[Digestion] Biogas conversation rates

Mon Jan 17 18:48:02 CST 2011

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 <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 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
  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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110117/2e1d0655/attachment.html>