Starting in Brazil and spreading through USA, Europe and most of the world a percentage of ethanol is being added to petrol. The purpose is to stretch mineral oil resources by adding renewable locally-produced components. In UK at the moment most petrol has 5% ethanol, and this may increase. Opinions vary on the merits of this. Some believe it is a sensible and necessary measure, others disagree. This thread is for ventilating views on the economic and environmental merits or otherwise. There is a separate thread for discussing practical consequences for new and old Ducatis, and ways of dealing with problems arising.
Ethanol can be produced from a variety of raw products but corn and sugar beet are common sources. Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) is a measure of how efficient energy sources are, conventional oil is about 100:1, Ethanol is less than 10:1, this is due to the intensive nature of the way the crop is grown and processed to turn it into Ethanol. A quick internet search has valules as low as 0.8:1, in other words you loose energy on the deal. It has been estimated that a modern society needs energy at better than 10:1 to function, otherwise there is insufficient energy left for 'social' needs. And this is the rub because all 'alternative' energy sources have low EROEI figures, although there are some wide variations in figures quoted. Nothing comes close to conventional oil and gas and it is getting harder to find and more difficult to produce. Increasing efficiencies will only go a small way in improving the situation and are subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns. We are heading for an energy crisis IMHO, and don't hold your breath over shale gas, it has a low EROEI and will never be cheap or plentiful. Most 'alternative' or 'green' solutions to the energy problem harvest taxpayer subsidies to meet political targets made in ivory towers. I don't hink Ethanol is any different.
From a purely EROEI point of view, it seems logical to me to eke out the highly efficient sources, such as petroleum and natural gas, by "diluting them" (if you will) with components with a lower EROEI. For example, it might be better to have, say, 50 years of 50:1 composite EROEI fuel sources than, say, 25 years of 100:1 EROEI sources - this will give more time for us to uncover whatever alternative energy sources are available there are, whilst at the same time spreading the risk of an energy "crunch". A degree pain over a longer timescale. Either that or we should just live for today, as tomorrow will look after itself. In another forum, I have been informed, in all seriousness, that there is no forthcoming energy crisis, it's all a scam to bleed money from the public purse. NB. my maths may be a little shaky tonight as I cannot brain today - I have the dumb. Aside: coincidentally, I have just finished reading The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov - an interesting allegory of the perils and pitfalls of "clean, free energy".
Whilst I think there is no doubt about a forthcoming energy crisis I do believe that there is a lot of 'profiteering' going on with the current 'green' initiatives and the consumer is being hit with higher energy prices to subsidise technologies that are being over hyped. Google Tim Yeo for interesting stories re his part in legislating for 'greener' London Taxis, whilst at the same time being chairman of a company supplying said 'greener' taxis, a post he has since resigned from. Also Lord Debden, formerly John Selwyn Gummer, he who fed his children beefburgers on TV at the height of the BSE fiasco, regarding his position on Environmental commitees and his role in Energy Companies looking at tidal power in the Severn Estuary. These people have clear conflicts of interest IMHO. Energy drives the world we live in, that world will change in ways we can't imagine, it is a question of when not if. Bio fuels will no doubt have a part to play but the idea that they can replace fossil fuels at the level we use today is stretching credulity beyond breaking point. Then there is the argument about growing crops for food or fuel at a time when the world population is rising exponentially.
I don't know. I would ask the question what is driving the issue, is it a purely practical decision or is it to meet some legal commitment ? As someone who was involved in policy issues you must be aware of the need to balance practical measures with political and legal requirements. Common sense (those two words again) is not always the winner.
No doubt all politicians want to be seen to be doing something (a) to reduce reliance on imports of Middle East oil, (b) to increase use of renewable energy sources, and (c) to help farmers by creating extra markets for agricultural production. At the same time they won't want to be criticised for taking extreme measures with severe adverse consequences. Hence 5% being a "moderate" policy, designed not to offend anybody very much. Also, it would not be feasible for each country in Europe to go its own way on this, because then manufacturers would be left trying to meet different fuel specifications for vehicles sold in each country, and cross-border travel would be impeded. So there has to be some kind of Europe-wide agreement keeping all countries roughly in step - and that is exactly what we have. It's easy to see what drives the policy. Still keen on "common sense" then! Perhaps you would like to define what you mean by it.
Some politicians may not be too concerned about the perception of support for renewable energy: George Osborne accused of secret war on PM's green policies as father-in-law is caught on video - UK Politics - UK - The Independent Osborne accused over gas lobbyist father-in-law - UK Politics - UK - The Independent Is George Osborne's energy stance influenced by Lord Howell, Greenpeace asks - Telegraph George Osborne is driving force behind anti-wind farm agenda, says his father-in-law Lord Howell - Telegraph
It is easier to identify or define 'lack of common sense' than common sense itself. I have common sense, you might have common sense but there are those that definitely don't have common sense. What appears common sense today might not appear common sense tomorrow. Any clearer :wink:
No, the two are not the same. However what is, or is not, common sense is easier to evaluate with hindsight.
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with my comment. Your statement above is clearly true. Common sense is one of those horribly misused phrases. I'll cite two examples of its usage. "Don't wander around with your eyes shut, you'll walk into something. It's only common sense." "Don't touch those motherboard components without grounding yourself first or you'll wreck them. It's only common sense." "Common sense", in any meaningful sense of the term, presupposes knowledge. Any sighted person has an understanding of what closing their eyes entails. Not every user of a computer understands electrostatic damage issues. Knowledge ahead of time cannot be taken as granted. Knowledge after the fact is a more robust assumption. Thus: Common Sense = Hindsight Yes, my tongue is back in my cheek.
I have studied logic; I know what evidence-based decision making means; I understand what rational analysis is; and I know what irrationality and unreasonableness are. I think I can tell whether what someone has said or done is sensible or not. But still I have no way of telling whether any given proposition might correspond with what you call "common sense", johnv.
Pete, let me ask you a question. With all of your logic, evidence based decision making and rational analysis do you still get it wrong occasionally ? I would suggest that you probably do and the reason you do is because you are human and making mistakes is part of the human condition. Early experiments with expert systems used complicated rule based processes to arrive at decisions and yet still made mistakes. This is because experts do not conciously use logic, evidence and rational analysis, they just know certain things to be correct based upon experience. So I would suggest 'common sense' is a collective knowledge that works because it is based upon what has worked in the past. It isn't precise, and it is prone to errors but I would suggest that those errors are no more likely than after the rigorous evidence based processes that you offer. This is because the modern emphasis on process is driven by people who are not expert in the particular field and all to often use ownership of the process to enhance their own power and status. A refinement of this might be when 'ownership' is passed down the line, but there is no doubt about where the power resides. How often do we hear a Minister state that they have taken 'independent' advice upon which to make a decision when what that really means is that they have found someone who agrees with them but is there to take the blame if it all goes pear shaped. Maybe I am just getting old and (even more) cynical but I see elites (at whatever level) looking after elites and using some sophisticated means by which to maintain their status and 'common sense' is their enemy.
Of course I get loads of things wrong all the time, as do people a lot cleverer than me. So what? My point is: surrendering to unreason is a bad thing and rational thought is something to strive for, not a cure for all ills. You seem to think that "evidence" and "experience" are somehow separate. I suggest that facts about what we have experienced are among the most common forms of evidence. In areas of life where we aspire only to repeat what has gone before, the evidence of experience is very useful. But when aspirations are higher, such as whenever we try to do something better than ever before, experience is less useful; and lots of important things are in that category. What you call "common sense" seems to mean conservatism - which is fine, if you're a conservative. I'm not.
I agree with you Pete. Experience is based upon evidence, we learn from our experience and refine the plan going forward. Repeating what we have done before and expecting a different outcome is a definition of stupidity. I think as a society we are concentrating too much on the means to the end and losing sight of the end itself, process is becoming all important. I think that is sad, we are becoming risk averse, doers are being replaced with administrators. The Apollo program, one the greatest achievements of the twentieth century, was built rapidly on previous experience, with some major setbacks along the way admittedly. But by NASA's own admission Apollo couldn't happened today, the risks would be considered too high. Maybe as a civilisation we have peaked. I do not see my version of common sense as conservatism, I see it as a quick reality check based upon experience, sometimes you just know you are going down the wrong path. I accept complex problems require complex solutions, but the bare bones of the Apollo program could be written on the back of an envelope working back from a Command Module splashing down in the Pacific.
