Blog Action Day: A brief post on the environment ...

[damont]

Thanks to fuzzface00, whose own post reminded me of this, and who also pointed out the following:

'I imagine the organizers of Blog Action Day did not consider the acronym possibilities beforehand. As an example, I almost titled this post "[PUBLIC] BAD: A brief post on the environment ..." '

I've been thinking a lot about environmental issues myself lately. I was raised as an environmentalist almost by accident; the way in which my conservationist views informed my libertarian-ish political stance is a topic for another, longer post -- heck, for a *series* of longish posts -- which I'm still in the process of writing. But what I want to talk about here for Blog Action Day is two short things: the "Three R's" and alcohol.

The "Three R's" are "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." My house is gradually reducing the energy and environmental footprint it makes, by changing over to fluorescent light bulbs (of various types) wherever it is feasible to do so. At some point I'd like to install fluorescents in the bathrooms, but that will require redoing the fixtures. Another way to reduce the energy footprint would be to replace the windows, but that would require money we've never had (and don't expect to have soon). We also recycle everything that is feasible, either by reusing it or through the recycling programs available in our locality. I don't think the local recycling programs do enough towards recycling plastics, and occasionally push elected officials towards implementing a more comprehensive plastic-recycling program. We also recycle computer components through PC Recycler which has a free pickup every month in our area.

As for alcohol: petroleum products are more easily portable than renewable energy, in terms of "bang for the buck on the hoof" -- but ethanol is just as portable as petro-stuff. Much talk has been made about how much energy it takes to *make* the ethanol from biomass in the first place. What folks don't seem to be noticing, though, is that we can make the ethanol using *renewable* energy (solar, wind, geothermal, whatever), and thus cut down on our overall fossil-fuel use.

At some point soon I'll probably start posting on topics environmental, both as a way of writing down my own contemplations and as a springboard for discussion; I may set up a specific filter for those posts, but I'll be sure to let you know when that happens.

Comments

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

The problem with ethanol is actually NOT the energy it takes to manufacture it from a given biomass. (That BTW, IS the current problem with hydrogen).

The problem occurs when you calculate how much agriculture it's going to take to replace our current fuel needs, even when you go to more efficient vehicles. We use a SCARY amount of fuel. To produce that much fuel from ethanol WILL take arable land out of the food chain, out of the living space, and most of all, out of the forests.
If we're trying to reduce CO2, then taking out the world's largest and currently most efficient CO2 sequestration system (forests and trees) to do it will prove catastrophically counter productive.

Ethanol as fuel is a good step, as we will be recycling a larger part of the carbon footprint than ever before, but it's not ever going to be enough until we get major energy breakthrus on the same scale as the utilisation of petroleum and coal were to the industrial evolution.

It's going to take an order of magnitude more energy from solar or wind devices or, something else, most likely fusion.

All other measures are extremely necessary to ensure our survival to that (breakthru) point, but we NEED to get our collective butts into gear on energy research while we do it.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

I've heard a few things about switchgrass, which grows wild on the prairie and might be a source of ethanol from non-arable land. But I don't think it yields ethanol as efficiently, and I also am not expert enough to speak intelligently about it.

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

I've heard of the stuff too. It is promising. However...
(Dum dum duuuuuuuuummmmmmmm)

The problem comes up again once you calculate how much of this stuff would need to be grown to meet even our current need for fuel.

I'm convinced that the estimates show that even using this plant would involved cultivations that would be staggeringly large and therefore would have a monstrous impact on our agriculture and the rest of the economy.

It is still my opinion, that energy wise and CO2 wise, that our salvation is going to HAVE to come from a major breakthru of some sort.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

how much agriculture it's going to take to replace our current fuel needs.... To produce that much fuel from ethanol WILL take arable land out of the food chain...

Thing is, the folks who have been pooh-pooh-ing the fuel-alcohol idea in the mass media don't seem to have addressed that point. They keep talking about how much energy it would take to produce the alcohol, over and over like a broken record... and in at least one case I heard someone say flat-out that they energy used to produce the alcohol would come from fossil fuels. *That* got my hackles up.

I had an interesting discussion with asaia the other evening, where she pointed out that arable land from growing corn for high-fructose corn syrup -- heavily subsidized! -- could be converted to growing corn (or whatever) for fuel alcohol where the subsidy could be greatly lessened, if not eliminated. She said the land converted from HFCS production would be enough to meet the need for fuel-alcohol production. I can't prove that, but it would certainly make a major dent in the land needed.

I agree with you, however, that fuel-alcohol is primarily a temporary measure; in order to support increasing energy demands worldwide, we're going to need a breakthrough in energy-efficiency technology for one or more sources.