<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.il
{mso-style-name:il;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If this list starts becoming a place to expound political theories about the world and energy, I will drop out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Randy Mott<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>CEERES<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> digestion-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:digestion-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Reuben Deumling<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 17, 2011 11:29 PM<br><b>To:</b> For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion<br><b>Cc:</b> Franssen, Loe (Alumni)<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Digestion] Biogas conversation rates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Eaton <<a href="mailto:alex@sistemabiobolsa.com">alex@sistemabiobolsa.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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 ;)<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><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. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>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><o:p></o:p></p><p><b>Press Release from 11. November 2010:</b><br><b>"International Energy Agency confirms the EWG's Warning"</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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>)<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>