.pdf version(665 KB ) (need Adobe Reader) For best on-screen viewing: right-click on the presentation, then --> "Rotate Clockwise"; click the down arrow next to the Zoom % box and select "Fit Height"; use the Page Up and Down keys.
There's no Copyright; in fact there's a "CopyPlease." Please copy and share!
Nice, but there are some blank pages. #3 for example (in my viewer at least).
Again you are confusing "renewable" with desirable. That confusion in Congress got us subsidized and expanded corn ethanol. The real issue is GHG emissions, not renewable energy.
Question: is geothermal power renewable? The energy comes from nuclear fission, mostly U-235. That is what keeps the core of the earth hot. Why would the same energy source become "non-renewable" (in your opinion) if the same U-235 atoms were to be releasing their energy inside a reactor instead of inside the earth? Reply to this
Thanks for taking a look. In PowerPoint, at page 3 hit "Page Down" again and the beginning text for that slide should appear.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In general, renewable energy IS desirable because it is sustainable and has lower external costs. And, the distinction between naturally occurring and man-made is important. Geothermal power comes out of the ground; might as well use it.
For ethanol, it's renewable but less desirable than other renewable sources for a number of reasons including the greenhouse gases (GHG) generated. However, creating a gallon of ethanol takes less energy and generates less GHG's than gasoline.
The sustainability, and negative environmental and social effects of ethanol use should be enough to force us to not use food to make ethanol. Problems such as causing increased global food prices which add to world hunger and starvation are huge factors.
Also, given the fossil fuels required to create ethanol, with oil currently over $100/barrel, the cost of ethanol will also be going up......
But consideration of energy alone is deceptive. It is GHG, not "energy" (and especially not "renewable energy") that is what really counts.
Growing corn, or any crop (especially nitrogen fixing legumes), also releases N2O which is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2. THAT should figure into the balance. By taking our eyes off of the target (GHG) we miss the most important issue.
And it seems strange to me that U-235 is "renewable" when it reacts to generate energy underground and releases its waste products into the earth, but becomes "non-renewable" when it releases its energy in a power plant and the waste products are captured and the most dangerous are converted into additional fuel.
Release the waste and qualify as "renewable", use the waste to make more fuel and you become "non-renewable". I can't argue with "logic" like that
As you know, I'm not a fan of ethanol for anything. Yes the energy balance is a controversial topic. The point of the link was to show that gasoline is even worse than ethanol in terms of energy 'gain'.
<<Growing corn, or any crop (especially nitrogen fixing legumes), also releases N2O which is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2. THAT should figure into the balance. By taking our eyes off of the target (GHG) we miss the most important issue.>> Agree. As you know methane is a much worse green house gas than CO2 also - 23 times worse over a 100 year period.
<<And it seems strange to me that U-235 is "renewable" when it reacts to generate energy underground and releases its waste products into the earth, but becomes "non-renewable" when it releases its energy in a power plant and the waste products are captured and the most dangerous are converted into additional fuel.>> Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.
If it's coming out of the ground, might as well use it. When the "most dangerous [waste products] are converted into additional fuel" without government subsidies, and there is a place to put the remaining waste, and there is a transportation plan to bring the remaining waste to its long-term storage location, and all these costs have been figured in and investors are willing to invest (includes no insurance 'guarantee' in case of an accident)......go for it.
