposite.I find the study extremely restful in the company of my favourite writers.

Do you like the money for itself or for what it purchases.If it is the latter then shouldn't the energy required to produce the things you purchase be deducted from the energy efficiencies of your company before the nett effect to society is calculated.I could visualise circumstances where the profit made requires more consumption of oil than has been replaced by your efforts.I know that is unlikely but it must be possible.

georgeob saidGeorge, you dont have to talk past me either. You can say I dont agree with you, Im an individual, not a class.
Landfill gas is a boutique market that relies upon 'ecoparks" and local use, it needs cleaning and dewatering and getting rid of the aminos that dont go away by simple flaring.The dirty secret is that the gas is required to be dealt with right? And since you have to handle it for odor removal and NMOC smells wouldnt a really nifty way to get it out of the regulation circle is to treat it as a feedstock, not a pollutant. (Ive got a lot of experience in this also, we try to creatively solve the problems that others deal with as environmental headaches. I say that the LFG is a feedstock generated by a sidebar industry an anearobic digestion with a higher than field capacity water content.
A less environmentally sensitive choice,may be to use LFG to esterify fatty acids by a high pH methylation process through waste oils and even seaweed to make a biodiesel. Its a high return commodity and portable. LFG systems, in order to meet environmental regs have a high initial cost for active systems that is done to meet MDE/EPA/DEC/DEP requirements not because its a "great energy idea" So as the incentive/disincentive route, its not a really valid comparison cause you have to collect the gas anyway or you wont get a permit.

As far as your engineers not understanding the minds of various scientists including geologists (I can understand, Ive always found engineers to be the most rigid individuals in an integrated team).
My point is that oil recieves boucoup incentives from equipment rapid depreciation (just meant for oil field crap) field writeoffs to tax incentives and depreciation allowances) This is a govt "handout". If the markets were truly flat, then biofuels would be less expensive than diesel and gas. Its a fairly understood fact that it takes 2 barrels (equivalents for cracking and transporting etc) to produce one barrel of product and maybe thats even old data. AS far as biofuels, we can make fuels out of residual biomass that we are already planting for .food.

Im not asking for incentives , Im merely asking that there be no DISINCENTIVES to biofuels.Right now, if I were to go into biodiesel big time, I would need a waste hauling permit even though its my feedstock. My haukers would need twice the containment that normal oil tanker truck needs. I would need manifesting as if it were a haz waste, yet it has no more benzene (in fact a lot less BTEX than does a tanker of regular gas)


Im aware Im talking to a primarily Conservative group here , but Ill passionately argue that oil is supported from withinthe tax structure and state fixed taxes (why dont states raise their gasoline taxes with the recent rises in fuel prices, they dont you know). A biodiesle manufacturer has 2 tax structures to fight against ,
1 the product base is a waste and subject to manifests fees, and other hidden SWM costs

2Once its refined, (at a much lower total cost anyway) its subject to taxes going out.
The last dirty secret is that the govt as a whole doesnt want competition for oil productsThe last president (until Tuesday) who actually spoke for alternative energy was Carter. The fact that Brazil can lessen its dependency on oil is remarkable and required the coordination of lots of government AND private interests.

Spendius,

You assume the "good of society" is my primary motivation. I would like to say that "what it can buy" is my motive, but no doubt a bit of middle class greed and angst drives me as well. This is a question I do wrestle with a bit. I think I like the action itself - even more than the contemplation of it. However, these are long-held habits which I am slowly learning to alter.