The Future for Bio-fuels v´s Crude Oil March 17, 2009

Is the future for bio-fuels less certain now that crude has fallen to below $50.00 a barrel?

Forgetting for a minute all the arguments about replacing food crops with bio-fuel crops and possible reducing world food production, let’s just focus on the pure economic considerations of Bio-fuels. Given that the cost of production for many bio-fuels is between $30-$80, you could be forgiven for thinking that without a crude oil price above the $70-80 dollar range; many bio-fuels are going to struggle to be competitive.

The one huge factor, we all need to take into account is government subsidies for bio-fuels and alternative energy. Industry experts believe alternative fuels like jatropha (used in aviation fuel, much like ethanol is used in gasoline for cars), are still 5 years away from a sufficient supply level to be an economically viable alternative, and until then will need government subsidies to compete on price with crude oil.

However, the Brazilian example with ethanol should prove the way forward ( Brazil is considered to have the world’s first sustainable bio-fuels economy and the bio-fuel industry leader , as after some years under government subsidies, the sugar cane (ethanol) industry is now not only self-sufficient in Brazil but is exporting much of its product to the United States and Europe.

This is the solution, short term government subsidies to achieve the long-term desired goal of energy self-sufficiency and sustainability. Eliminating the reliance on fossil fuels, and therefore much of the human environmental impact on the environment, is in my view the number one battle in the fight to win the climate change war. Lets be clear about one thing, this is a war…..both to change social, political, and environmental views and stimulate real change in how we move forward  from here.

There are many bio-fuels and other alternative energy options available out there. Companies like Terasol Energy are focusing on plant science and developing crops like ” jatropha (jatropha curcas) and next generation short cycle crops, such as crambe, that maximize the use of degraded or marginal lands that are otherwise unsuitable for food crop cultivation”…   All we need to do is support these efforts; directly or indirectly through our pressure on governments and local politicians to continue the push toward alternative energy and economically viable bio-fuels.

Sound like an environmental campaigner on a soapbox? Far from it; I am an ex-banker with bail-out fatigue. If we are going to support or bail-out anything these days it needs to be our future…..the green economy.

Bio-fuels are one part of the solution, regardless of the price of crude, we need to focus our efforts on sustainable alternatives which will provide the jobs and economic growth we so desperately need.  The high price of crude stimulated the search for alternatives….lets find the solutions before the price rises again.

Climate “Tipping Point” February 23, 2009

An environmental “tipping point” is a threshold where a slight change in climatic conditions causes a dramatic change in the environment, increase in global temperatures or irreversible environmental change.

As evidenced in Siberia recently, where a frozen peat the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

Scientists say this sort of event is irreversible and is clearly contributable to global warming. Recent similar news from the British Antarctic Society highlighting Antartic polar ice melt, massive fires in the Australian Southern states, and arctic sea lanes opening for the first time in centuries all point to the polar regions perhaps reaching or even passing these tipping points in the last few years.

It appears the world faces a very stark choice on climate change at a moment when the money and therefore political will to do so is ebbing away.

I think the only way we, as a society, can impact climate change, is to do it through economically viable means. Not only alternative energy, but clean energy is required, urgently and without all the red tape usually associated with alternatives of any kind.

Only by providing an economic incentive, not an economic burden, can we successfully address the world’s climate change problem.

Some regional tipping points may have been reached already; the scientific debate about the global tipping point is still raging…..when will it be reached (10 years, 50 years, the estimated are being lowered everyday), or have we already passed it?

Do something today, to help reduce your personal impact on the planet, reduce your energy use in anyway you can. There are many websites dedicated to the subject. In the meantime pressure your local or national governments to step up efforts to replace fossil fuels with clean energy alternatives. The economic times may not be ideal, but economic ups and downs generally last a few years, the last time the planet when through this type of “cycle” was over 10,000 years ago.

Think Green, Use Green Energy.

Nuclear Nonsense February 3, 2009

I remember growing up in Australia (a huge uranium pit), and being exposed to the sometimes hostile debate about the benefits and disadvantages or dangers of nuclear power.

I remember thinking at the time, and now even more so, the only real issue is what happens to the waste after the uranium has been extracted. Doesn´t it remain radio-active for thousands of years ? and basically means where-ever it is dumped/stored (often government financed places in under-developed nations, desperate for money, regardless of the price) becomes a no go zone for the next 5 thousand years.

So given the debate among our politoco´s and business leaders, about the need for more nuclear energy, they state it is a clean energy!! (obviously only factoring in the input processes in that assessment, not the output), and that we need to ramp up the implementation of more nuclear power plants, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels; I wonder have we forgotten the consequences of nuclear power , the waste?

Are vested interests within the business community and governments controlling the debate and the final decisions or has the latest economic crisis blinded us all to the long term dire consequences with nuclear power. My opinion is that its allot of the first and some of the second…..

In terms of the global warming debate and the relevance of this, when as a society did we stop thinking about future generations and become so short sighted. So selfish!

There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that nuclear power is not the most cost effective energy producing alternative we have available and that the long-term costs are not being included in financial evaluations when it comes to this particular energy source.

There is allot of nonsense in the world at the moment, so say there is allot of nonsense when it comes to the debate on climate change. It is my humble opinion that one of the biggest pieces of decision making NONSENSE when it comes to alternative energy is the nuclear NONSENSE we are currently debating.

Take some time out of your busy schedule and write your local head honcho, whoever that maybe, about this issue. Lets be a little less selfish, a little less short sighted and think about how the decisions of today have an impact for tomorrow.

Stay Green!

Why we don´t like alternative energy? January 27, 2009

Given all the latest news and evidence we have been presented with regarding climate change and the push to use less fossil fuels etc, I have been wondering why we (as a community/society) have been so slow to take up the challenge or “cause” and use more energy efficient sources of power in our homes.

I mean, there are all sorts of cash-backs, discounts, incentives, rebates, you name it, available to us if we install energy saving devices in our homes. Whether that be solar panels, slow-flow shower heads, insulation, etc there is even a discount available on a mortgage if we start building a “green house” (about 0.6%).
Anyway, so my question is why more people have not began to make the change to clean energy?
It cannot be money, as the economics are plain to grasp in terms of energy bills versus costs etc. So what is it?

Is it because our neighbours don’t have solar panels for instance so we don’t want to seem naive or different? (Keeping up with the Jones´ but in reverse?)

In California it has been shown that once a street (house) begins with energy saving devices, a “green” bent, than it quickly begins to spread from street to street and suburb to suburb. The word gets out……….

So is it just that we are afraid of being laughed at? Or are we really non-believers about global warming after all?
If it’s not economic, what is it that stops us from doing something about our fossil fuel dependence?

I hope its not sheer indolence….