(04-14-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.

My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

I understand Butyl Alcohol has an energy equivalence of gasoline. But the production through fermentation of cellulose based materials has hit a brick wall with the microbes. Supposedly the Aggies were working on biomodified microbes, but I have t heard of any success. But the econonomics aren't there at $55 oil