Comments on: My Word, This is a Surprise http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: pj http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/comment-page-1/#comment-7126 pj Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:30:48 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/#comment-7126 What's most surprising is that the biofuel advocates are only now working this out. Clearing out some old books recently, I came across a collection of articles by Jerry Pournell written in the early 70's. That's when the prevailing consensus was that we were all going to be buried under the advancing ice sheets before the end of the century so he was writing about biofuels as an alternative to expensive oil. He pointed out that the plants most suitable for biofuel production - those with high yield per acre, high usable proportion of crop mass; rice, wheat, cane, potatoes etc - are the same as we use for food crops. Why? Because that's what we've spent the last 10,000 years breeding them for. So if you want to grow biofuel either you grow less food or you chop down some forest for more agricultural land. Actually, I can't see much of a problem with the latter from a carbon point of view. Trees are lousy at turning atmospheric CO² into themselves. Go & chop down any forest - rain, deciduous or conifer - and when you've cleared the wood away all that's left is a couple of inches of dead leaves & then your looking at bedrock. Clay, chalk, sand or whatever. All the carbon is in the wood. The forest just recycles the same carbon round & round. Try digging under grassland that's been down for a few hundred years & you find yards & yards of soil.That soil's over 25% carbon. Tons of it. Agriculture creates soil at many times the natural rate & as it does so it locks up carbon. So does the furniture that you made out of all that forest. So cutting down the rainforest & growing ethanol would probably reduce atmospheric CO² If you're bothered. What’s most surprising is that the biofuel advocates are only now working this out.
Clearing out some old books recently, I came across a collection of articles by Jerry Pournell written in the early 70′s. That’s when the prevailing consensus was that we were all going to be buried under the advancing ice sheets before the end of the century so he was writing about biofuels as an alternative to expensive oil. He pointed out that the plants most suitable for biofuel production – those with high yield per acre, high usable proportion of crop mass; rice, wheat, cane, potatoes etc – are the same as we use for food crops. Why? Because that’s what we’ve spent the last 10,000 years breeding them for. So if you want to grow biofuel either you grow less food or you chop down some forest for more agricultural land.
Actually, I can’t see much of a problem with the latter from a carbon point of view. Trees are lousy at turning atmospheric CO² into themselves. Go & chop down any forest – rain, deciduous or conifer – and when you’ve cleared the wood away all that’s left is a couple of inches of dead leaves & then your looking at bedrock. Clay, chalk, sand or whatever. All the carbon is in the wood. The forest just recycles the same carbon round & round. Try digging under grassland that’s been down for a few hundred years & you find yards & yards of soil.That soil’s over 25% carbon. Tons of it. Agriculture creates soil at many times the natural rate & as it does so it locks up carbon. So does the furniture that you made out of all that forest. So cutting down the rainforest & growing ethanol would probably reduce atmospheric CO²
If you’re bothered.

]]> By: em butler http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/comment-page-1/#comment-7125 em butler Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:26:52 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/#comment-7125 chip fat already has the carbon footprint of the using country(US 20 tons,UK,10 tons) so it recovers a smidgeon of that .. chip fat already has the carbon footprint of the using country(US 20 tons,UK,10 tons) so it recovers a smidgeon of that ..

]]> By: Kay Tie http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/comment-page-1/#comment-7121 Kay Tie Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:05:14 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/#comment-7121 "Meantime their health Stasi try to ensure that there will be no chip fat." Don't worry: there's always a ready supply of chip fat. Hmmmmmn, deep-fried Soylent Green... “Meantime their health Stasi try to ensure that there will be no chip fat.”

Don’t worry: there’s always a ready supply of chip fat. Hmmmmmn, deep-fried Soylent Green…

]]> By: Kit http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/comment-page-1/#comment-7102 Kit Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:28:17 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/#comment-7102 I assume George Monbiot is saving his condemnation of wind-farms until after the government has half covered the country. I assume George Monbiot is saving his condemnation of wind-farms until after the government has half covered the country.

]]> By: dearieme http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/comment-page-1/#comment-7092 dearieme Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:45:58 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/12/my-word-this-is-a-surprise/#comment-7092 Meantime their health Stasi try to ensure that there will be no chip fat. Meantime their health Stasi try to ensure that there will be no chip fat.

]]>