[Digestion] Biogas conversation rates

Mon Jan 17 19:06:51 CST 2011

No need to be offended. Let's think about triaging energy supply. Energy for farming and food, no problem. Energy for doing dumb things, why not think twice or pay more? Energy gluttony is not connected to efficient food production.

Take gluteus energy demand, for example. Those gluteus should be getting off the couch!

From: bingham at zekes.com
To: digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:48:02 -0700
Subject: Re: [Digestion] Biogas conversation rates

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/

_______________________________________________
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/cae0e7e0/attachment.html>