30 Comments so far

1. rtdrury March 5th, 2007 2:29 pm

   The transition from petroleum to biofuels is a huge opportunity for the people to take responsibility for industry, society and the environment.

   It should be obvious by now that neither the “invisible hand” of the market nor government bureaucrats are capable of responsible stewardship, with polar ice sheets melting down, resource wars in full escalation, and enslavement of the people.

   Instead of passively watching as capital expands its destructive hegemony, we should formulate the people’s energy policy and then implement it.

   Clearcutting virgin forests should be halted now. Their value will increase by leaps and bounds as permaculture replaces agriculture. Instead of biofuels plantations, individual farmers will cultivate forests of about 200 acres (consolidation will be banned), with inter-mixed companion crops, mostly deep-rooted trees with systematic improvements made via grafts. Synthetic inputs will be near zero. No water, no chemical fertilizers or pesticides, no tilling of the soil. No toxic runoffs or contamination, but instead, these will be self-sustaining stable ecosystems. Cultivars and processing will be selected by technical criteria, not political criteria, to determine which species produce most efficiently while maintaining ecological balance.

   Horsepower per acre factors in engine efficiency (diesels are 40% more efficient than ethanol engines), processing efficiency (biodiesel three times as efficient as ethanol for an average climate), and production efficiency (biodiesel generally better than ethanol after accounting for harvest costs and ecological benefits of trees). Maximum horsepower per acre with minimum inputs and minimum waste outputs should be the non-negotiable top priority.

   Beyond achieving maximum hp/acre, consumption tax is required to squeeze waste and to motivate efficient vehicles. The potential is 150 mpg for commuter cars. The consumption tax also drives rail usage and telecommuting, and constrains road construction and suburban sprawl. Public will is imposed on public policy through mass general strikes/boycotts.

2. Wildlander March 5th, 2007 3:18 pm

   I cannot believe you chose to publish this article. This same topic is old news and was printing across the web a year ago at truthout and other websites. Why the rehash???

   We all know we have to come up with an alternative to fuel to remove our dependencies on the middle east and to stop from making them rich on oil. And to assume we are going to come up with a magic solution that will not cost us anything is nothing short of assinine - as was your choice to publish this article. For one, the article now, as back then, assumes we intend to get ALL our alternative energy from ethnol. That was NEVER the case. We have from the beginning expected ALL the alternatives to contribute a little including the continued use of oil to some degree for the next decade until we can turn off the tap completely. For now, we expect SOME of the alternative energy to come from ethonal, we expect SOME to come from wind farms, we expect SOME to come from ocean waves/current technology, we expect some to come from solar, and we expect the MOST to come from American habits and behavior of living closer to work or making commitments to buy mopeds, bicycles, communting together and moving closer to work so that we do not drive an hour as MOST people do in our large cities. The solution is multi-source solution and not the assinine “ethanol only” that you pretend to shove down peoples throats with articles like this that demostrate bias at the expense of intellect.

   Another thing, what you completely refused to acknowledge. Crop based fuels can be grown in EVERY state. There is no need to transport it long distance. And the lie of claiming that it takes too much oil is one that will just not go away. THERE IS NO OIL CONSUMED TO TRANSPORT THE ETHANOL BECAUSE IT IS PRODUCED **LOCALLY**.

   Now can you spell that for me Common Dreams?

   IN ADDTION, THE ARTICLE INTENTIONALLY LEADS THE READER TO BELIEVE THE FARM EQUIMENT FOR HARVESTING RUNS ON OIL. BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE FARM EQUIPMENT WILL RUN ON ETHANOL. THEY WILL ACTUALLY USE PART - AND A VERY SMALL PART - TO BRING THE REMAINDER TO MARKET.

   Common Dreasm, how did you become so stupid as to even consider printing this article???

   It is old wives tales and has was proven inappropriate reporting a year ago. And you are rehashing it all over again.

   Why? To the readers here, there is a reason for it. And it largely has to do with the war of politics between the various alternative fuel sectors. But the truth is, ethnol is A VERY VIABLE SOLUTION in the PART that it is expected to play.

   Ken Boettger
   ken@ispcowboy.com

3. vollmeck March 5th, 2007 4:14 pm

   i’m sorry. this has little to do with the article. but Ken Boettger, whoever you are…you might want to check your blood pressure. that is ridiculous to get so upset.
   sorry. but you totally turned me off to any discussion.

4. abuelito March 5th, 2007 4:50 pm

   When I first heard about feeding corn to cars I thought the Americans have surely gone totally bonkers now- feeding cars, not people. There are still about 20,000 people dying of hunger every day, most of them children under 5 years old. While it is true that there is enough food to take care of everyone in the world, and the problem is mosttly the lack of will on the part of rich countries to address the world hunger, it will certainly not be helpful to stuff children’s food into our gas tanks.

   paul siemering

5. jensonee March 5th, 2007 8:05 pm

   so if its old news and yet ethenol goes on as if noone has listened, the old news needs to be heard again, and again…. until the truth works itself out. now that would be something.

6. expatincebu March 5th, 2007 9:07 pm

   Ethanol is NOT a solution. To produce enough fuel to replace oil would require farming all arable land in the world for energy. This initiative for ethanol is nothing but another big government welfare giveaway to the super wealthy agri-business.

   Fusion power, in the form of solar, wind, and tidal power, combined with reduction of demand is the only viable solution. The days of cheap energy and the throw away consumer society it created are numbered. Social change is the solution and it will happen, either peaceably through foresight, planning and leadership, or harshly and violently.

7. jacksawyer March 5th, 2007 10:32 pm

   Feed the corn to people, not hogs.
   Much more efficient. Then, there’s enough for fuel, too.
   People and planet will both be heathier.
   Fewer animals will suffer.
   Simple, just takes will.

8. MountainMike March 5th, 2007 10:51 pm

   Anyone fixated on ethanol as bad because of the corn connection needs to be slam dunked in 2007 as an industry disinformation specialist. Scientists are developing ethanol out of cellulose, including crop wastes, poplar trees, switchgrass and the giganic relative of sugar cane, “monster cane.”

   The ethanol movement has been usurped by huge, multi billionaire, AgriCorps growing corn. If the Republican prostitutes in power were not so pro corp, we might have a change to develop ethanol from cellulose.

   Our current predicament with ethanol has been directly caused by the Agricorps and their legions of lobbyists in Washington DC.

9. Stiv Whitman March 5th, 2007 11:01 pm

   Ethanol is not the future, it is a fraud.

   The problem of energy–and entropy–deserves more study than given it here. The problem is that ‘alternatives’ like ethanol and hydrogen are are actually NET ENERGY LOSERS.

   For example, ethanol is explained here decently:
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

   -Stiv

10. ezeflyer March 5th, 2007 11:22 pm

    Now he’s a scientist. But by the looks of his pic, they’ve better call his AA buddy.

11. reh March 6th, 2007 12:13 am

    I believe ethanol and other biofuels can be useful in certain niche markets where land is low cost, growing seasons are long, sunlight and water are plentiful, and a limited number of vehicles use that type of fuel. I don’t think biofuels can be a solution for most world energy needs.

    One of the biggest drawbacks of biofuels is the low energy efficiency of crops. Plants typically convert no more than 1 to 3 percent of solar energy to stored chemical energy. By contrast, solar cells in production are usually 10% to 20% efficient, with some high cost research versions reaching 30 to 40%.

    After harvesting and processing losses the biofuel efficiency drops even further.

    If anyone has heard of plants that can convert over 3% of sunlight to chemical energy I welcome their feedback.

    …Rupert Hazle

12. Alan8 March 6th, 2007 12:46 am

    People seem to be uncritically accepting the notion that there won’t be any more oil. This is far from certain. Plants make oil every day from carbon dioxide in the air, water, sunlight, and nutrients in the soil.

    Some day (possibly within decades) we will have the technology for factories to duplicate this process far more efficiently. When this happens, oil may become as plentiful as it was from wells, and production of it won’t be limited to specific geographic regions.

    Oil is composed entirely of carbon and hydrogen. There’s no shortage of carbon in the atmosphere (in fact it’s increasing) and no shortage of hydrogen from water. As a byproduct of taking carbon from carbon dioxide and hydrogen from water, pure oxygen is produced, as in photosynthesis. (This process also reduces the carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.)

    I remember back in the sixties, much of photosynthesis was a mystery to science. Then by the eighties, the details of the process had been completely worked out. I have no doubt that science will eventually work out how to make oil cheaply, on a scale that will make it plentiful again. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear it will happen soon enough to avoid a global cataclysm of biblical proportions.

    We might stand a chance if the astronomical military budget was suddenly channeled into research on the plant biochemistry of oil production. With a Texas oilman in the White House, heavily funded by “defense” corporations, however, this won’t happen. Voting Democratic won’t do it either. Voting for the Green Party (www.gp.org) whenever possible will make solutions like this happen sooner. Who knows, enough Green victories may make it happen soon enough to avoid a total disaster!

13. mhhensel March 6th, 2007 1:21 am

    There is no lie involved in producing and using bio fuels. Bio fuels are practical transitional fuels that can be used immediately until better and more permanent energy solutions can be reached. Working toward energy independence is critical for the security of the United States. We must break our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol producers are not representing ethanol as a solution to all of our energy needs. Ethanol contributes to only a part of the solution. The need to develop other solutions for our energy needs and for the protection of our environment is understood.

14. bill March 6th, 2007 4:52 am

    Free Public Transportation. Biggest bang for the buck. Low tech. Immediately addresses hundreds of problems. Think about it. No. Really think about it. Take a few minutes.

15. ballerina March 6th, 2007 6:09 am

    Yesterday I read a scientific report on the development of high-altitude windmills which are about to be tested in the US by scientists at Stanford in collaboration with scientists from Australia. Very exciting if it can supply energy at 2cents a KW as the scientists are saying. We could all have electric cars and absolutely no pollution.

16. Karol Klein March 6th, 2007 7:17 am

    When the good ole boys cooked up some ethenol the revenuers busted up the barrels and the boilers too and started drinkin’ their Mountain Dew. Really however energy input for energy output well lets just say that this must be studied further, and Ken Boettger, easy boy!

17. atom March 6th, 2007 8:21 am

    Until more research is completed with alternatives beyond Ethanol, please explain why Hemp remains off the table. It is draught, cold and heat resistant. It is best processed within 75 miles from growth sites, bringing jobs to the mid-west. While I cannot attest to the scientific evidence of Mr. Herer’s notes below, I welcome a genuine discussion.
    •Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America’s energy needs.
    •Hemp is Earth’s number-one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months.
    •Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Pyrolysis (charcoalizing), or biochemical composting are two methods of turning hemp into fuel.
    •Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
    •Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution. http://www.hempcar.org/hempfacts.shtml

18. lkeeler36 March 6th, 2007 9:38 am

    Why why why does it seem to have to be the case that agribusiness leads to monocultures? Can it really take so much effort to rotate and interplant, even if it is done on the basis of large plots? Can it really be so difficult to include green corridors? While consumption is one root cause of our energy issues, and INEFFICIENCY seems to be an oft-unmentioned factor,I am sure that GREED is a major contributor to the reason why every solution turns out to be another problem.
    I am in Europe, and there was recently an article about a farmer who has been powering his farm, car, and everything else using fuel produced from cow manure (methane, I assume). With some years of experience with this, he calculates that you can drive a car 4000 km on the fuel from one year’s worth of manure from one cow. While I realize one does NOT want to raise livestock for this purpose, since it is so very inefficient to feed and water them,all I can think of is what a great solution this could be for two problems: the issue of pollution due to waste from livestock farms and ranches, and the need for alternative fuel sources. Anyone know how many head of cattle and pigs there are in the U.S.? (Note: I am not a supporter of meat eating, but given that these dual issues exist at the moment, why not do the best with existing circumstances?)

19. noun March 6th, 2007 11:34 am

    When common sense returns to visit most areas, the classic motive power of our youth may again accompany it.

    Do you remember gravity?

20. adam March 6th, 2007 11:40 am

    I think it should also be noted that life on this planet only has a chance of surviving this century if the United States takes the lead in radically transforming our energy and consumption infrastructure. I have nothing to add to the knowledgable comments posted above, except to say that the precedent that the US sets by turning to biofuels is extremely dangerous on a world scale. Already, Bush is cooperating with Brazil regarding biofuels, yet the Brazilian biofuel model, though enabling that huge country energy independence, comes at the cost of the Amazon rain forests. Even if the industrialized world manages to cut its carbon emissions by 80% of current levels by 2050 — as is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change, meaning death to most humans and global ecosystems — even if this seemingly miraculous shift in energy use occurs, all of these gains will be lost if the Amazon is destroyed. Furthermore, even the partial deforestation of the Amazon (much of it cleared for biofuel crops, soya most importantly) will likely trigger further forest loss due to the drying of the local climate leading to fires — a vicious circle kicks in. Rather than taking a lead from Brazil’s model and thereby accepting the loss of the Amazon forests, the US must lead the world down another path.

    By the way, the Amazon forests feed the atmosphere with much of the water that eventually falls on the US farm belt. In other words, if we lose the Amazon, we lose not only the bulk of our ethanol capacity (as currently formulated), but we lose our bread-basket as well.

    see:
    http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1816

21. The Odinist March 6th, 2007 11:54 am

    Kudos to atom-
    You actually used the “H” word-Hemp. Never in the history of man has there been such effective campaign to demonize a food crop as in the last 70 years over industrial hemp. Bio fuel begins and ends with Industrial Hemp- end of story. Until there is a rational discussion on one of the most diverse and productive plants on the planet everything else is verbal masterbation (and subsidy to ADM-Archer Daniels Midland). But anyone that would make the petroleum, wood pulp, and pharmaceutical industries lose a nickel is a pariah. DuPont and William R. Hearst are the happy couple that got hemp outlawed 70 years ago out of pure greed, and now is the time to educate the public out of the “Reefer Madness brainwashing”. This Common Dreams site seems an appropriate place to start a conversation or two. How about a series of articles on the realities and history of hemp prohibition? Come on people, let’s get real!

22. johnny hempseed March 6th, 2007 1:15 pm

    atom,yeah thanks for mentioning hemp.The Hempcar you linked to uses Hempseed oil biodiesel.Most diesel engines in temporate climates can run on pure vegetable oil with little or no modifications,and run better and cleaner.
    Hemp requires little fertilizer when rotated with legumes,and makes 3 crops in one.Fiber ,food and oilseed.The waste bast and leaf can be made into celulosic ethanol or methanol,or returned to the soil.
    See votehemp.org. Also ask your congresspeople to support H.R.1009 Rep.Ron Paul ( R. Tex.). This bill would give states “the right to regulate the versatile Hemp crop”there are at least nine democratic co sponsors including D.Kuccinich(Ohio)B.Frank (Mass) .I believe that Barack Obama is also pro industrial Hemp decrim.

23. rob.price March 6th, 2007 2:16 pm

    Hi, MountainMike.

    MtMike, said:
    “AgriCorps growing corn. If the Republican prostitutes in power were not so pro corp, we might have a change to develop ethanol from cellulose….”

    But, Mike! Some of the biggest supporters are Middle America Democrats, like, Barack Obama.

24. oldtimer March 6th, 2007 11:03 pm

    Ethanol takes 131,000 BTUs plus three gallons of water per gallon to produce. The finished product has only 77,000 BTUs for a LOSS of 54,000 BTUs per gallon.
    My question is why does the ethanol industry burn coal, a polluting fossil fuel and or natural gas to fire their stills??
    If ethanol is soooo gooood why don’t they burn ethanol to fire their stills?????
    Because there is NO SUCH THING AS PERPETUAL MOTION. Ethanol is a LOSER from the start. Think about it, it consumes MUCH MORE ENERGY, 131,000 BTUs to make then there is in it, only 77,000 BTUs!!!!! A simple law of physics…….Not to mention the subsidies and tax breaks.

25. kayweston7641 March 8th, 2007 12:17 pm

    This article raises some good points. However, there is another important tragedy to the story. Olease read http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEN20070307&articleId=5012 or go to http://www.globalresearch.ca and read BRAZIL’S ETHANOL PLAN BREEDS RURAL POVERTY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION by Isabella Kenfield (March 6, 2007).
    Ethenol does not really threaten the oil industry, makes a few really rich, satisfies the US consumer’s wallet(shuts them up),and all the while continues to spread environmental degradation, poverty and man’s inhumanity to man. Same old, same old.

26. veneda March 8th, 2007 12:38 pm

    We really do need to convert to biofuels to replace fossil fuels. Biofuels are by definition renewable. They are simply one of the ways to capture the energy that comes from the sun. Other methods like wind and solar panels are great for electricity production but we are still technologically limited with storage of electrical energy. The beauty of biofuels (especially oil-bearing seeds) is that you can collect the energy (harvest), store it (liquid ethanol or biodiesel or solid biomass) and use it any time you want. The carbon you spew out to the atmosphere gets captured by next season’s crop.

    The goal should be a carbon-neutral energy cycle based on sustainable methods of production and a socially just distribution system.

    Ethanol made of corn is NOT the answer. It takes more energy to make it than you get back.

    We need to choose the crops appropriately - depending on climate, local water supply etc. For example, sugar beets (cold climate) and sugar cane (warm climate) grown for ethanol can give over five times energy than you put in. Similarly biodiesel can give three times more energy than you put it, but again, from the right crops, like canola, palm etc., even algae. Soybeans are one of the least efficient for oil extraction.

    Other biomass (as mentioned by few others above) can be also very efficient. But again, with sustainability in mind we should not cut down rainforrests to grow these special crops. We will simply choose more efficient plants on areable land and convert front lawns, corporate landscapes and highway dividers to growing suflowers…(OK, that’s my dream)

    What we need to do is to dwarf the Big Corn and Big Soy and Big Oil (petroleum) lobbies with a lobby for sustainable production methods. With Sustainability as the core value, the farmers and producers will choose the right stuff. Also, call up your city councilmembers and ask that your city or municipality start using biodiesel in city buses and garbage trucks. This can be done with no engine modification effective immediately.

27. senorpescado March 12th, 2007 3:51 pm

    HEMP is the ONLY recourse that makes good common sense
    [but then it seems, common sense is NOT common]
    we hope to have it/use it/promote it for use for fuel for my artesanal fishermen in Latin America in boats, [also less residues and pollution in the water for petrol based fuels, duh?

    http://www.fairtradefish.org has links to information on HEMP
    it is really amazing how stupid and uninformed the basic USA public is on hemp use and the REAL reasons it is illegal,
    oil, chemical ,plastic,pharamacy companies,etc etc etc do not want it legal
    for obviously greedy and arrogant reasons
    and the drug dealing doctors these days,[do not get me started] certainly need to prescribe it for many ills, the main one being stress release, which is???? guess what, the major cause of illness

    VIVA EL FRENTE VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
    IMPEACH and hang in public that fool texan and ALL his cronies NOW!

    SenorPescado

    and as Bubba say’s “eat mo’ fish”
    NOT corn fed animal products full of chemicals etc

28. bnsixekivize December 14th, 2007 2:42 pm

    tittenuxupopy…

    exvovekyrine…

29. bncupahunoku December 14th, 2007 2:59 pm

    titsizykihyre…

    exxizivehipi…

30. bnvicunopaxe December 25th, 2007 11:08 pm

    titwivotoxawi…

    exrusyxininy…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)