Posted on 03/08/2007 7:52:41 AM PST by ZGuy
In the environmental Dark Ages before the discovery of oil, man’s energy needs had to be extracted from the living world. Whole continents were deforested in the quest for firewood. Priceless wetlands were strip-mined for peat. Bees were robbed of their wax to make candles. Even when millions were starving, valuable animal fats and plant oils were rendered into fuel to illuminate the homes of the rich. Alas, it appears those times may soon return as environmentalists, politicians, and the media push for man’s energy needs to be met once more by the limited capacity of field and fjord. But for one brief moment in man’s planet-killing history, oil was there to carry the burden that man would have otherwise hoisted upon the bowed back of nature. Just look at what oil did for the whales.
In the first age of renewable energy, man was so desperate for even small quantities of transportable hydrocarbon fuel (today so damned for its very abundance), that fleets of ships continually patrolled the oceans in search of ever fewer great whales.
Today it is unbelievable that the intelligent whale, universally regarded as a profound natural wonder, was once appreciated principally as a source of lard. But that very fact is testament to energy’s scarcity before the advent of crude oil. By today’s standards, even a large whale has only a negligible amount of oil – perhaps 200 barrels. The entire world production of whale oil was less than 500,000 barrels per year for most of the 19th century.
Yet for this scant annual prize – equal to about 9.6 minutes of production for today’s oil industry – the world’s whales were hunted so nearly to extinction that even today many remain rare. Many species doubtless would have become extinct had Col. Drake not struck oil in Pennsylvania in 1859. That year, U.S. crude oil production was 2,000 barrels. The next year, it was equal to the entire annual whale oil production of 500,000 barrels. By 1861, crude was pumping at 2,000,000 barrels a year and growing. Within a decade, most of America’s whaling fleet was out of business.
Together with coal, oil opened up an unimaginable quantity of energy that came from outside the contemporary natural productivity of the Earth. For the first time, societies could grow far beyond the biological energy limits of their landmass. Wealth skyrocketed. Food supplies were no longer diverted to energy needs. Populations blossomed, and yet man’s energy-motivated environmental depredations fell significantly.
Fossil fuels have provided freedom from the constraints of biology and agriculture to such an extent that most of us have forgotten exactly how energy-poor a world powered by biofuels can be. Consider that the United States consumes nearly 4.39x1016 BTUs of crude oil per year. In absolute energy value, the entire corn crop in the U.S. could provide just 10 percent of that, and the entire world’s corn crop, only 23 percent.
So if the U.S. can cut energy use by 77 percent, find a 100-percent efficient means of converting corn into fuel, and corner all of Earth’s annual corn crop, we can just get by without oil (assuming coal, nuclear, and gas are still OK). And of course, we’ll need to ignore that corn is plowed, planted, fertilized, harvested, and transported with petroleum energy. Factor that in, and I’m sure we could still squeak by at the equivalent of 20 percent of current petroleum capacity, if we also consumed the world’s entire rice crop. What we (and the Chinese) would eat under this scenario is a little unclear (perhaps we could eat the whales), and I suppose the Europeans would be reduced to living off wind power and pine nuts.
But the exercise demonstrates the burden fossil fuels have lifted from the environment, and how accustomed all six billion of us have become to eating. Even the paltry efforts toward already subsidized biofuels have had an impact. The U.S. demand for ethanol has helped drive the price of corn tortillas beyond the reach of some impoverished Mexicans, precipitating calls for price controls and export restrictions. Unfortunately, the competition between mouths and motors can only increase, and the demands placed on our living planet can only get worse as the second age of renewable energy dawns prematurely.
Nice post!
Compost is soil. Fertile soil.
A sly drool is what crosses your chin when calculating ways to screw your customers. Or beat out your suppliers.
(Old engineering joke.)
Mark.
Big oil saved the whales.
Look at my post.
I do not believe that turning food to fuel is a good idea.
Ethanol is a great fuel but I'm not even arguing ethanol. Fast pyrolysis bio-oil has potential. Syngas produced gasoline and diesel also have potential.
With new generation powerplant technology and proper use of waste streams and use of CRP we could stop importing oil from overseas and send that money to our farmers and local plant workers. Those are jobs that cannot be outsourced.
Everybody here has a kneejerk reaction to the current ethanol plan. I agree that turning grain to fuel is not tenable, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
There may be enough oil for a hundred years but we are sending our treasure overseas now to pay for oil.
The trade deficit and terrorism are reason enough to start looking at alternatives.
Yawn. Too much of it and too expensive to haul it where it is needed. Also, many farmers won't take compost from unknown sources because of potential contamination with heavy metals.
I can get all of the compost I want for free if I pick it up, not very profitable for the producer though.
Interesting. We certainly won't running out of waste anytime soon.
Could you point me to a link that explains this approach in greater detail?
I've lived most of my life in farm country. Composting is a rarity. Most crop residue is left on the field. What kind of "waste" are you referring to?
Also, the char produced during fast pyrolysis has proven to be a very good soil amendment, maybe even better than compost.
BTW, compost is not fertile soil. It is a good amendment for soil but not good soil by itself.
The poultry industry makes mountains of waste including tons of contaminated bedding.
Feed lots create mountains of waste also.
The forest industry leaves an enormous amount behind. In fact, it is expected to be the most important source of cellulose for cellulosic ethanol production when it becomes viable.
Most of my neighbors are ranchers and they compost their manure. If I get around to working on the dump trailer, I'm planning on surface treating one of my fields later this month. If I load and haul it myself, I can have all that I want for free.
How much of the acreage in your county is in CRP? Do you think the government should be in the business of paying farmers not to farm. When the infrastructure in in place, prairy hay will also be a source for fuel production.
Nope, they kill birds and have NIMBY status with the greenies.
Wrong and wrong.
Long artilce (with footnotes and everything!)
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html
Killing Birds: The "Avian Mortality" Problem
The universal rationale for this massive public commitment to wind power is that it is environmentally benign. But wind power has at least one major environmental problem -- the massive destruction of bird populations -- that has begun to draw serious concern from mainstream environmentalists.
Wind blades have killed thousands of birds in the United States and abroad in the last decade, including endangered species, which is a federal offense subject to criminal prosecution.105 While bird kills are not considered a problem by everyone, it is a problem for some environmental groups who lobbied to put the laws on the books, made cost assessments for dead birds and other wildlife pursuant to the Valdez accident, and vilify petroleum extraction activity on the North Slope of Alaska as hazardous to wildlife.106 While such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society have criticized wind power's effects on birds, many eco-energy planners have ignored the problem in their devotion to wind power....< SNIP >
Also check out the VentureOne at flytheroad.com. This looks sufficient as a commuter car for the 12 miles round trip I do a day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.