 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » Barack Obama's energy policy to nowhere (like the... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Christopher Calder... |
 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Barack Obama's energy policy to nowhere (like the bridge)
A majority of our politicians now realize that turning our food into
fuel was a tragic mistake, causing high food prices, starvation around
the world and environmental damage. Instead of jumping off the biofuel
bandwagon as they should, they are now trying to save face by claiming
that the next generation of biofuels made from cellulose-yielding
plants will be magic. They claim we can infect millions of acres of
farmland with invasive biofuel weeds and not raise the price of food.
The same politicians who refuse to drill for oil on just 2,000 acres
of the 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge want to
destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat and native vegetation to
grow weeds so low in energy content they are not worth transporting to
a processing factory.
“Cellulosic ethanol is touted as the replacement for corn ethanol.
Unfortunately, cellulosis biomass contains less than one-third the
amount of starches and sugars in corn and requires major fossil energy
inputs to release the tightly bound starches and sugars for ethanol
conversion. About 170 percent more energy (oil and gas) is required to
produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced,”
says David Pimental, professor of ecology and agricultural science at
Cornell University.
Oregon State University agricultural economists, William Jaeger et
al., found that to achieve a given improvement in energy independence
using ethanol from corn, biodiesel from canola oil, and ethanol from
wood-based cellulose could be 6 to 28 times more costly than other
policy options, such as raising fuel economy standards. Using all
three biofuels at maximum estimated scales of production in Oregon
would lead to a net energy gain of just two-thirds of one percent of
Oregon’s annual energy use. None of the biofuels were found to be
marketable without large taxpayer subsidies, and the much hyped
cellulosic ethanol was found to be the most expensive of all the
biofuels to produce. Jaeger says his latest, yet to be published
findings are even more pessimistic about the usefulness of biofuels.
See "Biofuel Potential in Oregon"study PDF -
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/sr/sr1078.pdf
When you try to grow food and fuel at the same time you greatly
increase the rate of topsoil erosion, because disturbing the land by
tilling and harvesting makes soils vulnerable to wind and rain.
Without topsoil the human race would quickly starve to death, and the
USA is in serious jeopardy of losing adequate food growing capacity
within 100 years or less due to erosion. Biofuel production is
helping clog the Mississippi and other rivers with topsoil from our
prime growing areas, bringing us closer to the day when the American
civilization runs out of its fundamental food producing asset. In
1850 Iowa prairie soils had about 12-16 inches of topsoil, but now
have only about 6-8 inches. It is estimated that we are continuing to
lose Iowa topsoil at a rate of approximately 30 tons of topsoil per
hectare (10,000 square meters) per year. Approximately 30% of the
world's arable land has become unproductive in the past 40 years due
to erosion. Ask biofuel advocates if helping to destroy the ability
of future generations to grow food is a worthy environmental goal.
For information on biofuels and better energy alternatives, see -
http://-home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:59 pm
|
|