Greenpeace is rethinking it's attitude toward ethanol.

[NNadir]

Greenpeace is the famous luddite organization that is most notable for opposing anything that works. For some reason, people are prone to confuse this befuddled organization with an environmental organization, although one should not argue that doing nothing is a particularly useful way of addressing the massive collapse of the environment we are now experiencing.

For years they've been harping about the benefits of biofuels, but now that the ethanol industry is once again generating lots of inflated press and looks like it could actually happen, Greenpeace is thinking the matter over:

The initial enthusiasm of environmentalists for ethanol and other biofuels has been tempered as they have thought through the implications of using them on a large scale, and groups such as Greenpeace, while still supportive in principle, are starting to have major reservations. The key point is this: a certain amount of biofuels can be produced to make a difference at the margin of CO2 emissions, without major changes in land use, but to make a real, substantive difference to emissions, vast amounts of new cropland would be necessary. The biofuel market might become so big that this demand would be a powerful driver of rainforest destruction. For example, the production of palm oil, which is increasingly important in biofuels, has been one of the biggest causes of the devastation of the rainforest in Borneo and Sumatra. Are we going to reduce CO2 emissions by wrecking somebody else's rainforest? Friends of the Earth says that is hardly a just, let alone a sustainable solution.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1124797.ece

For the record, I am personally agnostic on the question of biofuels, in particular, ethanol. Some I think are beneficial, others are not. Still it is amusing to watch the hand waving crowd at Greenpeace. I guess they're down to solar and wind, so long as they don't have to look at the windmills, so long as they're somewhere else.

[Karmakaze]

1. Yeah well...

when one of YOUR boats is bombed by the French secret serveice in an attempt to stop anit-nuclear protests I might take YOUR opinion seriously. Until then it is nothing but a load of bollocks.

Oh and by the way I am NOT a Greenpeace member, just someone who recognises bullshit when I read it.

[NNadir]

2. On the other hand, I am unwilling to take your opinion seriously

under any circumstances.

By the way, I'm not a Greenpeace member either, and wouldn't be, since I'm just someone who takes global climate change seriously.

[phantom power]

9. ???

Being bombed makes them credible? What's that, the "nos praemium" argument?

[JohnWxy]

3. This article you reference assumes we will only have ICEs for

transportation applications.

Most observers are of the opinion that fuel cell technology will begin to be applied to automobiles in 1 to 2 decades. Fuel Cells are 2 to 3 times as efficient as ICEs which would mean 1/2 to 1/3rd as much renewable feed stock would be needed as if we were using ICEs. Many companies are working on using methanol or ethanol to supply the hydrogen with reformers to the fuel cell . ONe company, Acta, has developed a reformer which uses ethanol that doesn't use expensive platinum alloys, making this technology much more economically viable. Acta projects they will have a fuel cell for automobiles in 10 years. Ballard power systems is also working on fuel cells using cheaper alloys than platinum.

Plug in hybrids combined with wind power is another positive approach to be explored.

REnewable technology may not by itself solve the problems of fossil fuel usage and Global Warming but that is obviously no reason to not develop it. We should use every technology we can think of to address this problem. We are a long way from seeing renewable fuels rob us of the rain forests - if they ever would. (actually the rain forests are disappearing with shocking speed without any help from demand for renewable fuels).

Regarding Palm oil, the article you referenced implies deforestation due to demand for palm oil is due to demand for renwable fuels - Palm oil is used almost entirely in foods:

http://www.mongabay.com/external/foe_palm_oil.htm

LONDON - March 8 - Research released today reveals that the booming trade in palm oil, used in everyday products such as chocolate, margarine, shampoo and detergents is fuelling the destruction of rainforests in South East Asia, and leading to human rights abuses and devastating pollution.

In Europe, for instance, one in three food products on supermarket shelves are directly contributing to the destruction of the world's rainforests, the new report by Friends of the Earth shows. Palm oil accounts for 21 per cent of the global edible oil market, and it is the most commonly used vegetable oil after soy.

The greatest reason for deforestation is the world-wide demand for wood. This is a real problem but lets not get confused here. It's a problem that was with us before renewable fuels came along and will continue whether we develop renewable fuels or not.

We really don't have any choice but to develop renewable fuels. Adding to the GHGs the way petroleum products do is something we just cannot keep doing as we have been. I don't think anybody is offering renewable fuels as the answer to all mankinds problems. That this technology will not entirely solve the problem of fossil fuel usage is no rationale for not developing it at all (we have only begun to scratch the surface of renewable fuels, after all). (note: Ethanol car wins fuel efficiency challenge, beating Hydrogen powered cars: <http://news.com.com/2100-11389_3-6075058.html>!]).

If someone has misgivings about renewable fuels they should not just critique renewable fuels but also offer a better alternative. (Continuing to use fossil fuels as we have been is not that alternative.)

Perhaps then, we can have a constructive conversation.

[NNadir]

4. If someone wants to have a constructive conversation on energy

they should really learn what an exajoule is.

Here, for instance, is a graphic representation of what exajoules might be:



The pretense that the ethanol chimera can enable us to keep our cars is ridiculous on its face. That tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny purple line stretching toward the bottom from the biomass/other contribution, the one with 0.2 next to it, as in 0.2 exajoules, is the entire subsidized ethanol industry and its contribution to transportation. There you have it, all eight billion gallons, costing billions of dollars.

I don't think we really want cars, but if we did, the only safe way to fuel them is an easily liquifiable scalable gas, like, say for instance, DME.

[JohnWxy]

8. Ethanol To Power The Future Of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

I offer the link and excerpt only for those who want to be informed.

Fuel cells are 2 to 3 times more efficient than internal Combustion engines. This technology will enable renewables to meet most of transportation needs. In addition, plug in hybrids drawing on energy generated from wind power will also contribute greatly to this need.

ONe thing that can be said. Nothing remains static. Referring to the status of anything today and proclaiming it will never change does not require me to debunk. This is rather obviously a wrong headed argument. I am not arguing with anybody who persists in this sort of thinking. I only offer this to those who are interested in something other than expounding on their idiosyncratic religious certitudes.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04v.html

Palo Alto - Mar 30, 2004

Hydrogen fuel cell technology's potentially strong future as a fuel for automobiles and various other applications is likely to be weakened by issues regarding its availability and the expenses involved in storage. Bio-based products such as ethanol are expected to open up new areas for research.
Hydrogen fuel cells reduce pollution by emitting water vapor in place of carbon dioxide. However the prevalent method of producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons, though economical, creates pollutants at the manufacturing site.

"Biomass material-based fuel cells are a better solution than power fuel cells since hydrogen is expensive and dangerous to handle," notes Technical Insights Analyst Al Hester. "More research should be devoted to ethanol since it is environmentally friendly and based on renewable resources."

Conversion of biomass materials such as ethanol into hydrogen is a more cost-efficient method to power fuel cells. Researchers believe that inter-metallic compounds could be used beneficially in fuel cell electrodes to oxidize ethanol. These materials are not alloys but have ordered structures wherein atoms are very specifically arranged.


The Real Price of Gasoline
209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

The information in this report is somewhat dated and I don't agree with everything in it but the cost of gasoline is much higher than $3.00 a gallon when you figure in all the subisdies. Renewable fuels are much cheaper.

[NNadir]

11. Would this pass in your mind for the scientific literature?

I'll bet it does.

You seem to confuse lobbying with science. That's not surprising, really. It's standard operating procedure.

[JohnWxy]

23. Oak Ridge National Laboratory study concluded Bio-fuels (mostly ethanol)

can meet about 30% of the gasoline demand. This study was predicated on ethanol being used in Internal Combustion engines however. Fuel Cells are 2 to 3 times more efficient than ICEs and systems are being developed (Acta) will enable the use ethanol (and ethelyne glycol) among other hydrocarbons, to supply the hydrogen for the fuel cell. USing alloys much cheaper than those of platinum will make fuel cells practical much sooner than previously has been anticipated.

( I was somewhat short on time when making my last post and couldn't get in all I wanted to reference.)

What follows is a link to an article about an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study which concluded renewable biofuels (mostly ethanol) could replace about 1/3 of the gasoline supply for transportation.)

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a respected research institution. The scientists there do real research (as opposed to posturing and ranting on Democratic Underground, lobbying for "alternative fuels " based upon fossil fuels (DME from natural gas and coal)). This is just the kind of thing the extractive industry likes to promote. Another way to sound green while still using finite fossil fuels. DME certainly deserves more research but it has quite a ways to go to become a viable alternative.

Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence - Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., April 21, 2005 — Relief from soaring prices at the gas pump could come in the form of corncobs, cornstalks, switchgrass and other types of biomass, according to a joint feasibility study for the departments of Agriculture and Energy.
~~
~~
"Our report answers several key questions," said Bob Perlack, a member of ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and a co-author of the report. "We wanted to know how large a role biomass could play, whether the United States has the land resources and whether such a plan would be economically viable."

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.

The report looked at how much biofuels production "could be achieved with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices."


Now, this study is predicated on the biofuels being used in Internal Combustion engines. In one to two decades we will see fuel cell applications for transportation which will be using ethanol as the source of hydrogen (using lower cost non-platinum based alloys). fuel Cells are 2 to 3 times as efficient as ICEs so the 30-33% of gasoline demand figure from renewables, when using ICE's, becomes 60% to 80% when Fuel Cells are employed. Ballard power systems and Acta are two companies, among several, who are moving ahead with fuel cells using non platinum alloys which will make fuel cells practical for cars in one to wo decades.

This study was also performed assuming production efficiencies known at the time. REcently Iowa State researchers applied for a patent on process using ultra-sound to boost the productivity of the ethanol production process. The researchers found by using ultra=sound they could boost the production of alcohol from corn by about 30%. As engineers and chemists work with the process of making ethanol from corn and then cellulosic sources other advancements will be developed but these are difficult or impossible to predict. IF this gain can be translated to the factory, the study's estimate of ethanol reaching 1/3rd of the gasoline demand would become more like 40% of the total gasoline demand.

Regarding the chart posted:

I noticed the chart you posted showed ALL Energy demand not just energy used for transportation. You wouldn't want the uninitiated to get confused when you compare supply of renewables intended to replace gasoline in cars to the TOTAL USAGE of ALL Energy for all purposes, would you?? If you want talk about ALL energy uses that's okay , that allows me to talk about one of my favorite subjects WIND POWER. But lets return to that later. We are supposed to be talking about renewable fuels for transportation - in particular their feasibility as a substitute for gasoline.

REgarding DME suggestion:
DME is made from fossil fuel sources, natural gas and coal and methanol (from coal) - processes which are very expensive and very dirty (GHG emmissions). Continued research is certainly warranted to see if this process can be made clean and to get the cost down - but you still are using fossil fuel sources. As usual you are promoting just the sort of thing the extractive industries adore. YOu like to comment on the current status of a given renewable fuel - how would DME stand up on your chart? My guess is the amount of DME being made now is about 1 millionth the amount of ethanol now being made (about 4 billion gallons - 2005) and at at a cost far far higher than that of ethanol. you got a long way to go, EXXON-MOBIL!

NOw when plug in hybrids are produced, and assuming Wind Power will contunue its explosive growth (if the DoD will not slow things down too much) this means Plug in Hybrids could be drawing energy from a renewable source and this would help reduce GHG emmissions and petroleum use. Between renewable fuels (ethanol, biodiesel) and plug in hybrids powered up by Wind Power, with Fuel Cells running on ethanol (or ethylene glycol)in a few more years, the future of dramatically reducing our imports of foreign oil and GHG emmisions looks more promising.

NOw, would I like this to take much less time than 25 to 35 years? - definitely! That's why I am appealing to people (other than extractive industry groupies) to email their representatives in governmnent and tell them we need to get moving with renewable fuels in a much more aggressive way than we have been. This really needs to be a national priority. OUr national security and economic strength will be improved with every barrel of oil that is replaced with renwable fuels and increased efficiencies. Even IF we cannot replace ALL the gasoline used in transportation, even IF we can only replace 50% to 70% of it. The fact that we may not replace ALL the gasoline is no argument to not develop the renewables that will get us there. Base upon what unbiased authoritative sources are saying it does look like with with fuel cell cars we will get somewhere around 90% replacement and perhaps 100%.


LEt me state again, this information is just for those who want to be apprised of legitimate research and to try to clear the air of disinformation. I am NOT doing this out of any desire to debate with a "World's greatest undiscovered, unappreciated scientist" or an extractive industry groupie. In my real life, when I see these sorts of people, talking loudly to themselves on the street, I carefully walk around them. But sometimes, one shudders and does unpleasant things to achieve a important end. It is my contempt for disinformation and the realization that we must act to turn around global warming and to strengthen our national security and economy by reducing our imports of foreign oil that drives me to post these comments. I hope some will find these posts informative.

[NNadir]

24. DME can [i]only[/i] be made from coal and oil?

I very much doubt that you either understand chemistry or the chart I posted.

DME, for the record, is a widely manufactured commodity. It is the propellant in hair spray cans and many other aerosols. It is generally not used for energy production, but Japanese and Chinese chemists are well on the way to making it for energy purposes, but unfortunately the plans do currently involve coal. Within the next five years, nuclear reactors will be operating in China that can produce energy from the well understood hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to make DME.

For instance, not that I see any evidence that you will have a remote clue about what this means, zeolite supported copper-manganese oxide catalysts have been shown to give effective yields of DME with high catalyst turnover. Chinese chemists published this research Catalyst Letters, 72, pp 121-124, (2001). Carbon dioxide, if they haven't heard this at ethanol lobby school, is a constituent of the atmosphere, and a troubling one at that.

If you insist on name dropping as in "ORNL study," as if everything published at ORNL is incontrovertible by the nature of the institution, I could cite the Nobel Prize winning chemist George Olah on DME, but it is completely over your head. You know nothing about science.

[depakid]

5. I wouldn't exactly call Jeremy Leggett a Luddite

He was their chief scientist during the early years of what he called the carbon wars. He was on the front lines (as was GreenPeace) at the very beginning of this "debate."

Here's a short paper describing his outlook with GreenPeace just prior to the second IPCC Assessment.

Judge for yourselves whether he and the organization (despite some of their issues) have not been worthy allies:

http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/leggett.html

Seems to me that groups like GreenPeace, along with others are simply struggling with the facts. With energy issues, there are no free lunches. Only tradeoffs, and perhaps Hobson's choices.

More from the Independent's article:

Are biofuels a way to save the planet?

Yes...

* They are carbon neutral and so do not add to net emissions of greenhouse gases

* They can lessen global demand for fossil fuels

* They involve the transport sector where carbon emissions are growing fastest

No...

* Vast areas of rainforest might have to be cut down to provide the cropland necessary to grow enough of them to make an impact on CO2 emissions

* They can be exploited for 'green-washing' motor transport, making gas-guzzlers look environmentally friendly

* They might provide a toehold in Europe for producers of GM crops

[NNadir]

6. I would.

If you think that the solution to global climate change is prayer, you are a luddite.

If you make a statement like this one: "Solar energy production emits no greenhouse gases," you really need to learn some chemistry.

[depakid]

7. You won't get very far with your efforts then

Alienating one's allies is not a very effective path towrd teaching them- much less motivating them toward postive change. The nuclear industry has a long way to go to gain public acceptance- though as we can see with Lovelock, it's making headway. Slowly.

Also, if one has a notion that Nuclear Power- especially on the scale that some envision doesn't require massive fossil fuel inputs- I'd say that person needs to re-take freshman physics.

[NNadir]

10. Let's be clear on who MY allies are.

My allies are people who look at real numbers and draw realistic conclusions.

My allies are not a bunch of middle class spoiled brats who want to pretend that energy comes from only outer space on bright sunny days.

The carbon impacts of various forms of energy are well known. They are measurable.

Moreover, the scale of energy is well known and is measurable.

I have not made a statement that nuclear power has no carbon impact, OK? I have not claimed that nuclear power is risk free. What I have claimed is that nuclear power has minimal carbon impact, and that it is risk minimized.

Now, Greenpeace pays lip service to fighting global climate change, but their main raison d'etre seems to be fighting against nuclear power. Maybe they should look at the energy chart I have posted elsewhere in this thread. Maybe someone should enforce our little diesel boat day sailors about what coal is, what its external cost is, and how that external cost compares with their real (completely ignorant and paranoid) fight is about, the ignoramus fight against nuclear power, about which they obsess against all reason.

I am not going to applaud people for trying to prove that global climate change exists. That doesn't get a brazillion points from me. The existence of global climate change is well known already, and providing a few references to publications in Science is not all that impressive. I am, rather disposed to applaud those who look at the numbers, assess what they mean and act not based on vaguely defined "ideals" but on the basis of the options as they exist.

As always, the numbers can still be found systematically assessed, here: www.externe.info

Greenpeace consists of a bunch of poorly educated circus performers who want everyone to believe that their paranoia is morally or intellectually acceptable. It isn't.

Anyone who is fighting nuclear power harder than they are fighting coal is not on my side. In fact I regard such people as threatening the lives of my children. I despise them actually, something I rarely keep secret. I don't really understand why that should be so fucking hard to understand. To my mind the Greenpeace denial squad is on the same planet, the same moral level, with other denial squads, including the people occupying the White House.

Clearly your announcement of who my allies are indicates only that you know nothing at all about who I am. Of course, it is none of your business who I am, but I will say this for myself: I don't need some fucking organization to explain how I think or how I should think. I work hard at thinking and so I am sure to think for myself.

It doesn't have to be as bad as it is probably going to be, the crisis in energy and its environmental impact, specifically global climate change. There are solutions that can realistically be employed. Tens of thousands of PhD's have been awarded in detailing the options and many people of high intellect have devoted their lives to weighing the solutions.

The main reason that it will be so bad is willful stupidity.

I'm sorry, but dressing up in bunny suits and "bad scientist" suits doesn't fucking cut it. The matter is fucking serious.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/greenpeace-activists-dressed-u

[depakid]

12. One thing I'll say is that you rarely mince words

However, if you think we have any shot at taking on the coal theocrats without the help of everyone involved in the environmental movement- I think you're being seriously unrealistic.

Perhaps even counter productive.

I largely agree with you about nuclear power, btw- and I'm also ambivalent about biofuels. They'll be useful to an extent- particlarly in rural areas for ag uses, but anyone who thinks we're going to run the interstate highway system- or the crazy largely self-organized complexity of suburbia and some of our major unsustainable cities on biofuels will be sorely mistaken. The math on that doesn't come close to adding up.

Likewise with Jeremy Rifkin's hydrogen economy. Now, you want to talk about a joke written by an otherwise reasonable guy (Amory Lovins has a tendency to fall into that camp, sometimes too).

Yet I don't dismiss all their ideas outright- that would be foolish- from what I can see, we need all the help can get on every front- and there's no sense in throwing the babies out with the bathwater over even over what might seem to be well deserved vendettas.

The bottom line here- as ANY systems scientist will tell you, is that we as a society are about to decomplexify on a number of levels. One can speculate on the forms those will take- but the fact is without cheap petroleum inputs (or some miraculous new energy subsidy) we've overshot our degraded carrying capacity- both in the US and worldwide. Also, if you take broader systems approach- from a synthesis of the literature it seems pretty clear to me that our problem solving capabilities and reached- and are probably past the point of diminishing marginal returns.

Political systems scientist Karl Deutsch (for those of you who don't know him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Deutsch) would say that we've lost much of our stearing capacity. I think proof positive on that one was when Reagan tore the solar panels off of the Whitehouse.

So as the shit begins to hit energy economic fans- along with the inevitable clamor for coal- these vendettas and disagreements between groups will start getting very expensive. I think as time goes on and we're faced with more egregious choices, you'll see GreenPeace coming around on nuclear power. I'm already seeing it in my area- the difference between this year and last at the VBC workshops in Portland for example, were pretty amazing.

Bottom up permaculture type stuff- including people working with GreenPeace- are part of the overall solution. Do they need leadership from the PhD types? Of course. But better to turn them on with the cool science than turn them off with derision.

I should also add that there's a lot we have to learn from ordinary- and seemingly unsophisticated people, too.

[NNadir]

15. OK then, since I'm supposed to take Greenpeace seriously...

...maybe they can tell me about the life cycle analysis of their chicken suits.



http://www.greenpeace.org.au/features/features_details.html?site_id=45&news_id=1605

One is inclined to wonder exactly what the environmental impact of trucking reporters around for the stunts is, or how much oil exactly is required to truck chicken suits around the world, but hey, that for the salaried (probably high salaried) staff of Greenpeace marketing consultants to conceal, not me.

Here is why Greenpeace will not come around on nuclear power: They are morons.

They are a force for ignorance and stupidity. To my mind they have zero credibility with respect to the serious environmental issues in which all humanity has a stake.

You may mention them along with a plethora of irrelevant conceptions and dropped names but I am never going to accept these people as decent human beings. They are circus clowns trivializing an important matter that needs sober and realistic address and needs it quickly. There is very little time left. I believe we can still save part of what was worth saving, but again, there is very little time left.

In view of the dire emergency I am never going to give these people any respect. To repeat, they are uneducated middle class luddites.

My guess is that someone somewhere is making a lot of money from this Greenpeace parlor show and having a royal time watching Seinfeld reruns on the big screen plasma TV and chuckling very loudly even though nothing is really very funny.

With this in mind, it would be interesting to find out who lives next door to the Lovins mansion in Snowmass, CO.

[depakid]

19. You still don't get it

So I'm just going to say it plainly, in very simple terms.

You're a decent chemist- your stuff checks out.

The people here who you disagree with- they're cool people- each and every one can teach you something, probably a whole lot more than you care to know. I learn really great stuff from people here all the time.

Often where I least expect it-

The behavior I've seen lately smacks of an arrogant reductionalist- at least that's the first description that comes to mind- but (aside from just doing that) I won't head off in that direction- because you and I- and everyone here have common goals.

Think about that from time to time- it's not so hard to do.

[NNadir]

20. And you still don't get it.

When I learn something from someone here, it's great.

But I have learned nothing at all from Greenpeace, except that large organizations often consist of people who trivialize important issues.

You keep mixing things up, talking about Jeremy Rifkin and Greenpeace and now DU E&E forum and Greenpeace. I think the record is clear that I do not confuse Greenpeace with the E&E forum. When someone here teaches me something - and one of my purposes in coming here is to learn - I believe I make it clear. It is true that there is a subset of people, a very small fraction, who continually spout the rosary as offered by the Greenpeace vatican. It's also true that I have learned next to nothing from these people. In fact in several years of tenure here, the only interesting thing I've learned from a member of the Greenpeace prayer group is that sometimes microscope slides are prepared using supercritical carbon dioxide.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to badger me. My role here - as I see it is to shake up some rote thinking about energy and risk. I work hard at some of my posts, and frequently I learn a good deal researching them, often taking time to go through the primary scientific literature. Often I am met with lazy links to the Greenpeace website.

This is a website for liberals, a group among which I am proud to include myself. Here we have great fun picking up on the lazy thinking, tortured logic, and self-serving nonsense that continually drools out of the dogma spouting lips of our "government." That said, since the invention of the internet, I have discovered that not all dogma, lazy thinking and poor analytical skills are associated with the right. We have a subset of people on the left who also think poorly. Happily this fraction is much smaller on the left than on the right but nonetheless it exists. Not everyone who voted for Al Gore is really my ally. Most, maybe the vast majority are but neither being a Democrat, nor being a member of DU instantaneously accords my rote respect. My respect for people is based on what people think and say for themselves, just as any respect I may get from others is based on what I think and say.

[Ready4Change]

13. While I agree with you, it's partly the current choice of feedstocks.

Most of the numbers I've been seeing promoted in the media are based on using corn as a feedstock, which is considered by most to be one of the least efficient crops for that purpose.

There are a bunch of superior crops that depend on tropical climates. But even in cooler climes there are clearly better choices.

Making ethanol from corn is like running a bank without computers. Sure you can do it, but there's a better way.

Regarding Greenpeace, I kinda agree with you. They often far more keen to protest problems than they are to promote solutions. Pity, as I agree with a lot of their basic motivations.

[bananas]

14. Greenpeace isn't "rethinking" anything

The word "rethinking" doesn't appear anywhere in that article,
but another paragraph explains their "reservations":

Environmentalists reject the idea that biofuels could be a "drop-in" solution to go into the tank of your gas-guzzling 4x4 and suddenly turn it green. They might contribute to a truly green solution in cars that were hyper-fuel-efficient, says Greenpeace, but by themselves they do not do it: it is the demand for fuel which has to be cut back in the first place. The planet will not be saved by putting a different fuel, however carbon-neutral it might be, into more and more, bigger and bigger cars.

[NNadir]

16. It was a poor choice of words, "think" and Greenpeace" in the same

sentence.

Greenpeace would be incapable of "rethinking" anything, since the ability to rethink requires thinking in the first place. It seems I have made an error in language and chosen an unfortunate locution, as we all do from time to time.

I will try to avoid oxymora in the future.

[melnjones]

17. Just for the record,

I like Greenpeace.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. At the risk of siding with Greenpeace...

I share some of their concerns (or cerebral diarrhea, whichever :)) about the impact biofuels could have on non-developed land - especially since the announcement a few weeks ago of a large biofuels facility in Houston, more famous for it's port that it's endless wheat-fields.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :D

[NNadir]

21. The point is not that they have these concerns. I do share them.

The point is that whenever a technology is tried on an industrial scale, they're against it. For decades they have been bad mouthing nuclear power because of the grand renewable fantasy, of which biofuels is a part. Now, biofuels - for better or worse - is suddenly a hot and sexy idea. All of a sudden Greenpeace is jumping up with all sorts of reservations, establishing, once and for all, that to which they really object is anything that works, or in the case of biofuels, may work.

The Greenpeace clock is occassionally right, of course. I think every member here agrees that conservation is a good idea and a perfectly reasonable and workable strategy for addressing global climate change. But one does have to think Greenpeace is great because one believes in conservation. Nor should anyone believe that everything can be solved if only there is enough conservation. We need energy that can produce on an exajoule scale now.

It happens that I am a pacifist. I believe war is always morally wrong. The Mennonites are also pacificists. They believe that war is always morally wrong. It does not follow that I believe that the Mennonites are the ultimate source of moral reasoning.

Our weak minded media for some reason seems to think it appropriate to go to Greenpeace for environmental commentary. This is really, really unfortunate, since Greenpeace consists largely of people who can't think, who don't understand the environment and who are working against environmental sanity.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. I have an alternate hypothesis:

Remember the monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare?

I just slapped up a spreadsheet to work out how long it would take 5,000,000 monkeys to produce "ethanol bad" on a typewriter at 1 character per second: ~35 years

Guess Greenpeace's peak membership. For an encore, guess how long ago they formed.

:D

"Ethanol" is the same length as "Fission" of course, so it's no surprise these policies came out at almost the same time. "Nuke" is much shorter, of course, so that policy should have been in place ~15.6 hours after they formed. Which it probably was...

Look on the bright side: by the time they develop a "transmutation of actinides bad" policy, 54,951,511,049,960,900,000,000,000,000 years will have passed - along with the sun, and anything resembling homo sapiens.

Unless they boost their membership, that is... :scared: