Tuesday
Aug162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Five years later
Aug 16, 2011 Climate: WG3 Energy: biofuels Greens Research published last week in the US journal Science found that not only could bioethanol replace petrol with big energy savings, it would produce up to 15% less greenhouse gas emissions.
Turning corn into ethanol is not environmentally sound," said Bill Freese of the Centre for Food Safety. "It's really an environmental disaster."
Once again, we see that environmentalism is very bad for the environment and that its combination with big government can bring about catastrophe.
Reader Comments (27)
Bish these people are impervious to logic.
In their upside-down world, being wrong in the past means you must be correct this time and won't someone please think of the children.
I like Martin Durkin's phrase "designer anti-capitalism".
The AGW druids don't care about the collateral damage they cause, as long as they can vent their rage and envy on successful people.
Nor do they care about reality if it disagrees with their beliefs, so are able to change their tack very quickly in the face of inconvenient facts.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/categories/tags/biodiesel?page=1
I always like to keep the above link handy at times like these. It shows Greeenpeace's past enthusiam for the madness of biodiesel.
Well worth pondering while listening to them tell us, via the IPCC , that it is quite possible for us globally to be obtaining 80% of our energy from "renewables" by 2050.
Er.....that is it.
Bill Freese calls this "an environmental disaster" but even that is a disgraceful 'Western' way of looking at it. This is a humanitarian disaster first and foremost. Two weeks ago a report of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization made crystal clear that the recent spike in world food prices was not due to increased demand from countries like China, as had been assumed. The only remaining reason is the false demand for biofuels - false because, as the Bish implies, it's only Big Government subsidies (in the US, note, the George W Bush administration achieved what Carter and his successors had failed to) that make it worthwhile for farmers to take life-giving sustainance from the mouths of the poor and, flying in the face of all history and humanity, convert to a liquid to feed our motor cars.
I introduced Andrew to Glyn Moody last year, as we talked through what openness for climate science should mean in the light of Climategate. I mention that because it was Glyn who put us both on to the excellent Guardian article two weeks ago that removes all doubt about the effect of biofuels on world food prices - and thus the poorest in places like the Horn of Africa. (High world prices will always play their part in the destruction, once the breakdown of Somalia into lawlessness plus drought sent the area to the brink by vastly increasing local prices.)
As others have already said, this should cause all those concerned with carbon emissions a very serious pause for thought. Glyn Moody is one of those that I know best and respect the most. I'm sure the point is not lost on such people.
In a slightly related story, on the BBC Today programme this morning, at around 7.20, David Shukman had a story about offshore wind being too expensive, featuring Oxford Professor Dieter Helm.
In fact there is a BBC news story about it,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14412189
showing that offshore wind is the most expensive energy option.
PaulM Aug 16, 2011 at 9:14 AM
Is the cost of offshore wind fully known, yet?
“The elephant in the wind turbine”
“Wind turbine gearboxes have yet to achieve their original design life goals of 20 years.”
“Most turbines require significant repairs and even complete overhauls in the 5-7 year range.”
http://www.stle.org/assets/news/document/Cover_Story_06-10.pdf
Whilst, there is doubt engineering advances will be made, if significant repairs have to be carried out in deep water farms the costs are going to be extremely high.
The justification for this immensely expensive renewable energy programme is incorrect physics.
There's currently a discussion on WUWT about 'back radiation' from greenhouse gases. Willis Eschebach, normally sound, has really embarrassed himself by arguing that 'DLR' [greater than insolation] heats the oceans. He hasn't the faintest idea about radiation physics: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/
'Back radiation is an artefact of a mathematical mistake by Sir Arthur Milne in 1922. They confuse this with 'Prevost Energy Exchange', the self-cancelling radiation flow, up and down,side to side, emitted by any body above absolute zero: the difference is zero at thermal equilibrium.
They then fail to understand that 'DLR' from clouds is higher because of higher emissivity [c. 1] compared with moist air [c. 0.1]. What I have suggested is that all contributors read Hoyt C. Hottell's 1954 paper on calculating the emissivity of gases and also study Kirchhoff's Radiation law [emissivity = absorptivity at thermal equilibrium, a corollary of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics].
Another contributor has suggested that the pyrgeometer instruments used in climate science should be sold only in pairs, one up, one down, so the output is always the difference.
It really is this bad; we have supposed physical scientists who haven't an adequate understanding of heat transfer. We engineers must know it otherwise production plants don't work.
[There are two other mistakes, one is that 'cloud albedo effect' cooling is really heating, a mistake by Carl Sagan, and the IPCC claims about palaeo climate are wrong but can be fixed by correcting Sagan's physics and looking at bio-feedback from phytoplankton.]
The Greenpeace Guerrilla Garage is open giving away thousands of litres of free bio-diesel
Don'tcha just love these guys......?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/guerrilla-garage-gives-away-bio-deisel
<gush>The Greenpeace Guerrilla Garage will be dispensing bio-diesel - a plant-based fuel that is identical to ordinary diesel but only causes a fraction of the damage to the climate.....</gush>
(Sorry about the bolding above - forgot to turn off a tag)
Andrew Montford is quote mining to conflate two different things, and give a false impression of inconsistency here.
The first quote refers to published peer reviewed work about the green potential of bioethanol. The 2nd is an opinion from one person at a pressure group (which seems to be anti-large scale production in many forms), which alludes to research, but doesn't say what that research is.
The second quote is clearly not such a good source as the first, and is ridiculously weak grounds for Andrew's opinion that "environmentalism is very bad for the environment and that its combination with big government can bring about catastrophe. "
Once again, we see a self-styled sceptic, resoundingly fail to be sceptical, and instead exhibitng bias-confirmation to a strong degree.
On a minor note, I'm also picking up a suggestion in both the way the header was presented, and from the sentiment of the comments below, that the Graun is somehow inconsistent, and that this is a valid criticism of it. The reality is that in both linked articles, the paper is trying to show that the debate is nuanced and has various advantages and disadvantages. For suposed 'sceptics', you should be celebrating its even-handedness, especially as the paper has an explicit green editorial line.
Quote-mining like this, to present a warped view of what was actually reported, is rather tawdry.
Dear Mr Savage,
Regrettably the Greenpeace item you cite - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/categories/tags/biodiesel?page=1 seems to have disappeared. Any chance of you or A N Other finding a link to it ?
"On a minor note, I'm also picking up a suggestion in both the way the header was presented, and from the sentiment of the comments below, that the Graun is somehow inconsistent,"
Zeddy Baby, there's nothing wrong with being inconsistent if the facts change you should change you mind. What is wrong is t that it has been known for years that biofuels are useless and that their production is taking the food out of the mouths of the world's indigents, but because their production supports the crazy notion that we can live without hydro-carbons and nuclear energy to provide our energy the Guardian remained silent. The truth is that environmentalists don't give a FF for human beings. It's been proved time and time again (DDT anyone?).
Zed
What's your view on corn ethanol?
Thank you Zed.
However, we are given links to both articles and can go and make up our own minds. Your accusation of "quote-mining" is bogus. (P.S. Accusations of "quote-mining" and "taken out of context" are , in my experience, usually just wriggling and actually a sign of being "caught bang to rights".
"....a suggestion that the Grun is somehow inconsistant..."
Au contraire... I think the suggestion is that, as a general rule, the Grun can be relied upon to parrot and promote any current Green/Global Warming "meme-du-jour" without subjecting it to any genuine objective analysis.
When Greenpeace says biodiesel is good...it is good. When Greenpeace says biodiesel is bad...it will be bad.
I do not have a problem with uncritical puff pieces as long as there is no attempt to regard them as journalism.
@Cassio
You are right! It has been disappeared! Gone down the memory hole never to be seen again!
It was there earlier today. It would seem that Greenpeace do have a sense of shame after all.
Worthy of a post in itself, eh?
Cassio, Jack Savage -
Try this link instead.
"Zed
What's your view on corn ethanol?"
Aug 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM | Bishop Hill
A bit better than oil, but not much. Easy to see why it's big in the States. Not comfortable with the direct food/energy trade off it entails.
I doubt it'll be a big player in fossil fuel replacement in 20 years, as there are already superior clean technologies extant now.
ZedsDeadBed: "I doubt it'll be a big player in fossil fuel replacement in 20 years ..."
And will you still be using the moniker ZedsDeadBed in 20 years time, when we can discuss the accuracy or otherwise of this prediction? I will still be known as Richard Drake. It's one of the key advantages of using one's common name, whatever internet fora evolve into.
Aug 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM | Richard Drake
Ah - the old 'please can you tell us your identity' comment. No. I'm pretty sure that some of the people who post here aren't the full shilling, and there's no way I'd give out my real name.
No, I wasn't asking for that, I was asking whether you are sure you'll be using the same moniker in 2031 and, if not, whether you will in any sense be traceable and accountable then as the person that made this prediction with such apparent sincerity and solemnity now. I say we underrate the importance of such issues every day on the current, very immature internet. Reputation matters - and the hit those of us who use our real names take when we get things wrong matters. It reduces the stupidity. And the story of biofuels shows that stupidity combined with vested interests can be deadly.
Which brings me to those on blogs such as this who are not the full shilling. Do you feel that the likelihood of you coming to serious harm if your identity was known is greater than the threat or harm to billions of human beings from anthropogenic climate change? How does your risk calculation work? What risks would you be willing to take personally, given the dangers from AGW you say you believe in? In past history have grave threats to humanity been able to be overcome by people without even their identity becoming known? Didn't real people have to give their very lives to overcome evil in the past? Or is it that you don't think there is such a grave threat in this generation after all? It's all a bit trivial, perhaps simply a way of attracting and maintaining government funding. I'm fascinated to know.
Well, we can all think of one, Zed...
I think this again an appropriate time for Zeds to consider that he/she may be on the wrong side of this.
Andrew
Zed
Since bio-fuels are to all intents and purposes a direct replacement for fossil fuels one wonders why there is the need to replace one with the other.
It has been pointed out here and elsewhere that every acre used to grow corn for ethanol is an acre not being used to feed the population of the world, many of whom are close to starving (or actually starving) thanks to politically-induced famine — whether intentionally so or not one can debate.
Like a lot of other things to do with "saving the planet" the idea was launched with a great fanfare (and a lot of luvverly subsidee). The 15% saving on CO2 (which was always a bit of a 'pluck it out of the air' figure) was in effect the only justification for it.
More recent research suggests that at best it is carbon neutral and may even be a net disbenefit because of its lower efficiency.
You are quite right to be uncomfortable with the food/energy trade-off and it's good to have you say it but it tends to support the contention that what you are doing here is "blogger-stalking", the insistence of one individual on chasing down any posting by the blog owner which can possibly be used (in their eyes) as a means to discredit him.
To what end?
I’m fascinated by Zed’s apparent view of the Bishop’s blog followers as a blood-thirsty rabble poised to descend on Truro the moment we learn his/her true identity. Too much time on the Daily Mail website, perhaps?
BH said, """"Once again, we see that environmentalism is very bad for the environment and that its combination with big government can bring about catastrophe."""""
-----------
BH,
Classic. Thanks.
I have found that the fundamental position to take with ideological environmentalists is the irrationality of their premise that man's fallibility must be removed to prevent inevitable environmental evils that must result from freedom. They advocate, as men, to forcibly prevent man's fallibility; self-refuting. That kind of irrationality only works in a quasi-religious framework where special infallible knowledge is processed by the few.
I love this quote from Ludwig von Mises, """"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."""""
John
Zed
"superior clean technologies"
Do tell.
Zed, most rational, intelligent adults tend to be inconsistent over the long term. It's called 'learning new stuff'.
Many very intelligent people were once convinced that the Euro was a Good Thing - now, not so much. Greenpeace appears to be learning that many of their former environmental policies were/are bad for the peoples of the earth in the long term and I give them credit for that, at least.
Your dislike of the Bish shows, rather, and your pronouncements tend to be both unseemly and intemperate. If you read his book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion', you may gain a much-needed insight into the Bish's character and ability. You may learn some new stuff, too.
Finally, Zed, good debating technique is personified in the debates of the Viscount Monckton. Whatever you feel about the good Lord, you could learn a lot from his style, which is based on both knowing stuff and being able to recall it seamlessly 'on the hoof'.