Re: Book: "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy&quo
Posted: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 14:08:46
Backstop,
Thanks for this response. It was one of the most sensible I've ever seen from a moderator on this board.
The most critical issue with biomass "solutions" is the available land issue. (Unless we can figure out how to scale up photobioreactors dramatically and and solve the problems with algal production.)
Some biomass "solutions" are agriculturally intensive, and highly competitive with food production, which also severely limits their viability as a serious offset for petroleum.
I do like the forest solution as non-arable lands can be reforested, and cyclically harvested for methanol (and possibly, cellulosic ethanol) production.
I want it to be clear, however, that those of us who defend technological solutions to the problem are often criticized unfairly for "wanting to preserve our wasteful car culture". Just because we don't have fantasies about some sort of manure-powered utopia, doesn't mean we like the status-quo in our society.
ANY solution to our energy problems will involve getting used to the idea that we have either finite resources, or a finite ability to convert (nearly) infinite resources into useable energy.
Additionally, we have to get used to the idea that efficiency can only reduce our per capita usage so far. Reduce it past a certain point, and our productivity is harmed, bringing our economies into stagnation. Reduce it further, and civilization collapses.
Can Americans cut their energy consumption in half? Possibly. Can Europeans do so? Probably not. As the economies of India and China expand, can they scale up in an efficient way? Will they? If they don't, and assuming Americans cut back, can the world handle the two most populous nations on Earth engaging in resource wars?
Personally, I've decided that the most important thing to do is to work on my own personal consumption. The less dependent I am on the world energy economy, the less I will suffer when the sh*t hits the fan.
Thanks for this response. It was one of the most sensible I've ever seen from a moderator on this board.
The most critical issue with biomass "solutions" is the available land issue. (Unless we can figure out how to scale up photobioreactors dramatically and and solve the problems with algal production.)
Some biomass "solutions" are agriculturally intensive, and highly competitive with food production, which also severely limits their viability as a serious offset for petroleum.
I do like the forest solution as non-arable lands can be reforested, and cyclically harvested for methanol (and possibly, cellulosic ethanol) production.
I want it to be clear, however, that those of us who defend technological solutions to the problem are often criticized unfairly for "wanting to preserve our wasteful car culture". Just because we don't have fantasies about some sort of manure-powered utopia, doesn't mean we like the status-quo in our society.
ANY solution to our energy problems will involve getting used to the idea that we have either finite resources, or a finite ability to convert (nearly) infinite resources into useable energy.
Additionally, we have to get used to the idea that efficiency can only reduce our per capita usage so far. Reduce it past a certain point, and our productivity is harmed, bringing our economies into stagnation. Reduce it further, and civilization collapses.
Can Americans cut their energy consumption in half? Possibly. Can Europeans do so? Probably not. As the economies of India and China expand, can they scale up in an efficient way? Will they? If they don't, and assuming Americans cut back, can the world handle the two most populous nations on Earth engaging in resource wars?
Personally, I've decided that the most important thing to do is to work on my own personal consumption. The less dependent I am on the world energy economy, the less I will suffer when the sh*t hits the fan.