 | France and Italy: is nuclear power the way for energy independence? | The Oil Drum: Europe | Continuing the Nuclear Debate |  |
174 comments on Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Great analysis, Luis.
The big question is, why haven't the EU policymakers done this little bit of arithmetic, or hired someone who can?
The arithmetic might have spoilt the show, that's why --- at least from the perspective of the powerful biofuel-pushing agri-lobby. And Piebalgs isn't really engaging in dialogue: he is churning out the party line. Including the insinuation that opposition to biofuels is a symptom of the Communist mindset.
We've had the Fidel Castro tune song twice already in his blog:
Fidel Castro is a Commie thug
Fidel Castro is opposed to biofuels.
Other people are also opposed to biofuels.
Therefore, nudge-nudge, those other people are quite possibly Commie thugs as well.
I fear Commissioner Piebalgs is trying to sell a product rather than debating whether the product is worth selling at all. Still, his blog is uncensored, and we should make the most of the opportunity to enlighten his readers, even if he himself has a closed mind.
Cuba / the Castro-system is one real world place where “we the world” can get real-time information as to whether bio-fuels would work or not!
B/c Cuba would go after bio-fuels years ago, if it was possible, no? Sure they would and probable have tried, and concluded accordingly: Not possible.
If 1 square meter returned say 1-2 liter of bio-fuel, just like that, without any other inputs – it would have driven Cuban society as a showcase society for the transition to such ways, for "the rest of us". BUT sadly this is not the case.
That's a sharp question EP.
It leads the common man to think that they are either dumb for never had done the math or just puppets serving some vested interest.
I'm sure that Andris is neither of those, so this insistence on bio-fuels leaves me very unconfortable.
Of course, they did their own calculations! E.g., have a look here.
In fact, their calculation yields exactly half the needed area as in the analysis of Luis, namely 17.5 million instead of 35 million hectares.
Why this big of a difference?!
I suppose the most important reason is that they speak about a "10% biofuels target", which I interprete as "10 % of fuel used for transportation is biofuel". On the other hand, Luis analysis is about "10 % less fossil transport fuel needs". Because of lower energy density and EROI of biofuel in comparison with fossil fuels, for "10 % less fossil transport fuel needs" one then actually needs a lot more biofuel, namely 2.1 Mb! In comparison with a total of (13 - 1.3 + 2.1 = 13.8 Mb), that actually makes 15 % instead of 10 % of "fuel used for transportation"!
For "10 % of fuel used for transportation is biofuel", one would only need 1.3 Mb instead of 2.1 Mb, resulting in 21.7 million hectares, which is 13.3 million hectares less as Luis suggested, but still 4.2 million hectares more as in the above linked presentation.
The analysis of Luis also shows that "10 % of fuel used for transportation is biofuel" results in only about 6 to 7 % "less fossil transport fuel needs".
The remaining 4.2 million hectares differences could probably be explained with expected car fuel efficiency gains I suppose they incorporated into their calculation.
17.5 million hectares is still a hell of a lot, and although also I am very, very sceptical about biofuels, I think Andris Piebalgs made some relevant points.
By the way, a very interesting article about the nonsense of biofuels, and how much more efficient it would be to use this arable land for photovoltaics, I found here. Unfortunately, it is in German, but the diagramm at the bottom is clear for everyone. It was at least astonishing for me...
Plants are typically only 1% or 2% efficient at producing energy we can use.
A solar PV panel can produce 15% or more but only if it is kept at 90 degrees to the suns rays, I suspect the calculations have been made assuming this - what is it if the panel is just flat on the ground like the plants?
I doubt I (or most people) could afford to use current PV panels to power any car I might want to use - no oil, no car! - PV is VERY expensive, especially at high lattitudes.
The efficiency of the Photosynthesis process for plants is indeed typically 1% or 2%. But only a very small part of the energy is converted into usable oil. According to the article I referred to, rapeseed converts only 0,15% of the solar energy into oil!
Roughly speaking, a tracking PV panel produces about one third more electricity as an optimally positioned fixed PV panel (not flat on the ground). A panel lying flat on the ground produces about 85% of an optimally positioned fixed PV panel (at least in Germany, on the equator the optimal position is flat on the ground). But than you could use the whole field, instead of only about one third, because then you don't have the problem of one panel shadowing another. In total you would even have more yield pro hectare, but at a much larger cost because you need a lot more panels!
And that brings us to costs. In Germany, they have a feed-in tariff of 35.49 cents/kWh for freestanding PV-plants. So, a car consuming 16kWh/100km has a 'fuel cost' of about 5.68€/100km... The fuel cost of a typical 7.4 l/100km (32mpg) gasoline car is considerably higher! (at least in Europe) And feed-in tariffs are falling (up till now 6,5% a year, from next year on probably 8,5%), whereas oil prices are rising. For a PV powered hybrid car, not as much the price of the "PV fuel" is the problem, it's the battery cost!
R G
You are forgetting the taxation component of automotive fuels. The government will eventually have to tax "automotive" electricity if we all start using it. The price will rise 6 fold then. How they will do this, I don't know but they will find a way!
It would make sense to tax mileage and perhaps adjust that tax according to the 'fuel' efficiency of the car and perhaps price in some form of peak congestion charging.
I suspect this would create a new industry in 'clocking' although many of the big brother propsals for satelite tracking on vehicles would resolve this.
Jevons' Paradox in operation?
Jevons' Paradox in operation?
Comparing biofuels to PV-powered plug-in hybrids is a valid comparison, but several things must also be examined;
1. EROEI of the PV panels: How much energy was used in the manufacture compared to lifecycle energy output?
2. Hybrid extras: How much more energy was used to make the batteries, electric motor, and any additional items?
3. Costs: What are the cost differences between the two alternatives to the consumer?
4. Environment: How do the environmental impacts of each compare?
5. Food prices: What will the food price differential be between the two alternatives?
I currently have both a hybrid and a PV-powered house, so the above comparison is of great interest to me as well.
Incidentally, a field of tracking PV arrays could also be a source of switchgrass or other cellulosic ethanol feedstock, as seen in the main photo at this link provided by RenewableGuy above. It would be nice to see a translation of this article, which compares ethanol and PV-powered plug-in hybrids.
As has been mentioned before here and on Andris blog, simply continuing the same level of automobile use should not be considered a sustainable approach. Increased levels of mass transit, buses, biking, and walking are certainly more sustainable, and rely on best land use planning practices. For those unable or unwilling due to current distant suburb/exurb locations, velomobiles with electric boost can be considered the next step.
Of course, this crashes head-on with the size and influence of the EU auto industry;