Biofuels - Nov 24
by Staff
Click on the headline (link) for the full text. Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Opening in Seattle after a week of national furor over any thought of channeling billions to an antiquated American auto industry, "Fuel" also couldn't look more topical. Indeed, director Josh Tickell spends a fair amount of time in this dynamic, stirring film tracing the mutually beneficial relationship between a tax-subsidized car industry high on gas guzzlers and a tax-subsidized oil industry happy to supply product. It's precisely that kind of old-school corporate and institutional synergy, Tickell maintains, that has fed America's addiction to oil to the extent that we go to war for it. ... But while "Fuel" takes persuasive swipes at the influence of oil-based energy companies over domestic and foreign policy, the film is more dazzling as an introduction to all kinds of clean energy alternatives many of us have never heard of. We all know about ethanol, solar- and wind-generated power, hybrid engines and the like. But by the end of "Fuel," one might very well come out of the theater ready to invest in companies deriving energy from wood chips and algae, or growing food in vertical, inner-city farms. ... "Fuel" took so long to make, in fact, that it survived a couple of brief periods of media and public disenchantment with alternative energies. Tickell embraces those chapters as part of necessary public debate rather than ignoring or navigating around them. BA: Q: For every one unit of energy put in to making gasoline, how much energy do you get? UPDATE (Nov 24) comment from jim bethel: but i have also heard this argument from prestigious academics. a couple of years ago i attended the "richard lugar energy summit" at purdue university. at the conclusion i put a question to the (prestigious) panel on exactly this issue. the response was vitually identical to khosla's, that when you count the energy input of the crude oil, petroleum fuels are losers. naturally all of these people are well funded with government and industry research money to develop biofuels. by this logic, john d. rockefeller was an idiot for investing in petroleum, he should have invested in biofuels. people get away with making these claims and are not challenged. this is a fundamental issue which needs more vigorous debate.
The blog for the film’s website today has a photo of the guy who made the film with a cardboard “Biodiesel, No War Required” sign. I guess he isn’t reading our blog, eh? The blog is also sporting a story snippet with link from the Seattle Times titled: “Fuel”: A persuasive argument for kicking our addiction to oil The title should be: “Fuel”: A thoughtless argument for continuing to use energy like pigs! ... Did he just say people are outraged over “channeling billions to an antiquated American auto industry”? I think he did! What does he think the biodiesel boondoggle is all about? It is about nothing more or less than channeling billions to an antiquated American auto LIFESTYLE! He also complains about the tax subsidies the oil companies get. Lovely. What is it that the biodiesel geeks in front (and the big ag industry players right behind them) want from Inslee and Obama in the first place? Great guess! Subsidies! You just can’t compete against 5-15 EROEI when your product only offers 1-4 EROEI. The main problems with this enterprise are rooted in the fact that nature gives us nothing for free. Biodiesel is a form of strip mining our soil for fuel, and generally the scale most Americans unwittingly endorse for this project would also endanger our food supply by both damaging the environment, using food land for fuel land, and pretending that water supply is not an issue. I could go watch the film and then debunk the claims about how they get around the food-fuel question, but why bother? I already know the answer because we’ve done the math 10 different ways, years ago.
But the global financial crisis has put the brakes on that boom, drying up foreign investment and domestic credit, stalling new projects and prompting cash-strapped ethanol producers to indefinitely postpone expansions. |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







