Democrats & Liberals Archives

Stephen

Your article on biomass points to the intersection of science and economics. It only makes sense to gasify biomass if the prices of oil and natural gas are high.

The most efficient use of biomass is to burn it directly and cut out the middle energy man. For that, we need to decentralize energy generation and (again) raise the relative price of carbon.

American producers can make wood pellets for home heating, but much of the market is in Germany. Why can we ship a bulky thing like pellets all the way to Germany and still make money, but cannot often do the same closer to home? Because energy prices in Germany are higher. Do that in America and lots of our problems would be mitigated.

Christine-
Well, you can also do the research to make energy sources more efficient, so they can compete with gas and oil on their own two feet.

I’d just as soon not rely on price increases alone to motivate the transition. My reasons are: a) the economic ripple effects of high-price energy costs; b) the possibility that such prices could be the product of bubbles; and c) because I think the technology is there already to make some sort of transition, and I don’t think there’s good cause to waste time.

One thing we should encourage is more local manufacturing and food growing, for one thing, because no matter how good that wood pellet be as a green source of energy, if we’re burning the boat fuel to ship it to germany, the green’s just a coat of peeling paint, if you know what I mean.

Stephen

I would prefer not to ship it to Germany. Of course, there is the paradox of distance, especially sea-freight. Sometimes it costs less, both in dollars and carbon footprints, to ship something many miles than it does to produce it locally.

You may recall the case of Kenyan cut flowers shipped to the Netherlands by AIR. When they figured it all out, it produced LESS CO2 to grow flowers in Africa and ship them by air than it did to grow them locally, where it required heated greenhouses etc.