The sooner we make it more apparent how linked making new petroleum is just subsidizing old petroleum companies, the sooner we can get over the epiphany that photosynthesis is the real bottleneck.

http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OriWEUW_TZI
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png

-David Ahlport

Your position will be much stronger once you tie up a few loose ends.

Regarding the biolimits link... you indicate relative levels of energy stored in fossil fuel extracted each year vs. biomass harvested each year, but you fail to indicate the potential for biomass harvest from current agricultural land and degraded land. Furthermor, it isn't clear how the energy was calculated... just the most accessible carbohydrates or all the the biomass (sugars, cellulose, and lignin)?

Regarding the sugarsolar link, you have to start including other carbohydrates in your calculations. We're going to use more than sucrose (other sugars, celllulose, lignin) extracted from plants. We will also include nitrogen-fixing perennials -- not rely on annuals -- so material will actually be left in the ground to build soil after the tops of the plants are harvested

Regarding the ethanol link, the figure does look frightening. Perhaps the situation is as terrifying as the different sized blocks suggest. But it would be helpful to see some blocks indicating how much land is devoted to other human activity... agriculture, forestry, urban sprawl.

As far as installing photovoltaic panels instead of growing biomass, you are likely making a good point if your numbers are correct and we are soley interested in energy extracted per acre. I've not been able to confirm the accuracy of photosynthetic efficiency.

But I would like to present the following potential disadvantage of your scenario. Carefully planned systems for growing biomass might provide other benefits, not provided by a field of solar panels: wildlife habitat, net carbon sequestration, protecting groundwater, the aesthetic value of green space around urban areas, less reliance on extracting minerals for constructing photovoltaic systems, less reliance on resources extracted from other countries and shipped around the world, building soil, removing pollutants from the atmosphere and water supply.

Furthermore, we are not likely to extract energy from the biomass and then use it to synthesize all the chemicals we want or need de novo (the solar hat scenario). But the plants will be selected to do as much of the works as possible as naturally as possible in the field, thereby reducing the need for chemical manufacturing facilities and all of the energy consumption, pollution, and hazards that accompany them. I beleive there is more to the interest in biomass than simply extracting calories from sugar, which seems to be the heart of your argument against the technology.

With no genetic engineering.  And wind machines can provide the energy for the most part, 95% of the grid.

Unecessary tampering with genes  for more dangerous living.  A good slogan for your company wisci!  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

GreyFlcn appears very fond of false dichotomies... as though the biofuels rule out other sources of energy.

It would be silly to not put photovoltaic panels on every roof top available where photovoltaics work. I wish I could afford to install such a system on my house.

I think it would be equally silly to cover sunny prairie landscapes with solar panels when we can harvest biomass and conserve habitat for endangered grassland fauna.

And FYI... no need to engineer plants grown for biomass! I DON"T THINK GMOS ARE SUITABLE FOR SOLVING EVERY PROBLEM! GEEEEEZ. I did not even mention it here.

Have a nice day!

GreyFlcn appears very fond of false dichotomies... as though the biofuels rule out other sources of energy.

Considering BioFuels get 20x more subsidy than solar, yes thats exactly whats happening.

Things like hydrogen and biofuels are getting all the monies, and attention, and they aren't ever going to work.

Whats worse, they could do far more damage than anything else we've ever dealth with.  As is, deforestation causes more impact than all of China's emissions combined.

How many decades or centuries are we going to have to work just to pay back the damage done by these "first generation" biofuels?
http://greyfalcon.net/tropics3

(Especially considering, we ain't got Decades and Centuries to be fooling around)


-David Ahlport