Comments on More Morning News

links?

These kinds of reports never consider algae. And there's no link, so we can't know who wrote the report or who funded it. Exxon?

This is really news to anyone?

Until the day comes that you can drop corn cobs directly into your car's tank, it should be readily apparent that some pretty nasty shit has to be done to turn it into hydrocarbons.

Yep, Nappy, this is pretty much old news to anyone who's been paying attention. As for sugar cane, they're absolutely correct, but the sugar lobby will never let it happen.

Competing energy against food has never made sense.

Solar is the only source of energy that can replace hydrocarbons. The more directly we can capture it the better.

pox @2:

These kinds of reports never consider algae. And there's no link, so we can't know who wrote the report or who funded it. Exxon?

So pox, are we supposed to keep using all the bad biofuels that currently exist in the name of the one good biofuel that doesn't yet exist?

It continues to befuddle me that so many articles are quoted on slog without linking. It's apparent that Erica isn't trying to pass off the work as her own, but this is still plagiarism. When you quote something, give the source. Pretty basic.

What about switchgrass? No?

I've been confused lately why more attention wasn't put toward food waste sources. I thought that's what biodiesel was supposed to be, for the most part, but I guess it's not?

Aside from the land that has to be cleared to produce the raw material, I believe that it also takes more energy to refine the product than the end product actually produces.

No, I don't have a cite. Yes, I probably read it on the innernet somewhere.

@9 - I'm pretty sure that's the case with corn-based ethanol, but not all biofuels.

No conspiracy here—obviously, since I QUOTED THE NYTIMES STORY IN MY POST.

Oh, and fixed the link. J

My biggest beef with Obama: deep Illinois roots. He will never battle Big Corn over these very issues.

hey ECB can you give us to 50 word recap on HRC v. BHO on biofuels and how much each one pandered in Iowa?

Algae and switchgrass are better - just ask the UW experts.

But wind power is the easiest choice.

(caveat - I own something like 200 shares of Valero Energy, corn based ethanol)

Dear switchgrass supporters... From the same New York Times story on these same studies:

Cellulosic ethanol made in the U.S. from switchgrass, a fuel that has been singled out by President Bush as a way to reduce the country's dependence on oil, produces 50 percent more emissions than gasoline does, the study said.

I think it’s cute when liberals realize the unintended consequences of their poorly formed policies. This is basically the story of the whole green movement.

@15 - augggh!

You mean liberals like George W. Bush, right? He's the switchgrass-promoting bozo.

I think this study is good news. It shows people are thinking it through and not settling for the easy fake solution. YGTBKM is wrong, as always.

I am eagerly awaiting ECB's apology to those of us who have been saying this for years. Yes, there are those of us who know something about the subject that have been called all kinds of things by "environmentalists" like ECB.

I'm waiting honeybuns...

Is it the same thing to emit carbon that was only last year in the atmosphere as opposed to emitting carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years?

If we had monorails, we wouldn't need fuel at all!

And we'd have more time to cure cancer!

@12 I'm not trying to be a smart ass (right now anyway), but what does Big Corn have to do with Illinois?

Cressona@6:
I have no idea what we should do with what fuel. We should try a lot of things. I believe there will be no magic bullet and no single source of energy to replace petroleum. Until someone figures out artificial photosynthesis, plants are the most efficient solar collectors we have.

Diesel from algae oil does exist. The algae can even be fed with CO2 captured from coal plants, essentially using some percentage of that carbon twice. I'm just suspicious when reports lump all biofuels together and ignore good solutions in order to conclude that they're all bad. Ethanol from petroleum-fed corn and biodiesel from graywater-tank algae have very little to do with each other.

Testify pox!

The other thing to keep in mind is that report extrapolates way into the future at the current state of technology. Notice the disconnect there?

The reported findings of %increases in emissions are about a stupid future, featureing zero technological innovation between now and then, a future that will never happen. The current use of biofuels aren't as bad as they would be in that stupid future, because land-use changes due to biofuels are nowhere near the level projected in that study.

The (not so stupid) future involves a lot more biofuels from other sources, like pox explained above, but to get there we need to put one foot in front of the other, investing a lot in R+D. That investment is dependent to a large degree on a proven existing industry and infrastructure into which the new developments can be plugged. Killing a nascent industry and field of technology because it is not perfect right now wont get us anywhere.

boyd main @24:

Killing a nascent industry and field of technology because it is not perfect right now wont get us anywhere.

Boyd, you're right. Better we kill the planet and its biodiversity than kill a nascent industry.

Cressona, how about you kill the drama? Biofuels are not impacting biodiversity, and they are not killing the planet. Those reports say that if we expand current biofuel technology for 30 years we might do more harm than good, but that's a stupid strawman argument, 'cos no-one with any sense is suggesting that to begin with.

That is the problem with these sky-is-falling reports - that they do not acknowledge the possibilities of other biofuels, and therefore the less informed among us come to think that all biofuels are bad. These latest reports are even worse because they project current technology into the future to paint a dark picture, then the media reports those predictions (that never would eventuate anyway) as present performances (which btw, for all but corn ethanol or some deforestation-sourced palm biodiesel, are *currently* better than gasoline).