Mr. Gunwald has confused theory with the real world. In the real world, biodiesel reduced carbon emission in the US last year equivalent to removing 980,000 vehicles from the road. In the real world, biodiesel has the potential to displace 25% of the diesel fuel imported from the Middle East. And we can produce these volumes of domestic, renewable fuel without the land use concerns highlighted in this article. These indirect land use effects are the theory. We need to be very careful not to trash a real world working solution for theories that have yet to prove accruate. In the real world, soybean acreage in Brazil actually decreased between 2004 and 2009, at the very height of U.S. biodiesel growth. Grunwald has repeatedly used Timothy Searchinger’s work as a primary source in the theoretical claim that U.S. biofuels are to blame for planting decisions made by farmers worldwide. Experts at the Department of Energy have characterized Searchinger’s study as “plagued by incorrect or unrealistic assumptions, and obsolete data.” Conservation and energy efficiency are vital parts of the solution, but those who want to tear down biofuels are voting to stick with the status quo -- foreign oil. Every day we use fossil fuels instead of our renewable alternatives is a day we export thousands of dollars to the Middle East and pump tons of carbon from deep within the Earth's crust directly into the atmosphere. We should not have to continue this real world addiction because of theory that does not hold true.

This article is quite fair, and approaches the material with less of a wide-eyed dreamer mentality than the usual blather about alternative energy.

I would like to address a couple of issues that I believe Mike Grunwald didn't sufficiently consider:

First, while there is no arguing the fact that biofuels are not very beneficial and are certainly not cost-effective, it must be stressed that in the face of peak oil the impact on the environment is NOT why government policies have encouraged more biofuels production. While biofuels only contribute ~2% to the transportation fuel total, without that 2% then during most of 2008 global demand would have exceeded global supply. We saw what happened to the price of oil as global demand approached global supply, what might have happened had the supply been 2% less? The marginal value of that extra 2% cannot be known for certain, but we know that it is VERY valuable. We also know that we will again see a supply/demand crunch by the middle of 2010, and we will once again need that additional supply, and we'll need that supply to increase as quickly as possible. While the rainforest degridation is horrible, a global resource war would be worse, so the governments support biofuels knowing that they are destructive and extremely costly... but knowing that they are better than nothing.

Second, you are right that nuclear is extremely costly, you are WRONG in the assumption that nuclear energy does not have attached CO2 emissions, and you are almost certainly wrong about nuclear power's future impact. While it is expensive, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for nuclear - assuming a 60 year lifespan of the plant - is still better than options other than wind in good sites. What defeats nuclear in most industrialized countries is too much local autonomy. In France, there is 1 design... that's all. So when a plant goes up the foundation is poured and work can begin with mass produced parts and assembled according to a well known design by crews that have done this before. In America, local zoning commisions can require a few changes to ~50,000 components within the plant, making the entire thing a custom project with custom parts - made one-at-a-time as prototypes, then custom assembled according to a unique design... The cost multiplies by an order of magnetude because a zoning commission in podunk nowhere decides it knows more than the specialized engineers what is and is not "safe". The other issue is a means of funding the project that helps distribute the capital burden over the 60 year lifespan of the reactor, rather than a 20-30 year mortgage. Both of these issues can be conquered by government, then the nuclear industry will take off. However, mining and processing tons of Uranium ore actually causes a LOT of CO2 emissions. The good ores are rapidly being used up, and the average ores today are an order of magnetude less pure than the ones we used 40 years ago. As nuclear power proliferates, the amount of energy - from coal, natural gas, and petroleum, needed to mine and process the ores will continue to increase - giving nuclear energy a continously worsening carbon footprint. It will still be better than coal in 30 years, and better than gas for at least the next 15... but it's not zero.

Finally, you pooh-pooh the notion that wind might scale up to a level that it could be significant just because it's at 2% penetration now. While there are difficulties with wind (specifically the off-peak energy challenge, the stability issues involved with variable energy production, and the lack of a suitable long distance grid to allow for massive scale wind in the good wind regions), wind has averaged ~30% year over year growth for the last decade. If that was maintained over the next decade, that 2% would become 27%... I'm not saying that is likely (at least until WindFuels are developed and deployed), since I recognize exactly how great those challenges really are are, but saying that a platform that is currently 2% cannot make a big splash is simply showing a lack of understanding of basic math - though you're right about solar.

Otherwise, thanks for a great article that actually shows some understanding of the issues at hand.

Thank you for stating the obvious. We cannot have our cake and eat it to:. Resolving climate change and oil depletion will require us to change our way of life, and the longer we wait the harsher the change will be. This does not mean "going back to the stone age" but it does mean looking at our day-to-day behaviour and reevaluating needs versus wants.

I'm growing tired of those who portray environmental responsibility as just another type of consumerism. It is not. The "greenest" product you can buy is no product at all. Walk, bike, or take transit. If you can't do any of those on a regular basis perhaps it is time to reconsider your place of residence. We live in a free society, where we are free to choose our lifestyles: but with freedom comes responsibility.

“Environmentalist are people who want others to use less energy”! c 2002. . Brazilian energy independence proves that oil dependence is a USA policy of choice; even the GM, Ford, and Toyotas produced in Brazil come off the assembly line running on Brazilian ethanol and no gasoline. Enzymes/yeast that can eat cellulose, just like cows do, and convert the cellulose (sugar) directly to (cleaner burning) ethanol are now available; therefore the use of crude oil is a bad policy choice by the USA et al. Pure cellulose is the cob after the corn is removed, so we do not need any crop land not currently in production. Your assumption that CO2 = global warming ignores sun spots, solar storms, volcanoes, jet streams, ever changing ocean currents et al. Show me a random sample of spots above and below the Artic/Antarctic circles; then show me temperature variations over the last million years at those randomly selected spots, then talk to me about the mean, median and mode of temperature variations in those randomly selected locations. Pick one spot and say that proves it is “liars figure but figures do not lie”. Nothing in your article was relevant or demonstratably true.

Until we have a major solar breakthrough we are kind of screwed. But we will have such a break through eventually. What upsets me is that when the world is off carbon will the world force the companies that existed drilling, mining and transporting carbon to clean up their mess or will they just abandon the refineries, wells, pipelines and mines? Personally I think the CEO of companies like Exxon Mobil and Massey Energy should have to fix things or have every penny taken from them and their families until the job is done.

"Instead of counterproductive biofuel mandates and ethanol subsidies, governments need fuel-efficiency mandates to help the world's 1 billion drivers guzzle less gas, plus subsidies for mass transit, bike paths, rail lines, telecommuting, carpooling, and other activities to get those drivers out of their cars."

These seem like overly complex ways to a desirable end. A far simpler (although, alas, probably politically impossible) solution would be to impose additional taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. A tax of only 5 cents per gallon, added incrementally each month would amount to $1.80 per gallon at the end of three years. Incremental increases avoid the price disruptions of a sudden jump, while getting to an end point that would encourage all the desirable behaviors that Grunwald lists. In the event of a price spike, such as occurred in the summer of 2008, the monthly increase could be suspended temporarily.

It is amazing and disappointing to me that there is one major factor to the ever-increasing demand for energy that is uniformly disregarded. And that is population.

Absent a discussion about how to keep the world's population from increasing at even its current rate, all other arguments are moot.

As a 52 year-old, I have seen the world pop. more than double in my lifetime. 1960 = 3 billion, 2000 = 6 B, and by 2012(projected) ANOTHER BILLION people! That is 1,000,000,000 in about twelve years.

If we are to even approach an energy equilibrium, first we have to reach a population equilibrium, and I'm not sure that, as a species, we are bright enough, nor brave enough, to get it right, as politics and money trump all discussions before they can even start.

We can talk about alternative energy sources, and conservation, and talk about saving the earth and the environment, but make no mistake. The earth will be here long after we are gone.

We fail to tackle untrammeled population growth at our own peril.

"Governments need fuel-efficiency mandates... subsidies for mass transit, bike paths, rail lines, [etc]. Policymakers also need to eliminate subsidies for roads to nowhere, mandates [etc etc]."

Yeah, you could try to accomplish this litany of tasks by passing laws and foisting them on people. Or you could enact a carbon tax and let all these things happen as a natural consequence.

Tundrayeti hit some of the better points on nuclear (the US more or less demands mass standardization on plants, particularly with a currently aging nuclear workforce), but consider this - the major reason for the absolutely insane cost of most nuclear plants (and the claim that they don't draw any investment) is because of some of the most stringent regulations on the planet for any power plant. We let coal power basically get away with murder, but nuke plants are far safer and get held up by years of safety inspections for little reason other than NIMBY-ism and unfounded public fear.

To put it bluntly, unless coal CO2 sequestration turns out to be some kind of magic bullet, you're never going to get long-term massive emissions cuts without either drastically cutting back on power consumption or re-building the backbone of your power grid (including nearly all "steady-state" power) upon nuclear power. Nuclear power is inherently good for countering CO2 emissions - it is highly energy-productive (nuclear plants use far less fuel than coal plants, and their fuel can be recycled, and one nuke plant generates as much power as hundreds, if not thousands, of turbines - and unlike the turbines, it does so at 90% capacity constantly), it is highly concentrated (a single nuke plant sits on a significantly smaller piece of land than large stretches of wind turbines and solar panels, and unlike the latter can be built pretty much wherever you want, particularly with the new pebble-bed designs that no longer need large quantities of fresh water), and you could even cut out CO2 emitting shipping if you wanted to (you could build an entire nuke plant using a rail line as the main means of shipping - could you do the same with wind).

It is not just oil flowing to the US but billions of dollars flowing out of the US to foreign countries. Add to that the loss of potential jobs from new technology. No mention of the obvious. People like Grunwald seem more interested in why we can't rather than stressing what we need to do now to insure the move away from oil.

It's a mistake to think that we are going to get people out of their cars. American's won't give up cars, guns, or beer, unless there is absolutely no other option.

This article's basic point is that while developing alternative energy technologies is a worth long-term objective, a more profitable short-term goal is to encourage efficiency, i.e. "doing more with less," i.e. "conservation."

I think we can all agree that doing more with less is in fact a worthy goal, both in the short and long terms. But Grunwald's argument contradicts itself on a crucial point. He writes: "It's not about some austerity scold harassing you to take cooler showers, turn off light, turn down thermostats, drive less, fly less, buy less stuff, eat less meat, ditch your McMansion, and otherwise change your behavior to save energy ... Efficiency is about doing more or the same with less; it doesn't require much effort or sacrifice."

Sounds good: we can consume less fossil fuel and lower our carbon footprint by making more efficient refrigerators, blow dryers, cars, TV, and so on. And we don't have to modify our consumerist behavior or change our lives in any way. Go ahead an buy a brand new McMansion--just be sure to furnish it with energy-efficient appliances.

But, of course, there are problems here. Some devices have become more efficient over the past several decades. But does this mean that we can make all devices follow suit? Have refrigerators become about as efficient as they're going to get? Or is there room for vastly more improvement? I don't know. But what about the notion of encouraging people to make do with smaller fridges and TVs and cars and computers and so on? In other words, somehow forcing/encouraging people to in fact change their lifestyles.

Toward the end of the piece, Grunwald in fact acknowledges that for "efficiency" to work, people will in fact have to sacrifice and make significant changes in how they consume energy. He write: "Let's face it: Jimmy Carter was right. It wouldn't kill you to turn down the heat and put on a sweater. Efficiency is a miracle drug [really?], but conservation is even better; a Prius saves gas, but a Prius sitting in the driveway while you ride your bike uses no gas. Even energy efficient dryers use more power than clothes lines. ... We might have to unplug a few digital picture frames, substitute teleconferencing for some business travel, and take is easy on the air conditioner."

So, which is it? Can we embrace efficiency withing having to change how we consume energy? Or not? If not, how likely are people to voluntarily turn down the heat and put on a sweater? Or bike to work--a wonderful thing if you happen to live some place with bike lanes and a short commute, but not so great if peddling to the office means braving a freeway shoulder.

Mr. Grunwald mentioned switchgrass passingly, but didn't mention that it will grow on marginal land -- at worst. That is, it can grow on land unfit for, say, corn. Having said that, I should also mention that it is not yet as efficient or economical as corn, according to what I've read anyway.

And I think he could have used a somewhat different tactic in trying to talk up conservation. Well over two years ago, I decided to see if I could significantly reduce my home utility bills.

Eventually I went a fairly thorough route, though that's not the same as extreme, or "self-flagellating." Yes, I did the obvious things first: reduced my air-conditioning use (I live in Bangkok, so heating is never a consideration), took shorter showers, and did some (but not all) of my laundry by hand -- I don't even own a washing machine or dryer. (I do take my pants and shirts to a laundry that uses low-water, high-efficiency washing machines -- and air-drying.)

The effect on my utility bills? Averaged out year-round, a reduction of ~60%, sometimes more, depending on the season.

Nor have I given anything up, really. When I want to watch TV, I plug it in and turn it on. Ditto using any other device.

Then I started doing smaller things, such as unplugging any electrical device I wasn't using at that minute. Right now, only my computer and refrigerator are plugged in. And I plann to replace my lighting with LED bulbs, which I just recently heard are sometimes, if still rarely, becoming available here.

I don't own a motorcycle, and the places I nearly always go aren't far from my home, so that's only a small part of my carbon footprint. If I have more than one place to go, I do try to combine trips. And when I go to a mega-store such as a Tesco Lotus or Carre Foure (which are like a Walmart), I try to get a bunch of stuff, and not just groceries, but non-perishable I might be in need of as well.

Back to the article. I also feel Mr. Grunwald is rather too pessimistic regarding alternative technologies, such as solar, the cost of which is dropping pretty quickly these days. And what about tidal? -- that technology is coming within reason, and rather rapidly. As for wind, apparently some people don't realize that one doesn't have to go very high into the air to get breezes that are much more sustained than they are at ground level.

A friend of mine lives in a 10-storey apartment with no aircon, and gets quite good cross-ventilation when she opens her balcony and hallway doors -- virtually 24/7. She mentioned just recently that the building owner is considering putting some cylindrical turbines on the roof to see how they work out.

Which brings me to another point. Yes, wind and solar farms take large tracts of land. But *individuals* and neighborhoods can use these technologies, with no one wind turbine or set of solar panels taking much space. That also avoids the problem of transmitting power of long distances. When I was growing up on a small ranch in Texas back in the 50's and 60's, at one barn Dad had an old-fashioned windmill, like those that used to dot the Great Plains, and not only did it provide water to the animals, but he rigged it so it generated electricity, enough to keep some regular car batteries charged up. (He did also keep a small diesel generator in case there was no wind and the batteries were dead -- but if there was wind and the batteries were too weak to power the few lights he had in the barn, often the wind would light them up enough when he had to be there at night.)

None of this is going to make oil or other fossil fuels go away overnight, of course. But I do believe they can be employed to reduce more of our dependence on foreign-sourced oil to a greater degree, and more quickly, than Mr. Grunwald seems to feel is the case.

One of the articles strongest point is when it mentions that conservation isn't "sexy" to most folks, unlike, say, a Tesla electric roadster (for those of you who can afford one!). Nor solar panels or windmills. But conservation is a biggie, as my own tiny experience has shown me.

Glad I read the article; well written overall, and it made me think again.

Which is that alternative energy is and has not been allowed.

If you think that fuel improvers such as, but not limited to, carburetors are not and haven't been suppressed then, well, that's just perfect actually.
It is not myth that the patents to better fuel utilization have been bought and shelved - but it will require digging in / rolling up sleeves to confirm it.

We all know (or should know) that suppression is real -such as the electric car or vast improvements in solar energy being shut / slowed down (look into it closely - because better stuff is being strangled right now)

This is the elephant in the room that doesn't get discussed. Instead we are left with the allowed discussion which typical of politics via the machine has little to do with what actually matters.

The boot to the neck of the common man is not going to be removed without millions more removing the blinders.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion that is on par with discussing if liberals or conservatives are more right while ignoring that both are bought and paid for on the issues that actually matter.

Regards !

Global warming is a fraud! Global warming is a campaign being used to stop economic development in the third world and Africa. Do not fall for this trap. The West is using the global warming campaign to stop economic and industrial development in the third world in particular Africa that has 85 percent of the world natural resources. Peak Oil is a fraud there is so much crude oil and natural gas in the world even if all of the crude oil and natural gas in the Middle East was completely burned out there is still plenty of crude oil and natural gas in the world for thousands of years for every country in the world to enjoy a very high standard of living higher than the United States and Europe. A modest amount of increase in global warming and Carbon Dioxide would actually be very beneficial to mankind in lower food prices and the elimination of famine and hunger. Fruits Vegetables and grain plants crops prospers in global warming and a rich Carbon Dioxide atmosphere just ask any farmer botanist and Fruits Vegetables flower greenhouse plant managers. Carbon Dioxide is an essential gas for life the more Carbon Dioxide the more life prospers. If you study history and the climate charts from the “Medieval Warming Period” and the “Little Ice Age” The Medieval Warming Period was a time of great prosperity in Europe consistent crop surpluses growing productive population expanding education programs and universities. The little ice age caused the American and French revolution plus had caused a major famine in Europe millions died. Global warming and Peak Oil is a de-industrialization plan for the West and the developing south. Latest information is the promotion of nuclear fission powers and its toxic waste that is slowly killing off the population near nuclear power plants. Also do not fall for the population explosions trap it is really a genocide and sterilization programs in disguise.
Use petroleum fuels for export only but only bio-fuels should be used domestically. Excluding tax and duty breaks subsidies and tax credits bio-fuels are cheaper than petroleum fuels and bio-fuels have no environmental costs. This however excludes commercial jet airliner fuel. This petroleum fuel for commercial jet airliners is similar kerosene but must remain fluid down to -40 degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit. Do not allow the United States government to dictate your domestic policies. Create a hemp industry for fuel, fiber and paper industries. The United States will engage in extreme bullying when you create a hemp industry. With just 7 percent of your land hemp can provide all of the fuel, paper and fiber for making clothes, dresses, pants, trousers, blouses, shirts, under garments, and business attire you can ever use.
Sugar cane crops can be used to make alcohol for fuel biodiesel fuel from hemp plant palm oil and the fuel costs are less then petroleum fuel. Africa is uniquely position to take advantage of its year round growing season for the export of alcohol and biodiesel as a fuel. Africa has the greatest landmass between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. This unique position allows Africa to export alcohol and or biodiesel as fuel to the rest of the world at a lower cost than most other nations excluding Brazil. Africa needs a network of underground 8” PVC or polyvinylchloride fuel pipes fuel tanks and pumping stations for both alcohol and biodiesel fuel throughout rural and urban areas and to the coastline for export. Green pipes for biodiesel Yellow pipes for alcohol Blue pipes for potable water Purple pipes for irrigation water Brown pipes for sanitary waste water Red steel pipes for natural gas every 50 years natural gas pipes must be replaced Red and White striped pipes for electricity and Orange pipes for optical fibers communications. The production plants for alcohol and or biodiesel will be in the rural areas of Africa and these pipelines would transport the bio-fuels to the urban areas and to the coastline for export.
Generate most of your electricity from utility scale 5 to 10 megawatt wind power towers and floating off shore wind power platforms this is the lowest cost form of electricity and is very strong in the coastal areas of Africa. Climatologists and meteorologists should map and survey wind power maps for Africa’s Interior. It will take about 10 years to complete the wind power systems and map surveys. Africa will discover that if you fully build out wind power to the furthest extent possible Africa will have 40 times more electricity than it can use. In the dryer areas of Africa large stainless steel pipes and canals can used to pump water from the tropical wet areas of Africa. Wind power makes this possible. Water desalinization can use in the coastal dry areas of Africa. With wind power water desalinization will be very cheap. All of the raw metal ore minerals and materials needed for wind power electrical generation and a continental wide electrical distribution system is already there in Africa. Some electricity can be generated from natural gas co-generators and coal power should be used as a backup power source. The vast bulk of coal should be as a fuel for blast furnishes to convert Iron Ore into steel. Avoid nuclear fission power altogether it is too expensive and requires government subsidies to keep these electric power plants operating. Cold fusion energy and magnetic motors really works. Africa needs working efficient practical cold fusion power and small to large magnetic motor electricity plants. This is nuclear power without the toxic waste. All of the industrial metals and materials are already there in Africa for cold fusion power plants.