Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph

[paincare]

Don't use land, use the sea.


Seaweed biofuels: A green alternative that might just save the planet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/01/seaweed-biofuel-alternative-energy-kelp-scotland



Kelp Farming:

More of plants energy goes into growth and carbohydrate production (doesn’t 
need to fight gravity).
One species grows up to a foot/day.
No fertilizer is necessary.
Cleans up sewage areas.
Cools the water to prevent hurricanes.
Cools the water to restore krill/ plankton and other marine life.
Absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Re-oxygenates dead zones.
After kelp distillation the liquid stillage left over is excellent organic 
fertilizer. This would
   replace the toxic fertilizers now used and eliminate fertilizer plant 
explosions. 
Using American coastal areas for kelp farming would replace all transportation 
fuel for 
   the US as well as a large chunk of natural gas and electricity. Needs to 
be  
   implemented world-wide to slow effects of climate change.
No farmland is required.
Existing oil platforms could be converted to plants that process seaweed for 
alcohol and  
   piped to shore.
Jobs for fishermen and others.
Neatly solves many problems in one stroke.

Kelp is currently being farmed for food successfully in Maine, USA by Sarah 
Redmond, Seth Barker, Tollef Olson and Paul Dobbins and in Connecticut, USA by 
Dr. Charles Yarish. Kelp farming for fuel would slow the effects of climate 
change and get us off fossil fuels. This new industry needs to be funded and 
expanded worldwide. A free kelp farming manual may be downloaded here:

http://www.oceanapproved.com/blog/

“To download a copy of our kelp farming manual, please click on the link below.”

   Ocean Approved
OceanApproved_Kelp Manual


Information on ethanol production and use can be found at:

David Blume   http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com

All ‘problems’ with engines/vehicles have been worked out. Contact David for 
solutions.


> - Original Message -
> From: zeke Yewdall
> Sent: 12/18/13 12:40 PM
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph
> 
> A.  Good to know
> Z
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Keith Addison  wrote:
> 
> > Hi all
> > 
> > Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global warming 
> > denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. Recent big 
> > winds may have deepened his apparent shade of green. Professional 
> > contrarian, author of the infamous The Sceptical Environmentalist. He's a 
> > statistician, without environmental qualifications. At a promotional 
> > reading of his book in London in 2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face 
> > by none other than Mark Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a 
> > supporter of nuclear power. Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we 
> > deserve either of them.
> > 
> > More here:
> > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.org&q=Lomborg>
> > 
> > All best
> > 
> > Keith
> > 
> > 
> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every
> >>> day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of
> >>> emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. 
> >>> Yet,
> >>> with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there
> >>> are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open.
> >>> 
> >>> But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way
> >>> to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels
> >>> we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This
> >>> is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more 
> >>> people
> >>> more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels
> >> are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden
> >> attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up
> >> their fairly wild claims.  And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more
> >> production agriculture".   Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or
> >> more intensi

Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph

[zeke Yewdall]

A.  Good to know
Z

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Keith Addison  wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global warming 
> denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. Recent big winds 
> may have deepened his apparent shade of green. Professional contrarian, 
> author of the infamous The Sceptical Environmentalist. He's a statistician, 
> without environmental qualifications. At a promotional reading of his book in 
> London in 2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face by none other than Mark 
> Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a supporter of nuclear power. 
> Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we deserve either of them.
> 
> More here:
> 
> 
> All best
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote:
>> 
>>> The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every
>>> day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of
>>> emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet,
>>> with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there
>>> are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open.
>>> 
>>> But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way
>>> to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels
>>> we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This
>>> is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people
>>> more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife.
>>> 
>> 
>> It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels
>> are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden
>> attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up
>> their fairly wild claims.  And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more
>> production agriculture".   Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or
>> more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on
>> to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of
>> question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is...
>> 
>> Z
>> ___
>> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
>> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
>> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph

[Keith Addison]

Hi all

Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global 
warming denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. 
Recent big winds may have deepened his apparent shade of green. 
Professional contrarian, author of the infamous The Sceptical 
Environmentalist. He's a statistician, without environmental 
qualifications. At a promotional reading of his book in London in 
2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face by none other than Mark 
Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a supporter of 
nuclear power. Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we 
deserve either of them.


More here:


All best

Keith



On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote:


 The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every
 day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of
 emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet,
 with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there
 are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open.

 But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way
 to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels
 we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This
 is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people
 more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife.



It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels
are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden
attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up
their fairly wild claims.  And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more
production agriculture".   Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or
more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on
to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of
question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is...

Z
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel


___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph

[Zeke Yewdall]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote:

> The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every
> day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of
> emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet,
> with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there
> are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open.
>
> But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way
> to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels
> we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This
> is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people
> more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife.
>

It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels
are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden
attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up
their fairly wild claims.  And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more
production agriculture".   Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or
more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on
to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of
question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is...

Z
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph

[Darryl McMahon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/biofuels/10520736/The-great-biofuels-scandal.html

The great biofuels scandal

Biofuels are inefficient, cause hunger and air pollution, and cost 
taxpayers billions


By Bjørn Lomborg

7:23PM GMT 16 Dec 2013

Last week, the EU missed an opportunity to end the most wasteful green 
programme of our time – one which costs billions of pounds annually and 
causes at least 30 million people to go hungry every year. By failing to 
agree a cap on the use of biofuels, the Council of Ministers has given 
tacit support for a technology that is bad for both taxpayer and 
environment. Legislation will now be delayed until 2015.


The biofuel story is a perfect example of good intentions leading to 
terrible outcomes. Moreover, it is a lesson on how powerful, 
pseudo-green vested interests can sustain a bad policy. Hopefully, it 
will also be a story of how reason can prevail in the divisive climate 
debate.


Greens initially championed biofuels as a weapon against global warming, 
claiming they would emit much less CO2 than fossil alternatives. As 
plants soak up CO2 while growing, the subsequent combustion simply 
releases the CO2 back into the air, resulting in zero net emissions.


But the dream has become a nightmare, as environmentalists turn against 
it. Even Al Gore claims biofuels are a “mistake”.


Studies show that as land is dedicated to energy crops, land for food is 
simply taken from other areas – often forests – leading to substantial 
CO2 emissions. And processing biofuels emits CO2, drastically reducing 
benefits.


In the EU, crop-based biofuels have replaced 5 per cent of fuel used in 
transport. If the biofuels were emission-free, that would reduce 
emissions by 5 per cent – totalling about 59 million tons (Mt) of CO2 
each year by 2020.


But a 2013 study by the International Institute for Sustainable 
Development shows that deforestation, fertilisers and fossil fuels used 
in the production of biofuels would emit about 54Mt of CO2. A full 92 
per cent of the carbon dioxide “saved” is just emitted elsewhere. For 
biodiesel alone, the net effect would likely be an increase in emissions.


Thus the total EU savings would be a minuscule 5Mt, or about one-tenth 
of one per cent of total European emissions. Even over a century, the 
effect of these savings would be trivial. When run in a standard climate 
model, EU biofuel use will postpone global temperature rises by 2100 by 
just 58 hours.


And the cost to taxpayers is some £6 billion a year; each ton of CO2 
avoided costs about £1,200. The EU’s “cap and trade” system is estimated 
to cost less than £4 for each ton avoided – so we pay almost 300 times 
too much.


Moreover, the best economic estimates suggest that cutting a ton of CO2 
emissions saves the world about £4 in environmental damage. So for each 
pound spent on biofuels, we avoid about a quarter of one penny of 
climate damage –an extremely inefficient way to help the world.


Sadly, this will get even worse. Originally, the EU wanted almost the 
full 10 per cent renewable-energy target for transport to come from 
biofuels by 2020, a doubling of today’s figure. Now that everyone is 
having second thoughts, the proposal is to reduce this to 7 per cent.


But the Council of Ministers’ failure to implement even this modest 
reduction leaves us back at 10 per cent, which could double the cost for 
EU taxpayers to about €13.8 billion per year. Getting 10 per cent of 
transport fuel from plants would reduce the EU emissions by a tiny 9Mt, 
and increase the cost of each ton of CO2 cut to more than £1,260. The 
net effect to temperatures by the end of the century will be just 0.00025C.


Crucially, the huge expense and tiny benefit is only a small part of 
what is wrong with biofuels. In almost all aspects, they are a disaster. 
Current EU biofuels take up an area of European farmland larger than the 
size of Belgium, and a similar area is used internationally for European 
imports. The biofuel farmland in Europe uses as much water as the rivers 
Seine and Elbe combined.


Moreover, farmers use fast-growing trees like poplar, willow and 
eucalyptus for biofuels. Unfortunately, these trees emit a chemical 
called isoprene, an air pollutant which can affect human health. A study 
by Lancaster University shows that increasing the crop fields to meet 
the EU’s 10 per cent target will increase air pollution, cause an extra 
1,400 deaths, and cost £5.2 billion annually.


But most importantly, in moral terms, is the fact that using land to 
grow fuel rather than food is an abomination in a world where almost a 
billion people still go hungry. It is estimated that European biofuels 
now take up enough land to feed 100 million people, and the United 
States’s programme takes up even more.


Although biofuels are not the only reason for the price increases in 
food over the past years, they certainly play a large part. It is hard 
for poor people to buy food when