It is written in a "the sky is falling" manner that says we need to act (in a socialist manner of course) or the world will end.
In fact, we do need people to get excited sometimes, so the clear thinkers pay attention.
In this case, I only see opportunity. First, yes, we will eventually need to switch to alternative fuels. Secondly, by using modern technology, we can grow those fuels in increasingly more efficient ways on marginal land.
Since the developing world's biggest trade problem is agricultural subsidies, then generating new non-food cash crops may be a key to allowing the French to continue to have their beautiful farms, the 25000 American cotton growers grow fat off the teet of the American taxpayer and still lift African subsitence farmers out of penury and into the global economy.
All of these things are written between the lines here. Unfortuantely, the ridiculous part in the is that this scientist has no clue about economics and beleives we need to "plan" this switch. As if supply and demand will in no way encourage it.
I don't really think this is said in pursuit of a nfarioius agenda. I think it is just ignorance, or for lack of something to say. If I had an address I would send him a copy of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
She must of seen that movie about New York City.
Sustainable oil? Chris Bennett offers compelling evidence of vast energy source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142365/posts
There is no such thing as "fossil fuel". That's pure BS that's been foisted upon you by the enviros and the oil industry. Case in point: Titan, moon of Saturn. Atmosphere: Methane, propane, butane and other hydrocarbons. How many dinosaurs died on Titan to provide this abundance of "fossil fuels"???? Oil is a product of our planet's geochemistry, and has absolutely nothing to do with decayed organisms.
Secondly, we can produce all the oil we'll ever need right out of our landfills, crop waste, and animal processing waste. Do a search for the phrase "Oil from anything" here in FR's search engine. The technology came out in 2003, and was written up in Discover magazine as well as many journals.
The question that puzzles me more and more often: Are these people just stupid, or are they evil?
There is an energy source that would make all these problems go away. All we need to use it is a friggin BACKBONE, and thats NUCLEAR! WE could then do without fossil fuels, and we could virtually fix any global warming that is due to the burning of said fuels. But NOOOOoooooOOOOO! Enviroweenies dont want to save the earth, they are all about taking us back to the agrarian utopia which never really was, crazy luddites.
These pointy headed dorks don't have a clue...
Not everything has to be a mega-trend. How is a farmer going to shift to non-food crops over 50 years? Is he going to plant another 10 acres each year in non-food crops until he has 500 planted?
The farmer will put in his seed in the spring and he will havest that crop in the fall. It takes less than one year, less'n of course it's 'sparagus. If the price of flax seed goes through the overhead in 2053, there will be a whole lot of flax planted in the Spring of 2054.
This is funny. What are we supposed to eat? Are our cars more important to feed than we are?
" we can grow those fuels in increasingly more efficient ways on marginal land. "
Marginal land is marginal because it is subject to erosion, etc. You can't make a living growing commodity crops on marginal land; and I sincerely doubt that the "fuel" crops would be priced from the farmer as anything other than commodity . . .
The best cropland should not be used for fuels, because top soil is lost with every growing season. Until there is no loss of our productive soils, I would rather see it growing food! Or saved for growing food.
I read someplace that we (US) have enough coal (that we can convert to gasoline) to last for over 500 years. So what is the problem?
Economics is the key. When crude prices reach various thresholds, various alternative hydrocarbons become economically viable. Even at $2 per gallon, gasoline is cheap enough to burn as fuel, which is what we do with it. Transportation fuel from agricultural sources averages out to about 8 barrels per acre per season, whether you are talking about biodiesel or ethanol.
Over 96% of our transportation fuel comes from petroleum, and more than 70% of crude oil becomes transportation fuel. Replacing 20% of our crude consumption with biosource would require new, irrigated land (where do we get the water?) equal to Texas plus Tennessee.
What about hydrogen, and fuel cells? There is a lot of hydrogen on the Earth, but none of it is in a chemically free state. Instead, it is either 11% of water or 10% to 25% of hydrocarbon compounds. In other words, we already have the infrastructure for distributing one of the most hydrogen-rich (15%) compounds in existence - gasoline!
Along sith that, we already have the "reformer" technology, which is an on-board device to extract the hydrogen from gasoline. However, these devices cannot tolerate the amount of sulfur found in gasoline available today, so it would have to be removed. So I suspect that when we run low on gasoline, we will make more - and it will cost more, but we will pay the price.
Perhaps by then most of our vehicles will be hybrids with electric drive and on-board generation, either with a diesel rotary generator set or fuel cell. And perhaps then your vehicle will be able to tap into the electric grid through some kind of trolley or third rail pickup, in town or on major intercity routes, for really cheap fuel from coal, nuclear, and other sources, relieving the burden on petroleum.
Imagine the possibilities....
I don't care where you get the oil or what you burn it in, when efficiences are similar the CO2 emissions will be in lock step per BTU content.
Any excuse for breeding is fine with me.
I can hear it now...
2050...
NO TOFU FOR OIL!
er....
GREEDY AMERICANS BURN ENOUGH SOY OIL IN THEIR BIG LEVITATING UTILITY VEHICLES IN ONE MONTH TO FEED ALL OF FRANCE FOR 6 MONTHS!
THINK OF ALL THE STARVING FRENCH CHILDREN! WE ONLY LET THE FRENCH STARVE BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM!
;)
The answer is obvious: Soylent Green.
We could all become breatharians and not eat. Or was that a Seinfeld episode?
1 - LOL - "Alison Smith of Britain's John Innes plant research center"
A plant researcher wants us to spend more money on researching plants, because he is an expert in oil supplies?