Re: Why I see biofuels more as an alternative to oil

Hi I'm Adam, just started building a biodiesel processor..

But of course to politics...  The words "the US is not terribly dependent on
Middle Eastern oil" comes as quite a surprise.  I recently watched the
extraodinary Frontline documentary on the House of Saud.  It doesn't seem
too debatable that the oil crisis of the 70's precipitated by the war
in 73 was unambiguous about the fact, and that was back in the easly
seventies, when the US's own oil peak was not yet appreciated.  But even
considering the gas lines and the economic recession that followed--in terms
of dependency, things are far worse now, than they were then.  Many of the
regions we have historically relied on for oil have already peaked (meaning
production can not maintain the increasing arc necessary for sustained
development), and the strongest oil reserves (in and around the Persian
Gulf) have been tapped for 50 years now.  Their capacity is not readily
increasing with demand, and this post seems to disregard the fact that, in
spite of our diversified portfolio, we do get 1.5 million barrels of oil
directly from Saudi Arabia every day.

As far as I can tell there should be less disagreement on the subject of
peak oil and the status of natrual resources, than about global warming
(though they are both objective phenomena).  Clearly, we can't know exactly
how much oil is in the ground or what will be found in the future, or what
future technologies will become available for extraction (on or offshore).
However, we do know that new discoveries have declined at a rapid pace, and
we have an understanding of the Hubbert peak from our own domestic oil
experience.  We do know that world population is set to increase to 9
billion from the current 6.  We know from our own industrial era that
"development" means "fossil fuels", so expect China and India to contribute
to the projected increase of 80 to 120 mb/day by 2050.

This is not "running out of oil"--we're in no danger of that in the course
of our lifetimes.  It's a question of demand chronically outstripping
supply.  Experts see a worldwide production peak within the next few years:
more conservative estimates run from 2015 to 2030.  Only starry-eyed oil
executives say otherwise.  In the grand scheme, that peaking range matters
very little.  What is called for is nothing less than a structural
transformation along the lines of an industrial revolution.  Things can
happen at our level, at the grassroots, but no cure is available without a
political will.  Whether the will comes voluntarily or if it is forced on us
by dwindling resources, this is not a philosophic question about the
government's role in society, as some may make it out to be.  Those with a
faith in pure free market principles solving our problems, will simply be
forced into renewable energy at a later date.

Adam

On 6/15/07, kevin orme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would disagree with a few of these points, noting that I haven't read
> the article:
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, from what an oil executive insider I know has told me, the
> world
> > is very very long way from any "peak oil" crisis. We don't need middle
> east
> > oil -- we have Nigeria, the North Sea, Russia, etc. It is that China is
> > terrifying to the US, and the middle east is seen as a way to keep China
> in
> > check. So our use of bioD isn't going to slow the war effort down. (Very
> > sorry to say.)
>
> KEVIN - this may very well be true in practice, here and now, BUT, every
> little bit helps, and the more that use it, create more demand, and
> someday, peak demand?  It really matters very little (to me and likely
> to most) what your motivation is for doing so - there are key facets of
> american society most of us can agree on, and the need to get around is
> certainly one of them.  the degree to which you NEED to get around, yes,
> that's certainly open to debate depending on how far out you live, what
> you do for a living, etc. etc. but the core principle is the same, and
> biod definitely helps, not hinders, this need.
>
>
>
> > Regarding the environmental aspect of the article I think that the
> author is
> > trivializing the amount of risk involved. We just don't know what will
> > happen as  weather is "chaotic". There is a slight chance that global
> > warming will do nothing but help everyone's tomato plants. There is a
> > greater chance that global warming will radically alter the face of the
> > planet -- and we just don't know how it will play out. I would equate
> the
> > current situation to playing Russian roulette with five bullets, not
> just
> > one. Why would you invite massive change into your life (or the economy)
> if
> > everything was going as well as the author indicates it is going?
>
> KEVIN - not having read the article, i'd merely state the old adage -
> 'an ounce of prevention is (usually) worth a pound of cure"  and this
> CERTAINLY applies to transportation generally and fuel specifically.  In
> past energy crises, the biggest positive effects have been seen from
> simple conservation and lowering usage - and it's the easiest thing to
> do in most cases, even if you still kept using gas.
>
> >
> > It seems odd that a "conservative" person (such as the article's author)
> > would be welcoming change, especially if he didn't know what he was
> trading
> > for.
>
> KEVIN - i'm not a conservative person, but i'll say this - there are
> conservatives (and progressives, libertarians, etc.) of all stripes,
> dogmatic as well as moderate.  The key is to agree when you can, agree
> to disagree otherwise, and avoid punching each other in the nose in the
> meantime :)  Remember that even in our own history, Republicans have
> been agents for change many times - think after the civil war when
> Lincoln ran through progressive business reform through an R congress -
> think Teddy Roosevelt with progressive welfare, etc. long before his
> cousin FDR institutionalized it further (including FDR's protoge, LBJ).
> It's just as much about the individual as it is about the party,
> really.....
>
>
> > Environmentalists really just want to keep things the way they are now.
>
> KEVIN - I take ***serious*** issue with this statement.  If
> environmentalists were all about the status quo, then they'd be buying
> Exxon stock and Humvees - but they aren't.  At my house, we have 3 cars,
> two are TDI VWs and one older vanagon that someday soon will be a
> diesel.  Only one of these cars is driven every day - my wife is a wine
> rep, and runs B99 in her Golf.  I ride the bus to work and only drive
> the van on camping trips and/or hauling stuff about maybe once every
> other month, max.  I also realize i live in town, so have the luxury of
> doing those things whereas a rural person might not (or might simply
> have to drive their truck - hopefully biod truck - every day to/from or
> simply for, work.  I will agree that if there were no SUV, Humvee, etc.
> drivers out there, everyone had a bike, electric car or biod car, that
> there'd be less to rail against, but i'd also trade constant conflict
> for that situation (assuming it would ever happen - i'm also a realist)
> any day! :)
>
>
> > Case in point, everyone here is driving a car, and proud of it.
> > Environmentalists are just as "addicted" to modern conveniences as
> > Republicans, they just tolerate less risk.
>
> KEVIN - define 'proud' - my wife would drive less if she could, but her
> job simply doesn't allow for it.  I have luckily switched to being able
> to ride the bus every day but i work in the tech industry too - more
> flexible than many to also let people telecommute more than most
> industries.  I personally hate having to get in the car every time I
> would want to do something, so I live in the city.  Others may/will have
> a different view, and that's their gig, but I sure wouldn't want to
> spend 1 hour each day commuting to work ipod/NPR or no.....
>
>
> > So, we (environmentalists) try to
> > fudge things a little bit. Keep driving, but get a more CO2 efficient
> car.
> > It seems like an easy compromise to maintain our current standard of
> living.
>
> KEVIN - if you look at it only in that simple sense.  But there are LOTS
> of things (besides driving a biod car/truck) that can make a huge impact
> over time besides just having the less-polluting car.  Driving even that
> car less to begin with - oregon has the advantage of the bottle bill,
> for example - when I moved to WA and watched idiots throwing newspaper
> and glass bottles away in the trash, I was appalled, to say the least.
> Sadly, much of that (for a while anyway, before Seattle became rather
> draconian about recycling) was sent BACK to Oregon for the Arlington
> landfill!  Thankfully that is over.  My point is, if you WANT to effect
> change, you have to change yourself, right?  (and of course rail against
> the system in the meantime :)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Really though, we do not KNOW the full impact that global climate change
> > will have on us -- no one does. We just know that we are pretty
> comfortable
> > now and we'd prefer if things didn't change too much.
> >
> > Seth
>
> KEVIN - back to my earlier point - ounce of prevention rule......
>
> _______________________________________________
> pdx-biodiesel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/pdx-biodiesel
>