Blatant Reality

Judging from the comments posted on two of my posts about ethanol (seen here and here), I need to go a little more in depth about why I do not like the idea of growing our next source of fuel on farmland.

There are many reasons why I don’t like the idea of growing ethanol crops on farmland no matter if you are growing corn, sugar cane, beets, switch grass or any plant that requires space and water. One thing that none of the major proponents of any of these ethanol sources are confronting is the reality that in our capitalistic economy, using these crops as fuel would give farmers more incentive to plant them.

You can already see this with farmers planting the most acres of corn in 2007 since 1944. This year (2008), farmers were expected to plant less corn but thank goodness they didn’t because floods have affected a lot of the farmland devoted to this crop.

Bad for Aquifers

Underground aquifers are found all over the world and they are basically natural reservoirs. These aquifers have been tapped and are used for irrigation and the like. More farmland means more water use and this can be bad news for these aquifers. For example, one of our largest aquifers, the Ogallala, has gone down roughly 100 ft due to our use of it for irrigation. Normally, the aquifer would refill itself with rain but our withdrawal rate far outstrips the replenish rate so as of now, every year the aquifer gets lower and lower.

Now, I am not arguing that we stop using this aquifer (though I would argue that we should use it more efficiently by eliminating water subsidies for farmers) but I don’t like the idea that we could potentially increase the withdrawal rate due to increased crops being used for fuel. Freshwater is an important resource in general so I don’t like the idea of using it for creating fuel in the heavily subsidized ethanol industry.

Massive Subsidies

And thats another thing about ethanol, it is a very heavily subsidized industry. Sure the oil industry is subsidized as well, but the ethanol industry receives a subsidy almost twice as big as the oil industry. For example, Minnosota’s Department of Agriculture tries to make the argument that the oil industry gets larger subsidies. Take a look:

It is important to compare “apples to apples” when discussing fuel subsidies. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. has spent more than $130 billion over the last three decades in subsidies to the oil industry. Add to this the amount of money that the U.S. spends to maintain a major presence in the Middle East, and you begin to see the “embedded” cost in our gasoline coming from the oil imported from this region.

 

Ethanol has received government subsidies as well. However, with the rise in today’s market price of corn, agricultural subsidies in their current form will be reduced from more than $10 billion/year to approximately $2 billion/year. Even by factoring in the current cost of the U.S. excise tax credit to gasoline blenders, which amounts to $3 billion/year, the subsidy level is greatly reduced from previous norms.

These two paragraphs try to make the argument that the subsidies to ethanol are “modest” in comparison to oil. Well if the subsidies are truly modest, I would really like to see a dictionary on how Minnesotans define modest. If one uses my definition of modest, the two paragraphs above show that the subsidies are anything but modest in comparison.

First off, they try to confuse you by saying that “the US has spent more than $130 billion over the last three decades.” Not per year people. Talk about not comparing “apples to apples.” $130 billion per three decades comes out to about $4.33 billion/year.

Now lets look at the second paragraph, keeping the $4.33 billion/year in mind. First of all, they use the phrase “will be reduced” which means the ethanol subsidy is still at $10 billion/year. I, for one, have great faith in our lobbying industry and their ability to keep subsidies coming no matter if they are needed or not so I doubt the subsidies will be disappearing anytime soon. Therefore, instead of Ethanol subsidies being “modest” in comparison, they are over two times more than oil per year!

Even if you take their approximate $5 billion/year subsidy ($2 billion + $3 billion stated about), you still get a subsidy amount that is above the oil industry’s average $4.33 billion/year. Another estimate puts the ethanol industry subsidy at $7 billion for the year 2006 so any way you look at it, subsidies for ethanol are definitely not modest.

Bad for Biodiversity

Anyways, back to the environmental aspect of ethanol production. As I have stated in the past articles linked to above, with the increase in demand for ethanol producing crops, people are going to either switch from food crops to crops that produce and/or clear more land for farmland. The latter part means that farmers might actually see that it is economically worth clearing acre upon acre of forests or prairie which, as we have heard the Greens say multiple times, is bad for the environment. By clearing these lands, farmers are hurting the biodiversity of that particular region.

One example of this can be seen in Indonesia where there is a large palm oil industry. This oil is a big component in some biofuels and Europe is helping drive Indonesia’s palm oil industry by mandating that 10% of their fuel comes from biofuels by 2020. Thanks to the central planning of Indonesia’s government, 75,000 square miles of land are set to be converted to palm oil production by 2020 (”The Really Inconvenient Truths“). The land being converted consists of forests that are being cut with the fauna (tigers, orangutans, elephants, etc.) being killed (see the book link above for more).

Now the United States wouldn’t mandate a certain number of acreage to be put under for ethanol crop production, would they? No, but with legislation that has already been passed, they really don’t have to. Instead of mandating a specific number of acreage devoted to ethanol production, the government has mandated the use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012 with goals of renewable fuels in general reaching 36 billion gallons by 2022. With tariffs on cheap foreign sources of ethanol (like sugarcane from Brazil) impeding importation, it looks like we will be growing our own, hence the need to cultivate more land.

Conclusion

Now, do I believe that oil is the best form of energy in the world? Of course not. Do I believe that it is something that we are going to be primarily using for a while? Yes I do. Do I believe we should relax restrictions on drilling in ANWAR and offshore? Absolutely. However, I also like the idea of alternative energy, as long as it is economically feasible and can basically stand on its own.

My problem with crop based ethanol is that it is going to give farmers the incentive to grow crops specifically for fuel instead of for food and as prices rise due to increasing demand(be it for ethanol or increasing demand for food worldwide), more and more farmers are going to get on the action. This means more land under cultivation which will end up hurting the environment more than any alternative fuel might help it. I’m no environmentalist but I do appreciate nature (conservationist) and hate to see forests get chopped down for unnecessary reasons.

So why add any extra demand on farmland for things other than growing food when there are viable fuel alternatives out there?

The Algae Alternative

At this point you are all probably wondering that since I absolutely abhor crop-based ethanol, what other feasible alternatives are there? Well there is at least one that looks pretty promising (or at least more friendly to the environment and our food supply).

Farming algae for either ethanol or biodiesel could potentially be the answer for growing renewable fuels.

Now hold on a minute, I bet your about to comment something to the affect that “Algae basically lives in water! How will using algae lesson our water usage?” Well that is a great question and I’m glad you asked it.

The great thing about algae is that it can be grown in wastewater or even saltwater. Obviously there is little demand for those two sources of water and since we are not going to be eating it, it really doesn’t matter what the water source is. This flexibility would allow us to save freshwater for our food crops and drinking water.

Another great this about algae is that these algae farms could be located next to power plants and the CO2 they produce can be used as nutrients for the algae. Therefore, instead of investing in carbon sequestration methods which basically just cost money to the power plants, they could potentially make money by selling the CO2 to the farms.

Some of you might also be thinking that algae is just as bad as farms because land will have to be used to produce this algae harvest. Well this is where I would tell you that you’re not entirely correct. The first benefit of algae is that you don’t have to use land that has agricultural value (basically it can grow anywhere as long as the temperature and nutrients are right). Another benefit is that with algae, you don’t have to grow it horizontally. What I mean by this is that you could theoretically have a skyscraper that house algae producing vats.

And do you know what the best part about algae is? It’s a whole lot more efficient at producing oil than crops. Take a look:

Companies in California, Texas and Florida are leading the effort to produce and market fuel from algae. PetroSun of Rio Hondo, Texas, began producing fuel in April 2008. The company says it can produce 4.4 million gallons of oil every year from its 1,100 acres of algae ponds – roughly 4,000 gallons per acre. In contrast, one acre of corn produces about 330 gallons of ethanol, according to industry reports.

So there you have it, more reasons why crop-based ethanol is a bad idea and an alternative that is better in every single aspect that we could focus on producing instead.

Gore = Ambien. Hmmm…. This is the first time I have heard the comparison but now that I have heard it, it does make sense. Read more here:
-
http://www.newsweek.com/id/47829

A new process for purifying water by using algae has energy potential as well.

The algae are a component of the system that treats and filters the wastewater by removing certain contaminates, such as phosphorous, and breaking down solids. According to Limcaco, “the system is basically an algae farm using the wastewater as fertilizer”. The resulting sludge is a mixture of wastewater solids and algae. This mixture is then thermally treated using a process similar to gasification, a technology that has been around for years. During the thermal process, oils are removed from the sludge mixture in stage one, and the remaining solids are gasified to produce electricity and high grade fertilizer in stage two.

 

The system has numerous environmental and cost benefits. First, the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the thermal process are looped back into the Algaewheel system where the algae thrive on the gas, which gives the system a negative carbon footprint, and potential carbon credits. Second, the use of algae in the filtration and treatment process also reduces the need for some chemical-based treatments. Third, the energy produced by the system is used in the operation of the facility in the form of heat and electricity, and depending on the size of the facility, it is possible to generate excess energy that could be sold to the electric grid. Fourth, oils extracted from the wastewater sludge and algae mixture can be used to produce bio-fuel. Lastly, the solid byproducts are 95% less than a traditional system because the only byproduct of the process will be a small amount of solids which can be used as high grade fertilizer. The fertilzier is safe to transport and easy to dispose as compared to the traditional handling of wastewater sludge byproduct, which often involves transporting and dumping hundreds of tons of sludge on farm fields or in a landfill.

Now this, from an environmental standpoint, will have all the greens jumping up and down for joy at the thought of such an eco-friendly water purification. However, at this point I am just waiting for the little side note that this system is extremely expensive and not economically feasible. The good news is that as I continued reading, I never did find that. In fact, this is what the article said about costs (my emphasis):

The combination of reduced chemical usage, self-contained energy production, and minimal byproducts delivers a remarkably environmentally friendly and cost efficient system. In fact, the operating and maintenance expenses of this type of facility are less and tend to be much more stable over the facility’s useful life because part of the energy costs and the treatment costs are not subject to the price fluctuations of energy and chemicals. According to Limcaco, the operating and maintenance cost of an Algaewheel plant can be up to 30 percent less than a similarly-sized traditional facility. To top it all off, the useful life of the facility is estimated at 30 years, which is about 30% greater than traditional facilities.

If this actually is the case, then by all means we should invest in these facilities. I’m all for “green” alternatives if they are both economically feasible and efficient. With the added potential of a non-crop biofuel, this process is definitely something to keep a close eye on.

Forecasters are predicting another year that might have a high number of powerful storms. Unlike the previous couple of years where the predictions didn’t come true, the weathermen have learned from their mistakes and have adjusted accordingly. However, even though tracking and forecasting of individual storms has gotten increasingly better over the years, long term seasonal forecast like these are not nearly as reliable. Therefore, take this prediction with a grain of salt. Read the whole Pajamas Media article here.

I thought this was pretty cool and decided to share it (aka, this is finals week and I am too busy to focus on political commentary). Hope you like it.

Yesterday, conservationists announced the discovery of 14 new species in Brazil. Among the species discovered, there were several new species of reptile including a legless lizard.

Conservationists on Tuesday announced the discovery of 14 species probably new to science — among them a legless lizard and a tiny woodpecker — in a Brazilian high plains region that they said is being converted to farms at twice the rate of the neighboring Amazon forest.

 

A four-week expedition by U.S.-based Conservation International and several Brazilian universities ventured into Brazil’s Cerrado, afterwards describing the species — eight fish, three reptiles, one amphibian, one mammal, and one bird — as poster children for a campaign to save the area.

 

“Protected areas such as the Ecological Station are home to some of the last remaining healthy ecosystems in a region increasingly threatened by urban growth and mechanized agriculture,” CI biologist and expedition leader Cristiano Nogueira said in a statement announcing the finds.

You can get pictures of some of the animals here.

Want to own a legless lizard? You can buy them here. Given, these aren’t the same specie as the ones in Brazil but they are pretty neat anyways.

A new ceramic, technically yttria-stabilized zirconia, could be our answer to storing radioactive waste in the future.

You can see on the left the effects of radiation on two materials. “In yttria-stabilized zirconia (top), the defects produced by radiation are few and far between, having less impact on the properties of the material. In zircon (bottom), the defects are clustered, which could compromise the material’s integrity.” (Credit: PNNL) Here is a link to a larger version of this figure.

 

This research project has been led at PNNL by scientists Ram Devanathan and William Weber. Here are some of their comments about this research project. “‘If you want a material to withstand radiation over millennia, you can’t expect it to just sit there and take it. There must be a mechanism for self-healing,’ said Devanathan. ‘This research raises the possibility of engineering mobile defects in ceramics to enhance radiation tolerance,’ Weber said. He noted that materials capable of handling high-radiation doses also ‘could improve the durability of key equipment and reduce the costs of replacements.’”

So far it seems that this material is still in the ‘theoretical’ stage but with nuclear energy quickly making a comeback, the need for a material like this is definitely there.

I don’t know if you have heard about the Utah nuclear waste company that wants to import waste from Italy but now they are becoming one of the largest contributors to several politicians, including one from SC. I’m guessing people aren’t really to hot about the idea of having to ship nuclear waste all the way across the country.

Since 2005, the company’s political action committee, executives and investors have poured nearly $400,000 into congressional campaigns through January, up from about $40,000 in the four previous years, Federal Election Commission reports show.

 

The company’s growing influence in Washington will be tested this year as it tries to kill a bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive foreign waste, which would be disposed at its dump in western Utah’s desert.

 

“I’m sure this means many millions of dollars to them, so I’m sure they’re going to be working hard to stop it,” said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the bill’s co-sponsor.

 

EnergySolutions increased lobbyist spending from $680,000 in 2006 to more than $1 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

Since Utah has this tiny problem of being a landlocked state, the nuclear waste would obviously have to first make its way through a port. What port is it? Well, as the saying goes, all you have to do is follow the money. Guess where the biggest chunk of money has gone too. None other than South Carolina’s very own Lindsay Graham.

The biggest recipient of EnergySolutions’ recent spending spree is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

 

Graham has received $24,000 in campaign contributions from EnergySolutions’ PAC and more than $19,000 from company investors and executives since December 2006.

 

He is encouraging the NRC to allow the construction of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina, where EnergySolutions manages the site through which the Italian waste could be imported.

 

The company wants to import the waste through the ports of Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans for processing in Tennessee.

Now I’m not bashing on Senator Graham because I, for one, am all for nuclear energy. Therefore, I know that this problem of shipping nuclear waste from one place to another is a major issue that will have to be dealt with. The fact that Charleston would be the main port for something like this is great because there have been recent reports that Charleston’s port has slowly been receiving less shipments. This will be great to pump some extra cash into the economy.

However, South Carolina’s main source of income is tourism and Charleston is a major tourist city. Therefore, if there were to be an accident dealing with nuclear waste in Charleston, a very vital of the state’s livelihood would be gone. What this means is that even though I am all for nuclear energy and even possibly this Utah deal, there better be some hell of regulations to ensure that everything goes smoothly and safely

There are two House bills currently being pushed by conservation and environmental groups that would restrict the amount of turtle a person could catch in the state of South Carolina. As of right now, there are no laws at all that limit the amount a turtles caught. Therefore, persons from other states are allowed to catch turtles unrestricted in South Carolina and bring them back home.

You might not think that turtle catching would be a problem but the demand for turtle meat to be exported to Asia had risen in recent years. Therefore, people in the US met that demand by exporting turtles caught in the wild. This demand, some claim, is putting to large of a strain on the wild populations of turtles.

That is why the bills H.4392 and H.3275 have been introduced. H.4392 would limit the amount of turtles a person can catch and keep without a permit from the state and H.3275 would make it unlawful to export for commercial purposes live seawater or freshwater turtles caught in the wild.

I don’t know exactly if these two bills are the right way to head off this potential problem, but I do feel it is a good idea to at least introduce some regulation on this topic. I know that in my home state of Missouri we have laws much like H.4392 that cover basically all reptile and amphibian species in the state. As the news articles states, with rising oil prices and Asia getting better at raising turtles themselves, the need for this kind of business is diminishing. Therefore, the likelihood of this law economically affecting to many people will be minimal.

I may be biases but I know one of my favorite things to to back in Missouri when I was younger (and even now to some extent) is to go one of our many spring water stream and see how many turtles and other reptiles I could catch and release in a day. It would be a shame that South Carolina’s future children don’t have the same opportunities I did growing up in Missouri.

Like catching snow flakes on your tongue? Yea…I wouldn’t do that if I were you.

Well, it seems that a cold January has brought back a lot of the arctic ice that was melted to global warming. Hmmm…And here I thought I would have to wait until the next ice age for the arctic ice to return to normal. Well, either way, this should be good news for our planet, but I doubt you will hear many sighs of relief from the environmentalist. I mean, if global warming isn’t really that big of a deal, why should we be giving them billions of dollars to them to help solve our global warming problems.