[Digestion] Biogas conversation rates

Mon Jan 17 17:02:32 CST 2011

Agreed, but peak oil production aside, this still reflects the methodology
of the CDM.

As a side note, the use of our remaining oil could also be allocated as
cooking fuels for the worlds poor, rather than squandered in our business as
usual regime.  This is from Kirk Smith's 2002 Science editorial, *A Praise
of Petroleum? *: Even if all 2 billion people (without access to modern
energy services) shifted to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for household
fuel, it would add less than 2% to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from fossil fuels.

His point would still be interesting if he were talking about kerosene.
This suggests that the methodology still has validity in Full World
Economics.  In either case, the fossil fuel baseline generally gives a
conservative estimate of GHG reductions from biogas, since the biomass that
is being used produces far more GHG per unit of energy delivered to the
pot.

Cheers,

PS, watch out for flying typos, spell check dependence, and gluttonous
amounts of gluten.

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Eaton <alex at sistemabiobolsa.com
> > 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 IEAhas
> 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
> seltmann at energywatchgroup.org
> 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
> Digestion at bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
>
>
>

-- 
Alexander Eaton
Sistema Biobolsa
IRRI-Mexico
RedBioLAC

Mex cel: (55) 11522786
US cel: 970 275 4505

alex at irrimexico.org
alex at sistemabiobolsa.com

sistemabiobolsa.com
www.irrimexico.org
www.redbiolac.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110117/528136b4/attachment.html>