[Digestion] Biogas conversation rates

Randy Mott randymott at ceeres.eu
Wed Jan 19 00:28:36 CST 2011


If this list starts becoming a place to expound political theories about the
world and energy, I will drop out.

 

My general feeling is when a renewable energy person begins their
presentation with global warming and political slides, that they are not
really a professional in the business. 

 

We will be selling carbon credits like anyone seriously in the biogas
business, but I don’t need this list to tell me that by doing so we are
helping to save the world, etc.

 

Randy Mott

CEERES

 

From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Reuben
Deumling
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:29 PM
To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
Cc: Franssen, Loe (Alumni)
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-
<http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html>
Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
(www.energywatchgroup.org <http://www.energywatchgroup.org/>  à Themes à
Crude Oil)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110119/beb73563/attachment.html>


More information about the Digestion mailing list