The hysteria over global warming continues to obscure the broader issue of sustainability. Though, in a 'rising tide lifts all boats' sort of way, it may still be a good thing, I still worry that the broader point is getting missed as most people try to sort out the global warming debate.
Since I haven't posted in a while, let me summarize my view of climate change. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in at the current rate (or anything like it) will cause the planet to keep more of the sun's energy than it radiates. The temperature of the planet WILL rise. This is pretty basic physics and thermodynamics. In the short term, the dynamic systems of the biosphere will adjust (and have been doing so for 100 years), and we won't see many effects. However, virtually every biological system that has been stressed in a similar manner has snapped at some point. We see this in small systems as well as the climate record in response to other changes. What happens next is unclear, it may start snowing more for all we know, but it will probably cause a global crisis.
My bigger point is that we need to take some action and move on. Carbon dioxide emissions are not the only environmental threat that has the potential to cause global instability. There are more out there. Fresh water is a big one you here about. Simply running out of fossil fuels is an issue that will get solved by alternative energy solutions. Environmental contamination may not cause a singular crisis, but it may be a severe burden that opens the door for something else like the next pandemic.
Sustainability is broad philosophy that will help curb the effects of most of these. If every process can account for every input and output, then most of these problems are solved and we can get back to dealing with the political and social issues.
I bring this up again because I just read an article about an issue I hadn't thought of that fall right into this line of thinking: peak phosphorous.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Protein sources
The Green Lantern at Slate just addressed a question that's been bugging me for a while now. How does tofu stack up against meat for environmental impact? Soy protein is better than animal protein in most regards, but there is a whole lot of processing involved in making tofu. How does that tilt the balance?
Rastogi references a Dutch study that ranked Dutch made tofu slightly worse than Dutch raised chicken. She then takes a stab at adjusting the results for the US and decides that US tofu is probably better than chicken, but not dramatically. The change is mostly because the dutch get beans from South America.
The Dutch study is worth a look, even if the results cannot be translated directly to the US. It covers every protein source from veggie patties, to cheese, to fish and back. A quick look at the graphs (I haven't read the whole thing) revealed to surprises to me. First, cheese is horrible in this regard. Second, lamb is the worst thing ever. Which is too bad, because I wanted lamb to be a earth friendlier alternative to beef. Ah, well, I guess I'll have to live with the guilt.
Eggs, nuts, chicken, tofu, and most fish are all about the same. Milk is a slightly better and local seafood is even better than milk. Their numbers also indicate that cutting out dairy reduces greenhouse gasses as much as going meatless. That must be mostly the cheese.
Keep in mind that this is a Dutch study and the focus is greenhouse gasses. So if, like me, your concern extends to other pollutants and effects, don't treat these numbers as gospel. However, I haven't seen anything else half as useful.
Rastogi references a Dutch study that ranked Dutch made tofu slightly worse than Dutch raised chicken. She then takes a stab at adjusting the results for the US and decides that US tofu is probably better than chicken, but not dramatically. The change is mostly because the dutch get beans from South America.
The Dutch study is worth a look, even if the results cannot be translated directly to the US. It covers every protein source from veggie patties, to cheese, to fish and back. A quick look at the graphs (I haven't read the whole thing) revealed to surprises to me. First, cheese is horrible in this regard. Second, lamb is the worst thing ever. Which is too bad, because I wanted lamb to be a earth friendlier alternative to beef. Ah, well, I guess I'll have to live with the guilt.
Eggs, nuts, chicken, tofu, and most fish are all about the same. Milk is a slightly better and local seafood is even better than milk. Their numbers also indicate that cutting out dairy reduces greenhouse gasses as much as going meatless. That must be mostly the cheese.
Keep in mind that this is a Dutch study and the focus is greenhouse gasses. So if, like me, your concern extends to other pollutants and effects, don't treat these numbers as gospel. However, I haven't seen anything else half as useful.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
CarFreeWithKids and BusChick ask: what do you do about friends in the burbs if you don't have a car?
We're actually on the other end of this dilemma (sort of). I love being in a small, locally dense, town, but to our friends in the city, we may as well be in a sprawling suburban development.
We realize that, most of the time, we'll have to do the driving to see our friends. We understand that our friends didn't count on having to make frequent trips out here when they planned their lives. When we go into the city for any reason, we try to visit someone while we're there, to get the most out of each trip. Often, we try to meet half way (literally). Drumlin farm is a favorite, but it's not really accessible without a car, so it doesn't help if your friends are truly car free. But there are some nice spots on the commuter rail that would work. Hopkington State Park is close to the Worcester line and accessible to most anywhere "MetroWest." Many of the commuter rail stops are in nice town centers where it could be fun to meet for an extended lunch.
That said, it does hurt when folks won't make the trip out here for big events. We haven't black listed anyone, but when we are in the city, looking for someone to meet up with at the last moment, we're more likely to call folks who've made the effort to come out here. It's not out of spite as much as who would be more likely to want us to crash their plans.
My philosophy with most things related to self improvement is that I'm going to start with the easy stuff. I look for changes that will make the biggest difference with the least impact on folks I care about. Cut out short car trips. Try eating 25% of the meat you used to. Set a limit ($10 a week?) on non-local produce. I had a similar philosophy when Mandy was pregnant. The stress of avoiding every last source of danger to the baby was worse for the baby than anything. Yeah, don't smoke or drink, but if one snack of raw milk cheese is going to improve your mood, it is probably worth the risk.
Stressing yourself out about your carbon footprint isn't going to hurt the environment. (It may shorten your life, which would lower your lifetime footprint.) But it may alienate folks and let them continue to see climate change as a cause for nutjobs. If you can cut out 75% of your footprint without affecting the way you interact with others, maybe you can inspire more people to make changes in their lives.
I'm all for some folks going car-free or vegan, but most people are going to see that and turn away. There also needs to be a moderate movement with less drastic changes that includes more people. That way folks who are just starting to think green, can do something positive from the outset.
Everyone changing to CFLs isn't going to save the planet, but everyone cutting their meat consumption by 75%, their car use by 50%, and their electricity by 30% (to pick completely arbitrary, but achievable numbers) just might have a huge impact.
There is a good article in the Washington Post that covers much of the same ground.
We're actually on the other end of this dilemma (sort of). I love being in a small, locally dense, town, but to our friends in the city, we may as well be in a sprawling suburban development.
We realize that, most of the time, we'll have to do the driving to see our friends. We understand that our friends didn't count on having to make frequent trips out here when they planned their lives. When we go into the city for any reason, we try to visit someone while we're there, to get the most out of each trip. Often, we try to meet half way (literally). Drumlin farm is a favorite, but it's not really accessible without a car, so it doesn't help if your friends are truly car free. But there are some nice spots on the commuter rail that would work. Hopkington State Park is close to the Worcester line and accessible to most anywhere "MetroWest." Many of the commuter rail stops are in nice town centers where it could be fun to meet for an extended lunch.
That said, it does hurt when folks won't make the trip out here for big events. We haven't black listed anyone, but when we are in the city, looking for someone to meet up with at the last moment, we're more likely to call folks who've made the effort to come out here. It's not out of spite as much as who would be more likely to want us to crash their plans.
My philosophy with most things related to self improvement is that I'm going to start with the easy stuff. I look for changes that will make the biggest difference with the least impact on folks I care about. Cut out short car trips. Try eating 25% of the meat you used to. Set a limit ($10 a week?) on non-local produce. I had a similar philosophy when Mandy was pregnant. The stress of avoiding every last source of danger to the baby was worse for the baby than anything. Yeah, don't smoke or drink, but if one snack of raw milk cheese is going to improve your mood, it is probably worth the risk.
Stressing yourself out about your carbon footprint isn't going to hurt the environment. (It may shorten your life, which would lower your lifetime footprint.) But it may alienate folks and let them continue to see climate change as a cause for nutjobs. If you can cut out 75% of your footprint without affecting the way you interact with others, maybe you can inspire more people to make changes in their lives.
I'm all for some folks going car-free or vegan, but most people are going to see that and turn away. There also needs to be a moderate movement with less drastic changes that includes more people. That way folks who are just starting to think green, can do something positive from the outset.
Everyone changing to CFLs isn't going to save the planet, but everyone cutting their meat consumption by 75%, their car use by 50%, and their electricity by 30% (to pick completely arbitrary, but achievable numbers) just might have a huge impact.
There is a good article in the Washington Post that covers much of the same ground.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
A mark against frozen foods
In an effort to reduce impact, we've tried to avoid buying too much fresh produce that's not produced locally. It's certainly not the 100 mile diet, but that vast majority of the produce we ate this winter was either canned (mostly by us) or frozen. It seems to me that you'd get better tasting food for less energy if you preserve produce at it's peak and ship it preserved rather than try to ship fresh food around the planet.
There are some obvious costs to preserving food. Canning requires a fair bit of heat, and frozen foods require refrigeration. But it gets worse for frozen foods. Apparently, even the non-CFC refrigerants are nasty and being emitted in mass by supermarket freezers. They don't kill the ozone layer, but the are potent greenhouse gasses. Wonderful. At least there are alternatives, it's just that most places don't use them.
There are some obvious costs to preserving food. Canning requires a fair bit of heat, and frozen foods require refrigeration. But it gets worse for frozen foods. Apparently, even the non-CFC refrigerants are nasty and being emitted in mass by supermarket freezers. They don't kill the ozone layer, but the are potent greenhouse gasses. Wonderful. At least there are alternatives, it's just that most places don't use them.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
BPA is everywhere!
My Podcast directory is a little backlogged. I read a biography of Mo Berg, MLB catcher turned OSS agent, a while back and remember the description of his apartment in which months or years worth of unread newspapers and magazines were stacked. He insisted on going through them in order and not skipping anything. I'm approaching that with my podcast list.
The point being, the November 21st Environment report just popped up on my playlist. In it we hear that although many dangerous chemicals enter our body through items we purchase and bring home, most of us don't know it. We also hear about a report that BPA leaches out of any kind of plastic in the microwave.
The continual denial of industry spokespersons is laughable at this point. Even if each case is small, people eat lots of stuff from microwaves and much of it is heated in plastic. That's going to add up really quick. If you add up all the BPA in all the Campbell's microwave soups and released the same amount into the water supply of a small city (maybe the same size as the number of soup eaters), you'd hear something about it.
The point being, the November 21st Environment report just popped up on my playlist. In it we hear that although many dangerous chemicals enter our body through items we purchase and bring home, most of us don't know it. We also hear about a report that BPA leaches out of any kind of plastic in the microwave.
The continual denial of industry spokespersons is laughable at this point. Even if each case is small, people eat lots of stuff from microwaves and much of it is heated in plastic. That's going to add up really quick. If you add up all the BPA in all the Campbell's microwave soups and released the same amount into the water supply of a small city (maybe the same size as the number of soup eaters), you'd hear something about it.
Friday, January 2, 2009
The original green revolution
For many of us raised in the last few decades, the words "green revolution" are more likely to thoughts of organic farming and vegan diets than John Deere and Monsanto, but roughly half a century ago, the industrialization of agriculture vastly improved yields and threatened to end large scale hunger.
In the 21st century, the label "Green revolution" is beginning to look poorly named. It did produce huge crop yields, but only with heavy dependence on petroleum to create fertilizer. Industrial agriculture takes a heavy toll on the environment in many ways. First, monoculture directly reduces biodiversity on farms. Heavy pesticide and antibiotic use selects for more virulent pests and destroys the diversity of beneficial bugs (both invertebrates and microbes). Heavy fertilization (along with antibiotics and pesticides and herbicides) wash out into the environment causing blooms of opportunist organisms (algae in lake eutrophication) who drive out other species and upset ecosystems. Corporate farming places a bureaucratic wedge between decision makers and the land causing the deterioration of the environment to go unheeded.
Michelle over at Garden Rants wondered recently if there isn't a better way. I'm inclined to agree with her. I also wanted to point out that one of the lessons I see in the green revolution is that creating more food won't make hunger go away. Hunger seems to be largely a political and economic problem.
By attempting to modernize the third world in the image of the developed world, we have laid bare our shortcomings. Our current model is unsustainable, and the currently developing areas of the world need to change tack and look for new models of sustainable development. We can, I believe, best help that by looking inward to try and address our own failing first, whether as an individual, a community, or a nation.
Of course we can't stop trying to help those around the world who are in desperate need, but we need to stop pretending that our way is the best and only way. We all know the old saying about giving a man a fish. But instead of merely teaching him how we fish, we should helping him find the best way to fish his pond. It will probably work much better than our methods, and we may learn something in the process.
In the 21st century, the label "Green revolution" is beginning to look poorly named. It did produce huge crop yields, but only with heavy dependence on petroleum to create fertilizer. Industrial agriculture takes a heavy toll on the environment in many ways. First, monoculture directly reduces biodiversity on farms. Heavy pesticide and antibiotic use selects for more virulent pests and destroys the diversity of beneficial bugs (both invertebrates and microbes). Heavy fertilization (along with antibiotics and pesticides and herbicides) wash out into the environment causing blooms of opportunist organisms (algae in lake eutrophication) who drive out other species and upset ecosystems. Corporate farming places a bureaucratic wedge between decision makers and the land causing the deterioration of the environment to go unheeded.
Michelle over at Garden Rants wondered recently if there isn't a better way. I'm inclined to agree with her. I also wanted to point out that one of the lessons I see in the green revolution is that creating more food won't make hunger go away. Hunger seems to be largely a political and economic problem.
By attempting to modernize the third world in the image of the developed world, we have laid bare our shortcomings. Our current model is unsustainable, and the currently developing areas of the world need to change tack and look for new models of sustainable development. We can, I believe, best help that by looking inward to try and address our own failing first, whether as an individual, a community, or a nation.
Of course we can't stop trying to help those around the world who are in desperate need, but we need to stop pretending that our way is the best and only way. We all know the old saying about giving a man a fish. But instead of merely teaching him how we fish, we should helping him find the best way to fish his pond. It will probably work much better than our methods, and we may learn something in the process.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Food fight
Although much of the statistics are specific to Japan, many of the messages in this Japanese PSA should probably be heeded all across the developed world. It was produced by the Minisitry of Agriculture, Forests, and Fisheries. It takes on many of the problems inherent in the western diet from health effects, to wastefulness, to security. There is an honesty to it that would be impossible from the USDA given the huge influence lobbyists seem to have in that organization.
The dancing people at the end are a nice touch, and I particularly like the food packer and the gas station attendant fighting over the ear of corn.
(Via infosthetics)
The dancing people at the end are a nice touch, and I particularly like the food packer and the gas station attendant fighting over the ear of corn.
(Via infosthetics)
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Little White Market
Sometime in September, a friend told us that a good friend of her neighbor (and friend), just bought a little old house downtown behind the police station. This person previously was a chef for the Finest Gourmet, a little shop in Mendon that makes prepared dinners. The Bocks had them deliver us a meal after Alex was born. It was quite good and we've gone back a couple of times, usually on butternut squash ravioli night.
Anyway, we walked by there on Saturday and it turns out she opened for business this past Thursday. While we've been hoping for a little cafe/ice cream parlor to open up. The root of that wish was that there might be an afternoon destination downtown. The Litte White Market sells, in addition to catering and selling prepared meals, also sells sandwiches and drinks (including beer and wine). This is pretty exciting. We'll make a point to stop by as much as possible to help her out, because we'd really like to see this place succeed.
She was just closing up as we walked by, so we couldn't do more than poke our heads in. She did mention that she is having a wine tasting on November 20th as a belated grand opening event.
Anyway, we walked by there on Saturday and it turns out she opened for business this past Thursday. While we've been hoping for a little cafe/ice cream parlor to open up. The root of that wish was that there might be an afternoon destination downtown. The Litte White Market sells, in addition to catering and selling prepared meals, also sells sandwiches and drinks (including beer and wine). This is pretty exciting. We'll make a point to stop by as much as possible to help her out, because we'd really like to see this place succeed.
She was just closing up as we walked by, so we couldn't do more than poke our heads in. She did mention that she is having a wine tasting on November 20th as a belated grand opening event.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
It is that easy
In looking for a YouTube link to Mark Bittman's TED presentation, I stumbled upon this recipe for making bread the easy way.
It really is that easy. Next time I'll try with more interesting ingredients.
It really is that easy. Next time I'll try with more interesting ingredients.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Hot, flat, and crowded
I just listened to an interview with Tom Friedman, author of Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
He makes the case that we need systemic change in the way we live to face the coming challenges. The primary challenges are global warming (hot), a globally growing consumer class (flat--yeah, I don't get it either), and overpopulation (crowded). It doesn't sound revolutionary in its content, but he makes very strong arguments in the interview and seems to avoid the moral imperative that seems to get many green proponents pegged as emotional extremists. Although, he does get pretty emotional about it all. Who can blame him?
I also recommend the TED presentation by Mark Bittman on the problems with the western diet. He explicitly avoids the emotional reasons to reduce meat consumption, and makes a strong argument for going (mostly) vegetarian.
He makes the case that we need systemic change in the way we live to face the coming challenges. The primary challenges are global warming (hot), a globally growing consumer class (flat--yeah, I don't get it either), and overpopulation (crowded). It doesn't sound revolutionary in its content, but he makes very strong arguments in the interview and seems to avoid the moral imperative that seems to get many green proponents pegged as emotional extremists. Although, he does get pretty emotional about it all. Who can blame him?
I also recommend the TED presentation by Mark Bittman on the problems with the western diet. He explicitly avoids the emotional reasons to reduce meat consumption, and makes a strong argument for going (mostly) vegetarian.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Canning
As part of our push to have more control over our food, we decided to preserve our own food. We started with all the apples from our recent apple picking trips and the one we get from our farm share. We made a couple batches of applesauce; and it was soon clear that our freezer wasn't big enough to hold it all. So we went out and got some mason jars.
We sealed our first jars yesterday, but not of applesauce. We stopped on the way home from the store at one of our local farm stands, the one we affectionately call, "the old guy." As in: "Lets go see if the old guy has any tomatoes we could save for winter." He did. We figured we'd preserve some tomatoes and some apple sauce. We decided to start with just a few jars and it turns out that our bag of tomatoes took 11 of our 12 jars.
It took some work and a fair bit of time, but it wasn't nearly as hard as we had expected. I had this image in my mind of it being very difficult, the sort of thing that only the most hard-core home chefs would tackle. We'll see if we did it correctly, but, in the mean time, it was simple enough that we'll probably go get some more jars and do the apples next weekend.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
BPA, C-8, and phtalates, oh my
Bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the news again recently. There are also pthalates in PVC and many soft plastics and ammonium perfluorooctanoate from teflon. In our house, we stopped buying polycarbonate bottles years ago (before we moved to California) and use BPA free bottles for our kids. With the latest news cycle, though we realized that most canned foods are also lined with BPA containing materials.
It's a scary world out there right now. The biggest thing we can see to do is to limit the amount of prepared food we eat and remove the obvious toxins from our immediate environment. We've already dropped the hard plastic Nalgene and Avent bottles. Although both are starting to make non-BPA versions, I still feel more comfortable going back to the old polypropylene ones. They're not as pretty but pretty well tested. Most research labs store at least some things in polypro bottles. Someone would have noticed something by now. That's how BPA was recognized as a problem.
We are also going to try to limit canned food until we figure out how to tell which don't use BPA. Apparently it's banned in Canada. Maybe we'll make a monthly trip to Montreal to stock up. That gets at one of the problems we're facing. Last winter we decided to make do with canned veggies instead of fresh imported ones in an attempt to reduce our food-miles. Maybe we'll have to start canning our own stuff in glass jars with what's left of our free time.
It's a scary world out there right now. The biggest thing we can see to do is to limit the amount of prepared food we eat and remove the obvious toxins from our immediate environment. We've already dropped the hard plastic Nalgene and Avent bottles. Although both are starting to make non-BPA versions, I still feel more comfortable going back to the old polypropylene ones. They're not as pretty but pretty well tested. Most research labs store at least some things in polypro bottles. Someone would have noticed something by now. That's how BPA was recognized as a problem.
We are also going to try to limit canned food until we figure out how to tell which don't use BPA. Apparently it's banned in Canada. Maybe we'll make a monthly trip to Montreal to stock up. That gets at one of the problems we're facing. Last winter we decided to make do with canned veggies instead of fresh imported ones in an attempt to reduce our food-miles. Maybe we'll have to start canning our own stuff in glass jars with what's left of our free time.
100 mile diet for America!
In the not too distant past, energy conservation and renewable power sources were just the concern of tree huggers and "cocaine sniffing sierra club yuppies." I think it was 5 years ago, I first read something arguing that energy conservation should also be the concern of hawkish conservatives. This was the first time I saw the term "energy independence". Now, with the addition of religious groups who see humans as the stewards of God's creation, there is some momentum to take on climate change.
However, as I've complained before, global warming is just one of many bad things caused by unsustainable practices. The reckless burning of fossil fuels is just one of many bad things we are doing to the planet and ourselves in the name of short-term profit. There are very few regulations on what can be dumped into landfills and waste water. Nor are there enough controls on what goes into food and consumer goods. This is a problem both for the planet because chemicals and antibiotics that we are dumping both commercially and from our homes will do bad things to ecosystems. It's also bad for people, because there has been no testing for what these chemicals do to people in small doses. This is just one more of many things that is going to come down harder on those without the resources or education to speak up for themselves.
Anyway all this is why we decided earlier this week to try to reduce the amount of prepared and mass-produced food in our diet. It's not the 100 mile diet, but it's more small producers and locally grown stuff. Not long after we made this decision, it came out that something else was contaminated in China. While the tainted Chinese milk likely was not a terrorist act, it underscored to us just how easy it would be to sicken and kill a whole lot of people by putting something in the food supply. The chain is so long with mass produced food that it'd be pretty easy to do.
In addition to making me a little uneasy, it got me thinking that, like energy independence before it, food security will be the next formerly eco-friendly idea to get taken up by the right in the name of national security.
However, as I've complained before, global warming is just one of many bad things caused by unsustainable practices. The reckless burning of fossil fuels is just one of many bad things we are doing to the planet and ourselves in the name of short-term profit. There are very few regulations on what can be dumped into landfills and waste water. Nor are there enough controls on what goes into food and consumer goods. This is a problem both for the planet because chemicals and antibiotics that we are dumping both commercially and from our homes will do bad things to ecosystems. It's also bad for people, because there has been no testing for what these chemicals do to people in small doses. This is just one more of many things that is going to come down harder on those without the resources or education to speak up for themselves.
Anyway all this is why we decided earlier this week to try to reduce the amount of prepared and mass-produced food in our diet. It's not the 100 mile diet, but it's more small producers and locally grown stuff. Not long after we made this decision, it came out that something else was contaminated in China. While the tainted Chinese milk likely was not a terrorist act, it underscored to us just how easy it would be to sicken and kill a whole lot of people by putting something in the food supply. The chain is so long with mass produced food that it'd be pretty easy to do.
In addition to making me a little uneasy, it got me thinking that, like energy independence before it, food security will be the next formerly eco-friendly idea to get taken up by the right in the name of national security.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Farm Work
We went down to our CSA this morning to fulfill the work obligations for our share. Every member owes at least seven hours of work a season, and you can cut your cost in half by working eight hours a week. This is a feature that the CSAs in California lacked. There was no real connection to the farm for the subscribers, just a box that showed up every week.
It was pouring this morning, so we were the only folks out who weren't permanent staff. We were mentally prepared to spend a couple hours in the rain weeding or something, but there was plenty to do in the barn. We spent three hours clipping the dried leaves off of over 300 pounds of garlic. We didn't get wet, but we got a few blisters.
It was pouring this morning, so we were the only folks out who weren't permanent staff. We were mentally prepared to spend a couple hours in the rain weeding or something, but there was plenty to do in the barn. We spent three hours clipping the dried leaves off of over 300 pounds of garlic. We didn't get wet, but we got a few blisters.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Biofuel Folly?
There has been a lot of hype around biofuels over the last year or two. Any sane person can see that corn based ethanol and soy or palm based biodiesel are just plain silly. Switchgrass based ethanol is definitely a step up from corn (if we can ever commercialize it). Crop based fuels have the additional problem that we have to use land that would otherwise produce food (or remain virgin forest in the case of sugar cane or palm) to get these meager energy increases. The land is more valueable in other uses.
So why are we still hearing about corn? Because it can be done today. Never mind that it's not much of an improvement over fossil fuels. There is a big lobby behind it and it gets results now, even if the results are not worth anything. Thankfully, we're starting to hear some vocal opposition to these fuels from some sensible folks.
Photovoltaics and concentrating solar arrays can produce 100 times the energy per acre of corn ethanol. The problem is energy storage. Fuels are just more effective than batteries at storing energy for long times.
It seems algal biodiesel is the clear winner for biofuels. The energy produced per acre is much higher than even cellulosic ethanol, it uses much less water, and can be produced in locations with little or no agricultural value.
So why are we still hearing about corn? Because it can be done today. Never mind that it's not much of an improvement over fossil fuels. There is a big lobby behind it and it gets results now, even if the results are not worth anything. Thankfully, we're starting to hear some vocal opposition to these fuels from some sensible folks.
Photovoltaics and concentrating solar arrays can produce 100 times the energy per acre of corn ethanol. The problem is energy storage. Fuels are just more effective than batteries at storing energy for long times.
It seems algal biodiesel is the clear winner for biofuels. The energy produced per acre is much higher than even cellulosic ethanol, it uses much less water, and can be produced in locations with little or no agricultural value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
