[goMac]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

"Bush has spoken approvingly of Brazil's ethanol program, which powers eight out of every 10 new Brazilian cars. The proposed accord is meant to help turn ethanol into an internationally traded commodity and to promote sugarcane-based ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean.

In Sao Paulo, some carried stalks of sugarcane -- used to make ethanol -- and a banner reading: "For every liter of ethanol produced, 4 liters of fresh water are consumed, monoculture is destroying the nation's greatest asset."

And in the southern city of Porto Alegre, more than 500 people yelled "Get out, imperialist!" as they marched to a Citigroup Inc. bank branch and burned an effigy of Bush.

Fearing that Brazil may clear pristine jungle to increase sugarcane cultivation for ethanol, Greenpeace activists hung a huge banner warning against increased reliance on ethanol as an alternative fuel.

They placed the banner on a monument to the 17th century Portuguese explorers who conquered Brazil's Indians in search of gold and gems."

• Let me get this straight, Greenpeace is upset over the use of gasoline, but when we come up with an alternative, they decide that is evil too because it has to be harvested (duh?).
• It has to be bought from other countries? Why is Greenpeace upset over this? It will raise the price of the sugar cane crop bringing these poorer countries more money.
• The only thing I am sympathetic too is the amount of water needed to process surgarcane right now, but that is easy solved. The water can be recycled and used again.

[Atomic Rooster]

Why don't they tap into the sewer line and use urine.

I think Greenpeace was mainly concerned about clearing Amazon forests willy nilly when it should be preserved. It's amazing how much is burned by illegal farmers every year.

Besides, it's good to have nuts on one side to counteract the nuts on the other.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by goMac 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

• Let me get this straight, Greenpeace is upset over the use of gasoline, but when we come up with an alternative, they decide that is evil too because it has to be harvested (duh?).
• It has to be bought from other countries? Why is Greenpeace upset over this? It will raise the price of the sugar cane crop bringing these poorer countries more money.
• The only thing I am sympathetic too is the amount of water needed to process surgarcane right now, but that is easy solved. The water can be recycled and used again.

You have identified one of my major gripes with 'environmental extremists.'

They rarely want progress, they want regression. Seemingly anything that makes or has some potential business sense is shot down.

Mark my words, next they will be on to the exploitation of bamboo climates as it becomes a more popular fabric and building resource. As soon as it is done being chic the defamation will begin.

[tie]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Fearing that Brazil may clear pristine jungle to increase sugarcane cultivation for ethanol, Greenpeace activists hung a huge banner warning against increased reliance on ethanol as an alternative fuel.

This certainly makes sense.

I don't know much about Greenpeace. Could it be that these "Greenpeace activists" are acting on their own, or are they reflecting the broader organization's position?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I generally don't agree with Greenpeace over a lot of stuff, but this cause is perfectly legitimate. The Amazon is one of the world's great ecosystems, and it is also incredibly important to our current climate stability. It's also disappearing at a rate that would probably blow your mind.

greg

[Big Mac]

I could assume that we're losing the Amazon at "mind-blowing" rate, Moncton. But I know better. You see, I went to a hippie type of private elementary school where they told us that acres of the rainforest were disappearing every day. Yet, If that had been true, there would be no rainforest today for you to claim is being cut down at that mind-blowing rate. Please show me some proof of your claim, for my previous experience with such claims has taught me to be incredulous.

[tie]

I'd check the Wiki. It has a bunch of sources listed at the bottom for corroboration.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

This certainly makes sense.

I don't know much about Greenpeace. Could it be that these "Greenpeace activists" are acting on their own, or are they reflecting the broader organization's position?

More energy from fossil fuel is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of the gallon of ethanol produced. Not to mention turning rainforest in corn fields is not a way to preserve bio-diversity.
Link :http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG1VDF6EM1.DTL

[tie]

Orion, they aren't turning rainforest into corn fields. They are turning it into sugarcane fields. I don't think there is any dispute that sugarcane ethanol is effective energetically.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I could assume that we're losing the Amazon at "mind-blowing" rate, Moncton. But I know better. You see, I went to a hippie type of private elementary school where they told us that acres of the rainforest were disappearing every day. Yet, If that had been true, there would be no rainforest today for you to claim is being cut down at that mind-blowing rate. Please show me some proof of your claim, for my previous experience with such claims has taught me to be incredulous.

INTERPRETATION

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I could assume that we're losing the Amazon at "mind-blowing" rate, Moncton. If I researched for a few minutes, I could even prove this assumption. But I know better than to go against my gut. You see, even though my private education told us that acres of the rainforest were disappearing every day, and a quick check of the "fact" that at an original estimated size of close to 6 million square km of contiguous tropical forest this rate of loss could continue indefinitely, I still somehow believe that there would be no rainforest if this was actually correct. Instead, in the now-time-honoured anti-environmentalist fashion of debating, I will now demand oodles of proof on these basic, well-known facts, and will try to waste people's time instead of actually doing a basic Google search and educating my own - in the words of the immortal Samuel L. Jackson - dumb ass. I'm sure if I bothered to do so, however, I would find some interesting things about Amazonia, one of the five major Brazilian biomes – such as its abundant 2.2m annual rainfall, its 18% of freshwater input into the oceans, its estimated 100 Gton of stored carbon, and its humongous share of the world's biodiversity. I would also discover its massive land use change since the 1960s, headed by subsidized cattle ranching and large-scale soybean farming, and its startling population growth of 3.35% per year which has seen the Amazonia population grow from 3.5 million in the 1970s to around 20 million today, a number that hints at vastly increased human impacts on the area. I might also see some nice satellite pictures of the Amazon over this time period, which could show me the increasing encroachment from the south, southeast and east in the familar "fishbone" pattern of initial main roads being followed by spreading side roads. I might discover that the Brazilian governments' attempt to "integrate" the area has resulted in colonization projects and extensive development under the Avança Brasil program. I could also stumble upon the fact that Brazil's Amazonia rainforest as a whole has lost an estimated 600,000 square km since 1970 (almost 15% of its original modern size), about 243,393 km2 in the 15 years before 2002, and about 150,000 square kilometers between May 2000 and August 2006. All these "facts" might hurt my gut, but they would eventually lead me to the conclusion that even though I don't believe that "acres" of forest could possibly be lost each day, in actual fact from 15,000 to 29,000 square kilometers of forest are lost each year, which means that from 41 to 79 square kilometers are being lost every day, which a number that is at least a couple orders of magnitude larger than which I publicly believed was physically impossible. I would never ask ShortcutToMoncton to prove such basic facts about the Amazon ever again, and would strive to use my own typing skills to find out such information in the future.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Orion, they aren't turning rainforest into corn fields. They are turning it into sugarcane fields. I don't think there is any dispute that sugarcane ethanol is effective energetically.

The one problem I see with the rainforest argument is that Brazil already has sugarcane fields.

And if demand goes up? Look at the US. Farmers aren't doing well here. If they could switch to sugar cane crops, farming could be very profitable.

There's always going to be minor quibbles over how to implement a solution to a larger problem. That doesn't mean it's time to throw out the entire solution. Does Greenpeace come up with an alternative? No. Instead of trying to work out the kinks of something that isn't even on the market yet, they just shoot it down.

We honestly should be thankful for any positive attention alternative energy gets. Even if Ethanol isn't the best answer, talking about it at least brings about discussion of other alternative energy sources as well.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

INTERPRETATION

Oh sure, steal my M.O.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I know, I know, I was going to give credit but then figured it would ruin the flow. Plus, deep down in my heart I hoped no one would notice and I would get away with something that was clever, witty and properly condescending at the same time.

Sigh. They always notice, They do.

greg

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I know, I know, I was going to give credit but then figured it would ruin the flow. Plus, deep down in my heart I hoped no one would notice and I would get away with something that was clever, witty and properly condescending at the same time.

Sigh. They always notice, They do.

greg

Oh god, I don't actually care.

(Well, enough to rib you for it)

[Monique]

That is fine use the fields leave the forests alone.

Never heard of electricity it is obvious that in South America, they have never heard of it.

If Bush approves there is a very bad catch for the rest of the world.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Monique 

If Bush approves there is a very bad catch for the rest of the world.

Bush acts like he approves but he never does anything about alternative energy. Bush feigning interest in alternative energy doesn't mean much to me.

That said, it's unfortunate that people are knee jerking and say "Bush is somehow involved? Must be evil!"

[The Godfather]

^ Before you said anything, I was thinking that the saddest part of the story was the Greenpeace activism. The saddest part is that ethanol can't come soon enough. These new fields could take years before being productive, after all the planning is done and approved.

Anyone has the details on what this Ethanol deal. I'd think it's beneficial to Brazilian populace, since Lula is socialist.

[yakkiebah]

Greenpeace founder debunks environmental "facts" and myths

Stereotypes often die hard, particularly when the person in question is a founder of Greenpeace, the radical movement begun in the late 1960s to stop human destruction of the Earth's environment. Since its origin in a church basement in Vancouver, Canada, Greenpeace has evolved into an international organization with offices in 21 countries and $100 million budget. Greenpeace today operates on the extreme edge of environmental politics, instead of following its original goal - to be an agent for positive change in the world.

So says one of its founders, Dr. Patrick Moore.

Greenpeace's early notoriety and media clout were due, in part, to the energy and efforts of Moore, a featured speaker at the 2003 Energy Generation Conference. Still impassioned and eloquent about the environment, Moore said he is no longer a member of Greenpeace. Now he has "grown up," he said, and travels the world, appearing on television and radio, writing books, and speaking to large audiences in order to build consensus on creating a "sustainable world."

Moore kicked off his presentation by debunking stereotypes the audience may have had about his years as a young, frizzy-haired Greenpeace agitator. He said his journey to becoming a "born-again ecologist" began in a fishing and logging village in Vancouver. There he learned to appreciate the natural beauty of the rainforest, tidal flats and spawning streams. While studying life sciences at the University of British Columbia, he said he discovered ecology - the science of how all living things are interconnected. When he saw the effects of human, industrial, nuclear and other pollution, it moved him to engage in environmental activism, which resulted in him organizing Greenpeace with several other people. Moore played a pivotal role in many Greenpeace campaigns including some protests that resulted in landmark environmental decisions by international organizations, the United States government and regulators of industry.

Over time Moore came to realize that environmental issues - and methods for improving the ecological balance of Earth - had become daily topics of conversation at the highest levels of world government. So he did a personal and professional about-face.

"I had been against three or four things every day of my life for 15 years," Moore said. " So I decided I'd like to be in favor of something for a change. I made the transition from the politics of confrontation - telling people what they should stop doing - to the politicsof trying to find consensus about what we should do instead."

Read the whole thing...

For those who haven't seen it yet, he was also interviewed in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' docu.

[itistoday]

My apologies for not reading the main article, but from the summary provided in the original post, I can completely sympathize with Greenpeace if they're against destroying more of the Amazon to make ethanol, that should be an obviously bad move. But anyways, ethanol is no silver bullet. I think it's viewed more as a temporary solution until we get a real solution to the problem like hydrogen-fuel cells.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's stupid. Ethanol and hydrogen are both energy storage mediums, not energy sources. We only have 4 possible energy sources: the sun, geothermal, nuclear (finite), and fossils (finite).

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's stupid. Ethanol and hydrogen are both energy storage mediums, not energy sources. We only have 4 possible energy sources: the sun, geothermal, nuclear (finite), and fossils (finite).

Uh... ethanol works on the same principles as fossil fuels last time I checked. Though you're right that hydrogen itself is not used for the energy. Rather, it's the process of turning hydrogen into water that releases energy. As long as we have water we can make hydrogen, so it's considered an infinite resource.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Uh... ethanol works on the same principles as fossil fuels last time I checked. Though you're right that hydrogen itself is not used for the energy. Rather, it's the process of turning hydrogen into water that releases energy. As long as we have water we can make hydrogen, so it's considered an infinite resource.

You don't get out more than you put in. The only ways to get more energy out of a substance than you put in is if (A) you find it in a state of high energy and discard it in a state of low energy (like fossils, or sunlight), or (B) you convert matter into energy (nuclear). Turning fertilizer and water into plants which we then turn into EtOH doesn't generate energy, in fact it wastes it. Turning water into H2 and O (and then burning it to get water again) doesn't generate energy, in fact it wastes it. These are just methods of transporting energy to where it's needed (at the cost of some of that energy during conversion). Unlike fossils, where we don't do the conversion to the high-energy hydrocarbons (the dinosaurs did that for us). There is a huge difference, namely the difference between positive energy output and negative energy output.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't get out more than you put in. The only ways to get more energy out of a substance than you put in is if (A) you find it in a state of high energy and discard it in a state of low energy (like fossils, or sunlight), or (B) you convert matter into energy (nuclear). Turning fertilizer and water into plants which we then turn into EtOH doesn't generate energy, in fact it wastes it.

I don't see how growing corn is a waste of energy. Once the corn is grown (which we grow anyways) and converted into ethanol, we burn the ethanol to get the energy out of it. If you're saying that the growing and converting process is somehow a waste of energy... well... I just do see that, since the energy is transformed into the ethanol.

Turning water into H2 and O (and then burning it to get water again) doesn't generate energy, in fact it wastes it.

Technically, you don't burn the H2 and O to create water, they're instead sent through a complicated process in the car that's used to power fuel cells. And there's talk of using solar power to separate the water into H2 and O (eg. putting solar panels on a car) so that you can have an almost self-contained system, constantly producing "fuel" for itself.

These are just methods of transporting energy to where it's needed (at the cost of some of that energy during conversion). Unlike fossils, where we don't do the conversion to the high-energy hydrocarbons (the dinosaurs did that for us). There is a huge difference, namely the difference between positive energy output and negative energy output.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I see your point. Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be a promising solution to our energy and pollution problem.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's stupid. Ethanol and hydrogen are both energy storage mediums, not energy sources. We only have 4 possible energy sources: the sun, geothermal, nuclear (finite), and fossils (finite).

The sun is a finite source of energy as well, if one wants to nitpick...

[Uncle Skeleton]

You don't seem to be grasping the second law of thermodynamics. All systems experience a net loss of energy (or if you prefer, a net gain of entropy). The only way to cheat around it with fossil fuels is because he dinosaurs spent hundreds of millions of years concentrating chemical energy in their remains. Simply arranging energy in the form of H2 or EtOH is not a way to generate more energy than you expended by doing the arranging, it's a theoretical impossibility.

You may gain a small amount of energy from the sun while growing the corn, but in practice it's not enough to offset the losses in the production process (fertizer, transportation, good old fashioned work, etc). Anyway, saying that hydrogen fuel cells are a solution is completely inaccurate and idealistic, because they're not an energy source in any way.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

The sun is a finite source of energy as well, if one wants to nitpick...

If you want to nitpick, we can get energy from other stars after ours burns out

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't seem to be grasping the second law of thermodynamics. All systems experience a net loss of energy (or if you prefer, a net gain of entropy). The only way to cheat around it with fossil fuels is because he dinosaurs spent hundreds of millions of years concentrating chemical energy in their remains. Simply arranging energy in the form of H2 or EtOH is not a way to generate more energy than you expended by doing the arranging, it's a theoretical impossibility.

You may gain a small amount of energy from the sun while growing the corn, but in practice it's not enough to offset the losses in the production process (fertizer, transportation, good old fashioned work, etc). Anyway, saying that hydrogen fuel cells are a solution is completely inaccurate and idealistic, because they're not an energy source in any way.

I understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics fairly well. While we're on the topic of energy, remember that in a closed system there is no change in the amount of energy, I believe you're confusing the concepts of free energy with energy.

The problem we are facing is two-fold: money and pollution. We need an energy source that is cheap and doesn't pollute. We can produce ethanol fairly cheaply, or so I hear. We can get water very cheaply. Both approaches produce less pollution than burning fossil fuels, except that in the case of water there is 0 pollution produced (provided that we use clean energy sources to produce the H2 from water). It's that simple. What is your point?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ethanol is only cheap because we don't need very much of it.
"The same Worldwatch study estimated that to meet that 10 per cent
target,the US would require 30 per cent of its agricultural land, and
Europe a staggering 72 per cent."
source (it's an article for new scientist that was copied into some email record for some reason. The original article is on their website but you have to pay).

As for water, explain how your free energy equation has the conversion from H2O to H2 + O any less energetically UNfaborable than the one from H2 + O to H2O is favorable. Because mine sure doesn't.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ethanol is only cheap because we don't need very much of it.
"The same Worldwatch study estimated that to meet that 10 per cent
target,the US would require 30 per cent of its agricultural land, and
Europe a staggering 72 per cent."
source (it's an article for new scientist that was copied into some email record for some reason. The original article is on their website but you have to pay).

Yeah, ethanol sucks, I said from the start that it was only a temporary solution.

As for water, explain how your free energy equation has the conversion from H2O to H2 + O any less energetically UNfaborable than the one from H2 + O to H2O is favorable. Because mine sure doesn't.

Sorry, I don't follow. The conversion from H2O to H2 and O is not a spontaneous reaction and requires energy, this energy can from all the various sources (sun, coal, wind, etc) and is done at a central location. Once the components are separated they are transported to the fueling stations across the country where they will then go into your car. Inside of your car the H2 and O go through a process that I don't fully understand (because I don't have the desire to study it), where they react to form water and produce energy to power fuel cells, which, in turn, power your car.

Now... what part of that do you have a problem with?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

ethanol is no silver bullet. I think it's viewed more as a temporary solution until we get a real solution to the problem like hydrogen-fuel cells.

and

Originally Posted by itistoday 

As long as we have water we can make hydrogen, so it's considered an infinite resource.

If the problem is we can't burn fossil fuels, neither ethanol nor hydrogen are a "solution," temporary or real. And hydrogen is not a resource, infinite or finite, because it's a zero-sum commodity. We put energy into it which we withdraw later (at significant conversion loss no doubt). It's not a source of energy.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If the problem is we can't burn fossil fuels, neither ethanol nor hydrogen are a "solution," temporary or real. And hydrogen is not a resource, infinite or finite, because it's a zero-sum commodity. We put energy into it which we withdraw later (at significant conversion loss no doubt). It's not a source of energy.

OK, I know what you're saying, but you still fail to see my point. Yes, H2 is not a "free" source of energy, we have to put energy into it to get it back at a specific location (your car). But when I described to you how it's produced I clearly stated the sources of energy for its production. If we use the sun's energy, geothermal energy, wave energy, and/or wind energy for its production, then yes, it can be thought of as free energy just like fossil fuels. Do you not see that?