I find the tone of this thread to be ever increasingly offensive! I believe the "Industrialized world "provides 90+ % of all aid that goes to feed and help the rest of the world in normal times and in disasters? If they did not have the energy and use it, they would consume more food than they produce.
I believe there is a law of "unintended consequences". It appears our family will be paid more for our corn and hay this year than any other time in the 150 years our family has farmed. Not because of a need for food but due to poorly conceived notion the ETOH is better than crude oil. As food and feed prices ultimately go up when corn is converted to fuel, what of the people who must pay for what was already to expensive to them? If every person and business in the "Industrialized world" cut there energy consumption over night, the world would begin to starve in 120 days or less. Ship loads of food aid would stop immediately. Almost no trucks or trains would deliver food. Fuel delivery would begin to stop. Tire production would be curtailed. The list would go on and on. Those energy gluttons are the most efficient food producers in the world. With out them most of the world would starve. In the late 1970's Carter in the US felt the same was as this thread is running. He contrived an energy shortage and fuel for the farm was rationed. Food costs went up and production went down. There are some that feel rising energy costs will stop or slow the "Glutenous Energy Demand". What it will do is hurt those among us that can least afford it. It would be nice if those of you who feel inclined to inject there social/Political view into Anaerobic Digestion would just keep them to them selves. It may be that "Peak Oil occurred in 2006",But Coal consumption just increased and took its place. There is enough Coal and Natural gas to last 200 years in the US and probably that much oil. Oil production is controlled more by politics and price not by availability. Most of the oil in the US is untapped due to Politics and so called Environmentalism. ----- Original Message ----- From: Reuben Deumling To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion Cc: Franssen, Loe (Alumni) Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Digestion] Biogas conversation rates On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Eaton <[email protected]> wrote: Reuben, are you suggesting that we (in the industrialized world) all suffer from "unsuppressed energy demand"? Untrammeled Energy Demand? Maybe even Glutenous Energy Demand? Very interesting ;) Both. I've met many folks allergic to all sorts of compounds found in wheat, but gluttonous is surely the most apt phrase. We may not *all* suffer from this condition, but it is surely the norm. Over on the 90percentreduction yahoo group we talk about this regularly. We do see people adding energy uses when they have more energy, e.g. biogas. This would through a hitch in the carbon calcs, except for the fact that the methodology allows you to assume that they would have eventually found a way to provide that energy, and it would have come from a fossil fuel. well this is familiar empty-world-economics (TM Herman Daly). Full world economics suggests this is no longer a reasonable assumption. With the International Energy Agency now admitting that Peak Oil occurred in 2006, this is now all (thankfully) in the past. IEA's admission as paraphrased by the folks who predicted this four+ years ago: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html Press Release from 11. November 2010: "International Energy Agency confirms the EWG's Warning" International Energy Agency Confirms the Energy Watch Group's Warning • "Peak Oil" through conventional production was reached in 2006 • IEA's assumptions about future total production unrealistic • Accelerated expansion of renewables will safeguard supply more economically As early as three years ago, the Energy Watch Group (EWG) identified the highpoint of conventional worldwide oil exploitation as having been reached in 2006. With its "World Energy Outlook 2010", the International Energy Agency (IEA) expressly endorsed this conclusion for the very first time, corroborating that the production of crude oil will never again achieve the 2006 level. The Agency, made up of 28 OECD countries, represents the governmental interests of the largest "Western" energyconsuming nations. In a comprehensive 2007 study, the Energy Watch Group's scientists explained why "after attaining this maximum production, there is a very high probability that in the coming twenty years – by 2030 – annual output of crude oil will halve." In each of the past few years, the IEA has revised its annual forecast of worldwide oil production downward, converging toward the Energy Watch Group's analysis. Unlike the Energy Watch Group, however, the IEA continues to espouse expectations that are far too optimistic in regard to the expansion of oil production from conventional and unconventional sources. Thomas Seltmann, the EWG's project manager, explains, "Leading representatives of the IEA regularly declare that 'several new Saudi Arabias' would need to be tapped only in order to maintain current output levels. This would also be a condition for their current scenario, but these oilfields simply don't exist. You can only produce oil that you can find." Moreover, the IEA continues to make unrealistic assumptions about the potential output from so-called "unconventional" wells: natural gas condensates and tar sands – two putative substitutes for crude oil. Production of the latter is very complicated and detrimental to the environment, and the availability of both is much lower. "Bringing them online is absolutely not comparable with the familiar oil production on land and in the sea", Seltmann qualifies. Nonetheless, the IEA still suggests that the oil supply can be raised to meet demand. The unjustified optimism about oil is paralleled by an equally unfounded pessimism vis-à-vis the expansion of renewable energies, and the expansion rate outlined by the IEA is well below the current growth rates for renewables. Seltmann says, "We urgently recommend that governments ambitiously accelerate the expansion of renewable energy in order to counter the foreseeable shortages and price jumps of fossil fuels. More rapid expansion of renewable energy is more economical overall than a slower approach. Even completely meeting our energy needs with renewables is possible within a few decades and more economical in total than the further consumption of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium." Press contact: Thomas Seltmann, project manager [email protected] Download of the study and updated graphic related to the EWG oil study: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html (www.energywatchgroup.org à Themes à Crude Oil) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/ and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
_______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/ and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
