<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>I find the tone of this thread to be ever
increasingly offensive!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>I believe the "Industrialized world "provides 90+
% of all aid that goes to feed and help the rest of the world in </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>normal times and in disasters? </FONT><FONT size=2
face=Corbel>If they did not have the energy and use it, they would consume more
food </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>than they produce. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>I believe there is a </FONT><FONT size=2
face=Corbel>law of "unintended consequences". It appears our family will be paid
more for our corn </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>and hay this year than </FONT><FONT size=2
face=Corbel>any other time in the 150 years our family has farmed. Not because
of a need for food</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>but due to poorly conceived notion the ETOH is
better than crude oil. As food and feed prices ultimately go up </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>when corn is converted to fuel, </FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Corbel>what of the people who must pay for what was already to
expensive to them?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>If every person and business in the
"Industrialized world" cut there energy consumption over night, the world
would</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>begin to starve in 120 days or less. Ship loads of
food aid would stop immediately. Almost no trucks or trains would </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>deliver food. Fuel delivery would begin to stop.
Tire production would be curtailed. The list would go on and on.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>Those energy gluttons are the most efficient food
producers in the world. With out them most of the world would
starve.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>for the farm was rationed. Food costs went up and
production went down.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel>There are some that feel rising energy costs will
stop or slow the "<FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Glutenous Energy Demand".
What it will</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>do is hurt those among us that can least afford it. It would be nice if
those of you who feel inclined to </DIV>
<DIV>inject there social/Political view into Anaerobic Digestion would just keep
them to them selves. </DIV>
<DIV>It may be that "Peak Oil occurred in 2006",But Coal consumption just
increased and took its place.</DIV>
<DIV>There is enough Coal and Natural gas to last 200 years in the US and
probably that much oil.</DIV>
<DIV>Oil production is controlled more by politics and price not by
availability. Most of the oil in the </DIV>
<DIV>US is untapped due to Politics and so called Environmentalism. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Corbel></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=9watts@gmail.com href="mailto:9watts@gmail.com">Reuben Deumling</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=digestion@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:digestion@lists.bioenergylists.org">For Discussion of Anaerobic
Digestion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=LLC.Franssen@alumni.maastrichtuniversity.nl
href="mailto:LLC.Franssen@alumni.maastrichtuniversity.nl">Franssen, Loe
(Alumni)</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 17, 2011 3:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Digestion] Biogas
conversation rates</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Eaton <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:alex@sistemabiobolsa.com">alex@sistemabiobolsa.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>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 ;)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>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. <BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><BR>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. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>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. <BR><BR>IEA's admission as
paraphrased by the folks who predicted this four+ years ago:<BR><A
href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html"
target=_blank>http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Mitteilungen.26+M5d637b1e38d.0.html</A><BR>
<P><B>Press Release from 11. November 2010:</B><BR><B>"<SPAN
lang=EN-US>International Energy Agency confirms the EWG's
Warning"</SPAN></B></P>International Energy Agency Confirms<BR>the Energy
Watch Group's Warning<BR>• "<SPAN class=il>Peak</SPAN> <SPAN
class=il>Oil</SPAN>" through conventional production was reached in 2006<BR>•
<SPAN class=il>IEA</SPAN>'s assumptions about future total production
unrealistic<BR>• Accelerated expansion of renewables will safeguard supply
more<BR>economically<BR>As early as three years ago, the Energy Watch Group
(EWG) identified<BR>the highpoint of conventional worldwide <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> exploitation as having been<BR>reached in 2006. With its
"World Energy Outlook 2010", the International<BR>Energy Agency (<SPAN
class=il>IEA</SPAN>) expressly endorsed this conclusion for the very
first<BR>time, corroborating that the production of crude <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> will never again<BR>achieve the 2006 level. The Agency,
made up of 28 OECD countries,<BR>represents the governmental interests of the
largest "Western" energyconsuming<BR>nations.<BR>In a comprehensive 2007
study, the Energy Watch Group's scientists<BR>explained why "after attaining
this maximum production, there is a very<BR>high probability that in the
coming twenty years – by 2030 – annual<BR>output of crude <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> will halve." In each of the past few years, the <SPAN
class=il>IEA</SPAN> has<BR>revised its annual forecast of worldwide <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> production downward,<BR>converging toward the Energy Watch
Group's analysis.<BR><B>Unlike the Energy Watch Group, however, the <SPAN
class=il>IEA</SPAN> continues to espouse<BR>expectations that are far too
optimistic in regard to the expansion of <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN><BR>production from conventional and unconventional
sources.</B> Thomas<BR>Seltmann, the EWG's project manager, explains,
"Leading<BR>representatives of the <SPAN class=il>IEA</SPAN> regularly declare
that 'several new Saudi<BR>Arabias' would need to be tapped only in order to
maintain current output<BR>levels. This would also be a condition for their
current scenario, but these<BR>oilfields simply don't exist. You can only
produce <SPAN class=il>oil</SPAN> that you can find."<BR>Moreover, the<B>
<SPAN class=il>IEA</SPAN> continues to make unrealistic assumptions about
the<BR>potential output from so-called "unconventional" wells: natural
gas<BR>condensates and tar sands – two putative substitutes for crude <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN>.</B><BR>Production of the latter is very complicated and
detrimental to the<BR>environment, and the availability of both is much lower.
"Bringing them<BR>online is absolutely not comparable with the familiar <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> production on<BR>land and in the sea", Seltmann qualifies.
Nonetheless, the <SPAN class=il>IEA</SPAN> still<BR>suggests that the <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN> supply can be raised to meet demand.<BR>The unjustified
optimism about <SPAN class=il>oil</SPAN> is paralleled by an equally
unfounded<BR>pessimism vis-à-vis the expansion of renewable energies, and
the<BR>expansion rate outlined by the <SPAN class=il>IEA</SPAN> is well below
the current growth rates<BR>for renewables. Seltmann says, "We urgently
recommend that<BR>governments ambitiously accelerate the expansion of
renewable energy<BR>in order to counter the foreseeable shortages and price
jumps of fossil<BR>fuels. More rapid expansion of renewable energy is more
economical<BR>overall than a slower approach. Even completely meeting our
energy<BR>needs with renewables is possible within a few decades and
more<BR>economical in total than the further consumption of <SPAN
class=il>oil</SPAN>, natural gas, coal,<BR>and uranium."<BR>Press
contact:<BR>Thomas Seltmann, project manager<BR><A
href="mailto:seltmann@energywatchgroup.org"
target=_blank>seltmann@energywatchgroup.org</A><BR>Download of the study and
updated graphic related to the EWG <SPAN class=il>oil</SPAN> study:<BR><A
href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-Oil.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html"
target=_blank>http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Crude-<SPAN
class=il>Oil</SPAN>.56+M5d637b1e38d.0.html</A><BR>(<A
href="http://www.energywatchgroup.org/"
target=_blank>www.energywatchgroup.org</A> à Themes à Crude <SPAN
class=il>Oil</SPAN>)<BR></DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Digestion mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>Digestion@bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your
List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more information about digestion, see<BR>Beginner's Guide to
Biogas<BR>http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/<BR>and the Biogas Wiki
http://biogas.wikispaces.com/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>