I discussed Peak Oil with Pimentel...
Bears' Chat - Welcome
My office happens to be about 200 yards from that of David Pimentel (Cornell Ag school), one of the two most outspoken opponents of producing ethanol for energy purposes. (The other is a guy at Berkeley.) As an effort to find out if peak oil is a scam (y2k revisited), I decided to give him a call. This is what I got:
(1) I asked him whether, given the facts laid out on the table, reasonable individuals could argue that ethanol is a viable substitute for gasoline. He was unequivocal: "Not a chance." He says the debate is riddled with political motivation (see below).
(2) The USDA's numbers showing energy positive production of ethanol leaves off many critical inputs (like tractor and shipping fuel) and grotesquely underestimates the energetic costs (by about 30%) of the nitrogen-based fertilizers. It was the kind of government statistics we've all come to know and love. Moreover, for the US to grow enough corn to fully replace gas consumption would require acreage larger than the continental United States. He also concurred without reservation that the destruction of arable land to produce serious amounts of enthanol would be profound. In short, no way no how.
(3) He described a curious tale in which, about twenty years ago, he was asked to assess the viability of ethanol. As part of a collaborative effort, he put together a report refuting the idea. It was peer reviewed by a panel of twenty six scientists and endorsed. Then it got interesting. The corn/oil lobbies went nuts and initiated investigations of him. Eventually the GAO got called in to intervene. The GAO spent twenty times more investigating him than he spent researching and writing the report. Oddly, he was exhonerated by the GAO. The story was relayed as emblematic of the politics.
(4) He says peak oil is terrifyingly imminent--within the decade. When asked whether the opponents of it (John Lynch of Merrill as well as a host of government agencies) were politically motivated, he again concurred and suggested that it was really rather appalling.
(5) He has good ties with China and says that they are totally screwed: Not enough energy, not enough water, and rapidly decaying soil.
(6) Although he is strongly promoting conservation--major cutbacks in consumption--he conceded that the Law of the Commons (the tendency of shared resources to be abused) makes conservation problematic. He is rooting for a massive spike in energy costs to wake us up, and he is very critical of all the subsidies perpetuating the problem. (Sounds like AG, eh?)
(7) Pimentel says the early doomsters (Erhlich) were correct, but conceded that they probably caused problems by overstating the case. (Erhlich predicted massive dieoffs by 2000.)
My assessment of him personally: He struck me as profoundly concerned, sincere, and without doubt convinced that peak oil is not only real but imminent. We are driving right off a cliff. He does NOT see a gradual, relatively event free meandering down the other side of the curve. Although no explicitly apocalyptic statements were made, a few leading ones from me to see what he would say were not brushed off or dismissed. He made explicit reference to how hard it will be to provide food for the overpopulated globe
My bottom line: I heard nothing to refute the claims of Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell, and a dozen other folks claiming that peak oil is a problem now. Ignore the warnings at your peril. I stand deeply concerned until further notice.
My office happens to be about 200 yards from that of David Pimentel (Cornell Ag school), one of the two most outspoken opponents of producing ethanol for energy purposes. (The other is a guy at Berkeley.) As an effort to find out if peak oil is a scam (y2k revisited), I decided to give him a call. This is what I got:
(1) I asked him whether, given the facts laid out on the table, reasonable individuals could argue that ethanol is a viable substitute for gasoline. He was unequivocal: "Not a chance." He says the debate is riddled with political motivation (see below).
(2) The USDA's numbers showing energy positive production of ethanol leaves off many critical inputs (like tractor and shipping fuel) and grotesquely underestimates the energetic costs (by about 30%) of the nitrogen-based fertilizers. It was the kind of government statistics we've all come to know and love. Moreover, for the US to grow enough corn to fully replace gas consumption would require acreage larger than the continental United States. He also concurred without reservation that the destruction of arable land to produce serious amounts of enthanol would be profound. In short, no way no how.
(3) He described a curious tale in which, about twenty years ago, he was asked to assess the viability of ethanol. As part of a collaborative effort, he put together a report refuting the idea. It was peer reviewed by a panel of twenty six scientists and endorsed. Then it got interesting. The corn/oil lobbies went nuts and initiated investigations of him. Eventually the GAO got called in to intervene. The GAO spent twenty times more investigating him than he spent researching and writing the report. Oddly, he was exhonerated by the GAO. The story was relayed as emblematic of the politics.
(4) He says peak oil is terrifyingly imminent--within the decade. When asked whether the opponents of it (John Lynch of Merrill as well as a host of government agencies) were politically motivated, he again concurred and suggested that it was really rather appalling.
(5) He has good ties with China and says that they are totally screwed: Not enough energy, not enough water, and rapidly decaying soil.
(6) Although he is strongly promoting conservation--major cutbacks in consumption--he conceded that the Law of the Commons (the tendency of shared resources to be abused) makes conservation problematic. He is rooting for a massive spike in energy costs to wake us up, and he is very critical of all the subsidies perpetuating the problem. (Sounds like AG, eh?)
(7) Pimentel says the early doomsters (Erhlich) were correct, but conceded that they probably caused problems by overstating the case. (Erhlich predicted massive dieoffs by 2000.)
My assessment of him personally: He struck me as profoundly concerned, sincere, and without doubt convinced that peak oil is not only real but imminent. We are driving right off a cliff. He does NOT see a gradual, relatively event free meandering down the other side of the curve. Although no explicitly apocalyptic statements were made, a few leading ones from me to see what he would say were not brushed off or dismissed. He made explicit reference to how hard it will be to provide food for the overpopulated globe
My bottom line: I heard nothing to refute the claims of Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell, and a dozen other folks claiming that peak oil is a problem now. Ignore the warnings at your peril. I stand deeply concerned until further notice.
posted by Marcel at 9:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home