[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', 'I')t doesn't matter if we need 134 or 269 or 412 time more land ... we need more, which we don't have ... so we are screwed

[mrobert]

Given modern technology, we can cut down a large chunk of our energy usage, and actually benefit from it!

Let me give you one example :
Until 1 year ago, I used drive at least weekly to my bank, to take care of things. Now I have internet banking. It costs around 90 cents a month to use it.
It saves me at least 4-6 trips to the bank, and the equivalent in fuel usage, and vehicle parts damage.

It's not a big deal ... but there are many places in which technology can replace trips, resulting in lower fuel usage, less polution, less crowded streets, etc. etc. etc.

Also, the bank can use less space for it's offices, which means less heating, cooling and other costs.

This is just a quick example, and there are many more.

---
Ok. They are not solution. But if we make 5000 changes that save energy, we might just make it out, fine.
As many people said on these forums, (and I agree with them), the solution is not 1 measure, like stop driving, use ethanol, nuclear, etc, but a large scale effort and implementation of thousands of changes, alternatives, etc.

[aahala]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('IslandCrow', ' ')So one can say that "the price for ethanol will equal the gas price"

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', 'I')t doesn't matter if we need 134 or 269 or 412 time more land ... we need more, which we don't have ... so we are screwed

[mrobert]

@matt21811

Your math is correct. But to convert the "mathematical" energy you calculated, to fuel and other "usable" energies, takes a huge amount of energy.

Let me give you an example.
1 gallon of gas produces X energy units.
Over a few hours, a certain surface of land, absorbs X units of energy from the sun.

Now, you can't pick up the sun's energy from the ground and pour it in your tank, but you have to have plants that grow on that energy, then turn the plants into fuel, and then pour it into the fuel tank. THIS process consumes a huge amount of energy, and causes your math to be wrong.

[Tyler_JC]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

How about using all of the available cellulosic biomass waste created by corn production?

Well, we could get about 6%-10% of our gasoline usage from this source.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing "waste".

If we start stripping carbon out of the soil to burn in our cars, the dirt will quite literally die.

Nature doesn't create waste products. The only way we can maintain crop yeilds at the moment is by adding natural gas based fertilizers to the soil.

Expensive natural gas means expensive fertilizers means expensive corn means expensive corn ethanol.

Not to mention the fact that we would quickly lose all return on investment if we had to dramatically increase fertilizer usage to compensate for the nutrients that were being sucked out of the system to use as fuel.

Here's an article that illustrates another point

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')1.Work is underway to add over 2 billion gallons to the annual capacity of the U.S. ethanol sector.

2.To meet the sector’s growing demand for corn, some U.S. corn is likely to be diverted from exports.

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', '
')Let me give you an example.
1 gallon of gas produces X energy units.
Over a few hours, a certain surface of land, absorbs X units of energy from the sun.

Now, you can't pick up the sun's energy from the ground and pour it in your tank, but you have to have plants that grow on that energy, then turn the plants into fuel, and then pour it into the fuel tank. THIS process consumes a huge amount of energy, and causes your math to be wrong.

[mrobert]

An interesting ideea I though off, would be to use sea vegetation as source for ethanol. There is *plenty* ... but then again it's only a thought ... I haven't really investigated this.

Also, consider that 70% of the energy generated by a car engine, is wasted as heat. If we could cut that ... we would be onto some serious savings of fuel.



/offtopic
This reminds of an international contest at which I participated in Hungary, when I was 12 years old. I had to talk to a whole board of teachers about future energy sources, reducing polution, etc.
It seemed like a theory at that time .... for something far far in the future ... and yet here I am again, picking up the same subject.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', ' ')Nowhere in the quoted article does it say that 400 times the arable land we have now is required to grow enough biofuels to saisfy global demand. How did you come up with that answer?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', ' ')It saves me at least 4-6 trips to the bank, and the equivalent in fuel usage, and vehicle parts damage.

It's not a big deal ... but there are many places in which technology can replace trips, resulting in lower fuel usage, less polution, less crowded streets, etc. etc. etc.

Also, the bank can use less space for it's offices, which means less heating, cooling and other costs.

This is just a quick example, and there are many more.

---
Ok. They are not solution. But if we make 5000 changes that save energy, we might just make it out, fine.

[mrobert]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Who absorbs the loss in economic activity, and jobs?

Somebody has to lose.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', ' ')Monte, you have "double dipped" on the 51 cent/gal. blending credit.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', 'N')obody looses anything.

[mrobert]

Let's rethink this.
As you said, several businesses "loose". Somewhere in the economic chain, that backfires at me, causimg to also loose.

But whatever I "loose" in terms of economic income, is covered by the fact that I consumed less so I need to pay less ... doable on a smaller income.

Overall is regression, BUT : I quit doing something that doesn't really affect or change my life (i.e : driving to the bank).

A big step that could be taken towards a better world, is to quit doing some thing that we do just because we can, and not because we need it in anyway.
We would all "loose" ... but loose something we can live without.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', 'N')obody looses anything.

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mrobert', 'N')obody looses anything.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'Y')ou can conserve energy, make it last longer, while consuming less, and use those savings to invest in a near infrastructure as well. Investing in a new infrastructure creates jobs and economic activity while also consuming energy. But better to consume it while you have it to create a new infrastructure than use to preserve those jobs and economic activity that are doomed by the geological reality of peak oil or not?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '
')I have seen this arguement from you before and it is still flawed.

100 years ago, 1 in 3 people were employed in agriculture. Today only 1 in 6 people work in agriculture. According to your thinking, 16.5% of the population today should be unemployed farm workers. With unemployment at about only 5% (in both our countires) something else must be going on.

Until you can explain this, mrobet isnt the one that needs to try again.

[mrobert]

I rather we all loose 25% of what he have now, but have the remaining 75% for hundreds of years to come, then having it in full now, and spending the remaining half of my life, scavenging for food, etc.

If we don't choose ... nature will.

[Kingcoal]

The technology to make ethanol, a.k.a. corn whiskey goes back quite a ways. Why didn't our ancestors burn it for fuel? Because the ethanol was more valuable for drinking. Why go to all the trouble of making ethanol to put into your car so you can drive to work? Why not just stay home and drink?

I'm actually only partly trying to be funny.

All economies are directly comparable to heat engines. The engine begins with the acquisition of the fuel and ends with the gain (or loss) at the driveshaft. An oil powered heat engine starts (for our purposes) with hot oil and gas forcing its way into our hands at the well. The oil is a product of sunlight and geothermal energy expended over millions of years. The energy left in the oil is only a small fraction of the energy that went into making it, but to us, it's all free because the earth has produced it for us without human intervention.

An ethanol heat engine begins at a much earlier stage. Here we have to first make the fuel that the engine will run on. The only free input is sunlight, which is far less energy than went into making oil. We must add the missing energy. Sure, we can make fuel more efficiently than nature because we are aware of the physical process and can maximize it, but you can't get around the fact that we are still left with having to add A LOT more energy than goes into the oil that shoots out of the ground under its own pressure. We must plant the crop, harvest it, process it, ferment it, process it more and finally get our 100 proof whiskey. The reason why our ancestors didn't burn the product of their still was a very simple economic reason; it was not the best use for the product. Fuels have to be cheap. Ethanol ain't cheap.

To make a short story long, watch the price of biofuels rise with oil prices. Just like tar sands and shale oil, the break even price doesn't seem to stand still, but rises in tandem with oil. The only real subsidies are the ones that nature provides for us. Ethanol is subsidized by cheap oil.