> >This longish (about 13,000 words), extremely interesting and
>>more-convincing-than-I-expected article argues that cellulose
>>bio-mass based ethanol is not only unsustainable as a fuel but
>>has a severe cost far in excess of its value and causes
>>unaffordable long term damage to the agricultural systems
>>on which it depends.

> I looked at the editors note heading it, and it seems the article is 
> a
> treatise on an argument I have heard here in the UK, that converting
> existing food producing farmland to ethanol producing crops is a bad 
> way to
> go. HOWEVER there are crops suitable for producing ethanol that will 
> grow
> quite satisfactorily on ground that is too poor to grow food 
> producing
> crops, in arid areas, and my understanding of the argument is that 
> these
> areas should be put to this use, rather than food producing 
> farmland.

> I don't have any references to documents on this, but may find some 
> time to
> try and track some down.

I've met that argument of course.
You'll find that, while the "soil too poor to be useful" argument 
notionally addresses some of the issues raised by this paper, it 
doesn't address them all.
Without attempting to reprise what can be read in much more competent 
form in the paper, issues such as irrigation, general effect on biota 
and overall ecosystem from fertilisers, destabilisation of topsoil, 
and  quite a lot more still needs addressing and the author would 
argue (with some apparent merit) that the idea still falls short of 
the mark.

However, even if such arguments were overcome, there's the cute 
concept of "ground that is too poor to grow food producing crops, in 
arid areas".
Arguably (and I'd lean towards being convinced) there is no such land 
in existence that can be more profitably utilised for eg ethanol 
production. If you can grow a cellulose based product on it you can 
find a food crop that will grow there as well and expect a greater net 
'real' return. AFAIR there was a link about this posted on this list a 
while ago - quite possibly by me :-).
AFAIR candidate crops for "as bad and as dry as it comes"  were 
listed.

And fwiw, if people *can* grow fuel based crops on land suitable for 
food growth and make short term personal profits from this and there 
is no 'big picture' oversight, what do you expect would happen. This 
of course immediately raises the 'the land is mine and I can do what I 
want with it' arguments and there will be at least one 
usually-a-lurker seeing this line of argument as leading to a commo 
pinko left wing socialist anti-capitalist sellout. BUT it doesn't have 
to be as long as the *total* costs of actions taken by individuals are 
factored into the mix. You are then welcome  to make whatever use of 
your capital that you wish as long as you bear not only all the 
benefits but also all the costs of your actions. Of course, when the 
total costs are debateable (which often happens when we are looking at 
systems with very long term multi-generational lifecycles) and/or when 
government subsidies and/or protection warp 'the invisible hand' 
realities, then true costings don't occur. As an example, this is the 
situation in the nuclear power industry, which is gearing up worldwide 
for another push towards the light*, with massive effective subsidies, 
unprecedented government protections which other industries would 
dearly love to have, and a complete inability (and unwillingness where 
it is possible) to genuinely cost the genuine lifecycle costs of 
operating the business. [[Any business that has a revenue producing 
phase of a few decades and a subsequent maintenance phase of a few 
tens or more of millenia where the remains of the plant must be 
genuinely securely maintained at a high level of security, has an 
inordinately difficult time showing a DCF positive net present value. 
This doesn't seem to deter anyone involved from seeking the available 
short term gains and leaving the fallout (pun very intended) to 
hundreds of subsequent generations.]]

Ethanol crop soil destruction seems minor in comparison:-)
But, it may not be :-(



        Russell


* possibly very very very bright light :-)

(yes yes, I know, that was  a joke.
As in "fine and warm and very very bright")



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist