Re: statistics question
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:45:03 -0500, Susan Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ecologgers, Has someone out there used breeding bird survey trend data as a dependent variable in a multiple regression? If so can I discuss with you whether you transformed this variable and if so what transformation you used. Hello, Sorry for being a bit harsh, but you should not ask this question. Or let me say it different, the question cannot be answered by anyone without seeing it. If you apply regression analysis, the assumptions are homogeneity, independence, no patterns in your residuals, normality (at each X value), and fixed X. It all depends which one is violated; in some cases you may want to transform, in other scenarios you may want to continue with GLM, GAM or mixed modelling, or even GLMM or GAMM. There are examples of some of these methods in www.springer.com/0-387-45967-7 (publication date: 23-3-2007), and also in: Analysing Ecological Data using GLMM and GAMM with R. by: Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Smith, GM, Walker, N. (Expected publication date: 2008). Publisher: Springer. But that take a bit longer. The message is: provided you are willing to apply either mixed modelling, GLMM or GAMM, there is no need for a data transformation on your bird data. In many ecological examples I have seen, heterogeneity is part of the natural system, and is too important to remove it with a data transformation. As to the suggestion made by the first posting, I would not apply a transformation on a richness diversity index. Alain Zuur www.highstat.com Also, does anyone know how to get SAS to compute delta AIC values? I can get it to calculate the AIC value for each case but not delta AICs and calculating them by hand will really be a pain. Thanks for any info. Sue -- Susan A. Heath George Mason University Environmental Science Department Fairfax, VA Secretary, Virginia Avian Records Committee =
Summary GPS mapping software and handhelds
Hello All, I didn't get many responses at all but here are the replies:=20 1. I use a Garmin GPS connected via cable to my laptop, which is running = DeLorme Street Atlas. =20 2. Try OziExplorer (c $80) for PC combined with OziExplorerCE (c $30) =20 for PocketPCs/HandheldPCs. You use the PC program to calibrate (e.g. =20 using Google Earth) any map scanned in or downloaded - so total =20 freedom at to which map you use. This gets converted to a map format =20 for the handheld to use. Both PC and PocketPC versions can annotate =20 maps and add trails, and draw realtime tracks of your movement. You =20 need a GPS card and PocketPC/HandheldPC (or a laptop PC) for in the =20 field. Possibly more expensive than a GPS unit like Garmin but think =20 of all the extra uses you could put a mobile computer to in the field =20 (e.g. instant spp data entry, behavioural ethograms) 3. I use Delorome's Topo when I'm on the road and mapping with my = laptop. As=20 far as I know, it's not picky about which handheld unit that you use. I = generally use it with a Garmin eTrex Summit (~$200), but as I understand = it, it will work with pretty much any unit that is willing to spit out=20 your data to the computer through a data cable. I like the Delorome=20 software because I know I can buy the individual quad topos if I need to = ($3 each) and have them on the laptop side of things. I tend to have the setup where I have a datacable that has a split = cable,=20 after connecting to the unit, one tail is serial (with a USB adapter) = and=20 connected to the computer, and the other is power into the cigarette=20 lighter. Here's my setup: Delorome Topo, Western US ($50) http://shop.delorme.com/OA_HTML/DELibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?section=3D10050i= tem=3D23992 Garmin eTrex Summit (~$200) http://www.garmin.com/products/etrexsummit/ PC Interface power cable ($50 from garmin, $20 online at amazon) http://shop.garmin.com/accessory.jsp?sku=3D010%2D10268%2D00 I used this setup pretty extensively when doing some field work about = two=20 summers ago. I was able to have it on, and in the car, mapping out my=20 points, and a bonus feature is that if you're on roads and you have the=20 coordinates of where you're going, it will give you driving directions = to=20 places. I used it many times that way as well when I was looking for=20 national forest campgrounds late at night (Coleman lists the National=20 Forest Campgrounds by GPS coordinates). 4.Attached is an earlier email from this listserver regarding GPS units. = You might find it useful. ArcMap 9.2 now has GPS support functionalities = (i.e., GPS toolbar). The GPS device must have an input/output (I/O) interface = and be National Marine and Electronics Association (NMEA) compliant. If you = work under dense canopies, then you will need an external antenna to improve = the signal reception. The following is a summary of mostly web research on compatibility = between Garmin and Magellan GPS systems with ESRI file formats, including = responses from ECOLOG subscribers. Thanks especially to Jen Morse, Rebecca Mann, Sudhir Raj Shrestha, Kimberly Conley, Daniel DeJoode, Pat Swain, Eric Branton, Doug Adomatis of TravelbyGPS.com, someone whose email address = leads me to believe his/her last name is Picotte and first initial is J, = two salespeople at the REI store in Durham (NC), and not very much at all to Garmin and Magellan customer support. -= --- Neither Garmin nor Magellan systems offer any compatibility with ESRI formats. However, several third-party softwares are available that can seamlessly and easily transfer vector data between shapefile and GPS- specific formats. The most recommended of these is the Minnesota DNR's = DNR Garmin: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mis/gis/tools/arcview/extensions/DNRGarmin/DNR= Gar min.html ...which, due to limitations of the GPS firmware, is able only to = transfer one attribute field at a time along with point ID, X, Y, Z, and T coordinates. Other softwares for translating between shapefiles and GPS formats include GPS Utility (http://www.gpsu.co.uk/) and scripts = written in Excel, although the MN DNR's program was by far the crowd favorite. Sadly, no available software is capable of translating raster data from ESRI-compatible formats to those used in Garmin or Magellan GPS units. You'll have to buy a Trimble (or Leica?) for that. If you prefer answers focused and without ornament, you may stop reading now. What follows are extra bits of knowledge picked up during my = research. -= --- Garmin was the brand recommended unanimously by those polled. (Well, actually by all but Magellan Customer Support.) The most popular units = were in Garmin's eTrex line (especially the Legend and Legend Cx), followed = by one vote for the GPSMap 76. Magellan's MapSend topographic base maps are based
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?----2
My best guess, which I have been suggesting for 30 years, is Hydrogen = made from wind and other solar sources; and a reduced population. =20 ** =20 In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both = ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader = question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually = run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and = while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot = count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Bill asks: In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Ultimately, hydrogen will be the transportable, combustible fuel that we will use. It is essentially an inexhaustable, infinitely recyclable, completely non-polluting fuel source (at least at its point of combustion). The only reason that hydrogen is not used now is its higher cost, vis-a-vis fossil fuels (including the enormous infrastructure changeover costs). But we have the technology in hand now to use it efficiently and well. Indeed, we went to the Moon on hydrogen, combusting it both at high temperatures in the second and third stages of the Saturn V rockets and at low temperatures in the fuel cells of the service propulsion stage, where it produced not only electricity but drinking water as well. Burning any other, more complex molecule only adds a mix of polluting combustion products to the atmosphere. With hydrogen, the only pollutant is water. Wirt Atmar
Q value vs Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons
[Note: this message will be posted on Evoldir, Ecolog-L, and the popbiol listervs, and I apologize in advance if you get multiple copies. I will post summaries of replies to all three lists.] I am try to get a sense of whether a consensus is developing among evolutionary and population biologists on the use of the false discovery rate (Q-value) in multiple comparisons instead of the various forms of the Bonferroni correction. Since Rice's 1989 paper (Evolution 43:223), the Bonferroni correction has been widely used for adjusting the significance level of multiple comparisons to minimize type I errors. In fact, in some fields, as I have learned the hard way, it has become a virtual requirement for publication. But with these corrections, the power of the analyses are lowered, perhaps artificially and unnecessarily, and some biologists have argued that they probably should not be used (e.g. Moran,2003; Oikos 100:443). My own work often involves large numbers of comparisons of gene frequencies by chi-square or related statistics, to evaluate the significance of allelic frequency differences among populations or the potential reality of linkage disequilibrium detected by programs like LinkDos. I have used the Bonferroni correction in the past, but often with the feeling that I was throwing many babies out with the bathwater, especially with preliminary surveys, which are often fishing expeditions. It seems to me that use of the Q value instead of the Bonferroni correction could restore a great deal of power to multiple comparisons. [see Verhoeven et al., 2005; Oikos 108:643 for a discussion and review of literature]. Yet I see relatively few papers, particularly in population genetics, that use the Q value, and many that still use the Bonferroni correction. Of course, this apparent delay could simply reflect the fact that most papers that are in the curent issues of journals were submitted around a year ago or more. Or it could simply stem from the conservatism of research communities (including referees of journal articles) that don't spend a lot of time worrying about type I vs type II errors. I cordially invite comment from anyone who has a viewpoint or experience with this issue. Bruce J. Turner Dept. Biol. Sci. VPISU Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540)-231-7444 (V) (540)-231-9307 (F)
If not ethanol--a modest proposal
This may sound very pie-in-the-sky, but how about this proposition: The amount of energy we should use is the amount that can be captured by = covering every existing roof with the highest-tech energy capture device = currently available--photovoltaics, I assume. Surely someone has calculated how much energy this would capture, and = how it stacks up against our current energy use? Presumably we would = need to massively reduce energy use for this to come close to meeting = our needs, but ultimately it would seem the moral path to head down. = (Along with other renewables, especially wind, though I like this a lot = better than fueling machines with photosynthate when people are = starving) One could also do the same over every parking lot, street, etc, although = this would entail the energy and material cost of massive additional = construction. Dave Whitacre
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
I'm sure other literature goes more into depth, but Lester Brown's book Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (which I highly recommend, by the way) mentions replacing coal-fired electric power and then using the electricity generated at night (when demand is lower) to produce hydrogen (I presume through electrolysis). This hydrogen can then be burned to produce more electricity during the day, or be pumped into cars for transportation, etc. -Tim Nuttle I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Here in Alabama, we recently heard a news story of a biofuel plant (Perihelion Global) being opened in Opp, Alabama. This plant is planning to make biofuel from peanuts, which is obviously a boon to peanut farmers down in the south. Originally, I thought that they were going to use the wastes from peanut crops (e.g. shells) which is why Bill's email (below) prompted me to respond, but after re-reading the news story just now, I think they will be using the peanuts themselves: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6006238 I guess there will be some of the same issues here as with corn (monoculture, food crop), though I don't know how the energetics will work out in this case. Here also is an article about research being done at Auburn University, also in Alabama, concerning the use of switchgrass (high-yield, low-input, drought-tolerant, etc.) as a potential biodfuel crop: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/adm/comm/news/2006/bransby.php Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574 I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
PhD graduate positions available
PhD GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS Two Ph.D. Graduate Research Assistantships are available to study the ecological, behavioral and genetic dynamics of contact zones between two species of woodrats in California. Successful applicants will play a large role in the design of several projects that will integrate data from intensive fieldwork focused on small mammal trapping and resource use, laboratory behavioral trials and molecular genetic analyses. Candidates will also have an opportunity to help develop and deliver a series of molecular genetic lab activities for local high school students. Candidates should be creative and highly motivated with strong writing and communication skills. Candidates must have a B.S. and preferably an M.S. in biology, or a closely related discipline, field experience, ability to work under rigorous field conditions and interest in evolutionary ecology, genetics, and science education. Positions are available August 2007 and funded for 5 years. Review of applications will begin February 12 and continue until the positions are filled. Submit (preferably by email) a letter of interest that includes a description of work experience and career goals including both research and education, curriculum vitae, copies of transcripts, GRE scores, and the names and contact information (phone and e-mail address) of 3 academic references to: Marjorie Matocq Department of Biological Sciences Idaho State University P.O. Box 8007 Pocatello, Idaho 83209 Telephone: (208) 282-3914 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Energy Evaluation of alternatives Hydrogen Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
How many equal units are required to put one unit of hydrogen to work in the entire range of its applications, including those required for distribution, storage, etc.? WT At 08:43 AM 2/2/2007, Wirt Atmar wrote: Bill asks: In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Ultimately, hydrogen will be the transportable, combustible fuel that we will use. It is essentially an inexhaustable, infinitely recyclable, completely non-polluting fuel source (at least at its point of combustion). The only reason that hydrogen is not used now is its higher cost, vis-a-vis fossil fuels (including the enormous infrastructure changeover costs). But we have the technology in hand now to use it efficiently and well. Indeed, we went to the Moon on hydrogen, combusting it both at high temperatures in the second and third stages of the Saturn V rockets and at low temperatures in the fuel cells of the service propulsion stage, where it produced not only electricity but drinking water as well. Burning any other, more complex molecule only adds a mix of polluting combustion products to the atmosphere. With hydrogen, the only pollutant is water. Wirt Atmar
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Here's the solution: Start with an ethanol burning internal combustion engine. Science develops a free-living chloroplast system (FLCS) that uses sunlight to convert CO2 and water directly to glucose and oxygen (the oxygen is then recycled through the engine). A fermentation system converts this glucose into ethanol and CO2 (the CO2 is recycled into the FLCS). The ethanol is used to power the automobile's internal combustion engine, producing water and CO2 as an exhaust. This exhaust is then recycled through the FLCS to produce more glucose. All this is fitted on and into a standard size automobile. The only input? Sunlight. The only output? Energy. The only drawbacks? The FLCS might have to be several hectares in size and it may take several days to produce an hour's supply of ethanol. This whole arrangement is called Biochemical Self-Sustaining Synergism, or BS-cubed for short. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist (503)246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, 02 February, 2007 08:14 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: If not Ethanol, what then? I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Thank you for the website and the phrase that caught my eye was: Whether or not yields are enhanced by diveristy remains an open question. However, there is no question that harvesting grasslands, even low-diversity and degraded grasslands, enhances their biodiversity. Hopefully, funding agencies will start supplying funds so we, as scientist, can answer this question more fully. In Nebraska, using corn for ethanol is a big political move by politicians and hopefully we can start using the natural grasslands and benefit from the natural landscape and move away from monocultures. I have enjoyed the discussion Michael Mellon --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure other literature goes more into depth, but Lester Brown's book Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (which I highly recommend, by the way) mentions replacing coal-fired electric power and then using the electricity generated at night (when demand is lower) to produce hydrogen (I presume through electrolysis). This hydrogen can then be burned to produce more electricity during the day, or be pumped into cars for transportation, etc. -Tim Nuttle I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
Energy and survival Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Honorable Forum: Either population reduction or reduction of luxury consumption. Plowing takes energy too. Shifting from consumptive/extractive agriculture to a modification of ecosystems (restored to existing agricultural lands, not by wrecking more ecosystems) that produce sufficient food products without cultivation as much as possible, with an intelligent, mathematical, simple, sufficiently* precise examination and evaluation of alternatives and their whole effects over time, might result in a kind of frugal luxury in which all people could share with the planet's other organisms in balance. The alternative is koyanasquatsi. WT * My last attempted posting, which apparently David approve, was intended to stimulate discussion along the lines of the concept of sufficiency, not an attempt to dis ALL mathematics. I do, however, seriously question much of mathematical ecology. At 08:13 AM 2/2/2007, William Silvert wrote: I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?----3
If we are going to move toward wind and solar as our primary energy sources, massive efforts for energy conservation and efficiency (in all aspects of our economy and lifestyles) would seem to be necessary. Conservation is our most eco-friendly source of power. Unfortunately, a quick look at the political tea leaves me with the impression we're headed for a heavy dependence nuclear power. It's an industrialized source of huge amounts of power with no carbon emissions. Viola -- problem solved. (Why worry about radioactive emissions and nuclear waste now when we can worry about it even more in 50 years?) Here's what was given to the nuclear industry when Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law: * $3 billion in research subsidies. * More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear power plants. * Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits. * More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants. * A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear plants. * Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants. These stats came from the following interesting and somewhat depressing story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16272910/ -Geoff Poole La Follette, Doug J - SOS wrote: My best guess, which I have been suggesting for 30 years, is Hydrogen made from wind and other solar sources; and a reduced population. ** In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
While I have been storing this recent discussion topic for a later read, I am assuming your question has not yet been answered, or else you would not have asked it. Forgive me if I end up being repetitive. It seems that so much of our scientific research, modeling, and discussion on climate change has been focused around the assumption of man's historical ability to create that smoking gun technology that is going to save us all from the inevitable, detrimental effects of over consumption and energy use. The problem with this logic is that, while technological advances can no doubt contribute something to a sustainable future for all of our societies, it does little to change the dependencies on energy that got us here in the first place. Our inability to see (visually, as well as, I would argue, through price) the true effect our individual lifestyles have on this planet has led to this spiraling overuse of resources that are, globally, running out. Like any good economist will tell you, a completely inelastic demand curve (which is what we have now), will do nothing to change supply, regardless of the form that supply comes in (ethanol, or otherwise). Inevitably, every human will contribute some amount of GHGs to the atmosphere in his/her life; it is only a question of how much. Climate change research does suggest that there could be enough energy for many more centuries than are predicted now, if we were only able to reduce our use as much as possible. (As a side bar, the inelasticity of demand also tends to drive up costs. The effects of this rise in price will have a negative effect on all our economies, and will do little to bring about the supposed technological advances our climate modeling hinges on.) I suggest education is the only possible solution. So many of us are completely unaware of how our society is run, and so we have this growing inability to effect change. How can we know what to do when we have no idea how we got here? As a student of the environment, I see energy everywhere; in the food I eat, in the times I drive my car, when I turn on the faucet, when I make purchases etc. If we were constantly aware of what it ACTUALLY takes to get this society moving, I believe we might actually start to see some change, if only through the influence of our purchasing power (since most of us live in capitalist societies). Knowing the life-cycles of everyday materials and products can profoundly affect our use of them. For example, do we think about the 9,000+ liters of water it takes to produce one basic meal at McDonalds, or the fossil fuels it takes to produce just one hamburger (enough to run a small car 20 miles)? These are the energies that are hidden from us, that we must be aware of if there is going to be any discussion of climate hedging. Forgive me for being idealistic. In addition to seeing energy everywhere, I also see the energy for change. I believe it is up to us, as educators and scientists, to live as the best possible examples, and teach others to do so, so that they may know how and why to follow. Ethanol may be a potential supplement, but reduction is the smoking gun. Kristina Donnelly University of Michigan MS Candidate, Aquatic Sciences MSE Candidate, Environmental and Water Resources Engineering William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert - Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
The use of switchgrass as a biofuel feedstock is not as environmentally benign as one would hope. It does take land from other uses (food, range, livestock, native prairie) and these new varieties of switchgrass have very low root/shoot ratios. This means that this crop will need more irrigation and fertilization than its wild cousin. Although a perennial crop, replanting will be required periodically so at those points soil erosion can be a problem. Loss of excess fertilizer to ground and surface water is also an issue. What would really be a tragedy is if native grassland is plowed up and replanted with this, when native grassland is extremely endangered and there are the LIHD alternatives described in Mike Palmer's website and the Tilman et al. paper. Linda Wallace Linda L. Wallace, Ph.D. Director, Kessler Farm Field Laboratory Professor of Botany Department of Botany Microbiology University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 (405) 325-6685 FAX (405) 325-7619 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kristina Pendergrass wrote: Here in Alabama, we recently heard a news story of a biofuel plant (Perihelion Global) being opened in Opp, Alabama. This plant is planning to make biofuel from peanuts, which is obviously a boon to peanut farmers down in the south. Originally, I thought that they were going to use the wastes from peanut crops (e.g. shells) which is why Bill's email (below) prompted me to respond, but after re-reading the news story just now, I think they will be using the peanuts themselves: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6006238 I guess there will be some of the same issues here as with corn (monoculture, food crop), though I don't know how the energetics will work out in this case. Here also is an article about research being done at Auburn University, also in Alabama, concerning the use of switchgrass (high-yield, low-input, drought-tolerant, etc.) as a potential biodfuel crop: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/adm/comm/news/2006/bransby.php Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574 I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
How about serious energy conservation beginning today? We almost never hear professional ecologists or activist organizations (e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists) proposing immediately lifestyle sacrifices to set an example for the rest of society. Very simple, low tech sacrifices. What would it take, for example, to get todays ecologists and activists out of there 3,300 pound, 25 miles per gallon Subaru Forester SUV's and back into the 2,500 pound, 34 miles per gallon Toyota Tercel Station Wagon type vehicles they drove 20 years ago? I frankly don't think todays ecologists and activists are willing to drive a Tercel like vehicle anymore because: 1) They don't want to drive a car that doesn't have 300 lbs worth of air bags and structural reinforcements to aid crashworthiness. 2) They don't want to drive a car that has fuel economy optimizing narrow wheels and tires like the Tercel did. 3) They don't want to drive a car that has a fuel economy optimizing 70 horsepower engine that takes 15 seconds to accelerate to 60 MPH like the Tercel did. 4) They don't want to drive a a car that has a 5-speed manual transmission like the Tercel did. 5). They don't even want to see the national 55 miles per hour speed limit reinstated. Likewise, I don't think todays professional ecologists (in the USA) and activists are willing to live in 900-1,400 square foot homes like they did 20 years ago. Instead, it's typical nowadays to see them purchasing 1,600 - 2,200 square foot homes just like other people in society that have household incomes in the $60,000 - $120,000 per year range. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
There is also the problem of fire.=20 Vast fields of switchgrass present a very different fire risk landscape = than fields of corn or soy. =20 |||//*\\|||=20 Geoffrey M. Henebry, Ph.D., C.S.E.=20 Professor of Biology and Geography Senior Research Scientist Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence (GIScCE) 1021 Medary Ave., Wecota Hall 506B South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57007=20 voice: 605-688-5351 (-5227 fax)=20 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 web: globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Linda Wallace Sent: Fri 02-Feb-07 12:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? The use of switchgrass as a biofuel feedstock is not as environmentally benign as one would hope. It does take land from other uses (food, range, livestock, native prairie) and these new varieties of switchgrass have very low root/shoot ratios. This means that this crop will need more irrigation and fertilization than its wild cousin. Although a perennial crop, replanting will be required periodically so at those points soil erosion can be a problem. Loss of excess fertilizer to ground and surface water is also an issue. What would really be a tragedy is if native grassland is plowed up and replanted with this, when native grassland is extremely endangered and there are the LIHD alternatives described in Mike Palmer's website and the Tilman et al. = paper. Linda Wallace Linda L. Wallace, Ph.D. Director, Kessler Farm Field Laboratory Professor of Botany Department of Botany Microbiology University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 (405) 325-6685 FAX (405) 325-7619 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kristina Pendergrass wrote: Here in Alabama, we recently heard a news story of a biofuel plant (Perihelion Global) being opened in Opp, Alabama. This plant is = planning to make biofuel from peanuts, which is obviously a boon to peanut = farmers down in the south. Originally, I thought that they were going to use = the wastes from peanut crops (e.g. shells) which is why Bill's email = (below) prompted me to respond, but after re-reading the news story just now, = I think they will be using the peanuts themselves: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?s=3D6006238 I guess there will be some of the same issues here as with corn (monoculture, food crop), though I don't know how the energetics will = work out in this case. Here also is an article about research being done at Auburn = University, also in Alabama, concerning the use of switchgrass (high-yield, = low-input, drought-tolerant, etc.) as a potential biodfuel crop: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/adm/comm/news/2006/bransby.php Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574 =20 I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the = bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if = grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food = crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I = really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless = we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; = ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages = in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus = that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will = eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we
Re: If not ethanol--a modest proposal
Hello All, I have been watching this debate for a few days now before chiming in. While I agree with David's point that if biofuels are to work, we must first reduce the demand on them by utilizing other renewable energy sources like the sun. I would, however like to caution everyone that a high-tech fix usually has high capital costs and that lower tech fixes are often the best approach. In most cases, simpler solutions like passive or active solar water heating are much more efficient and durable than PV, not to mention simpler. This kind of thinking needs to manifest itself in our national energy policy in terms of massive demand side management and simple solutions to our remaining energy demand. ~Chris Farmer --- DAVID WHITACRE wrote: This may sound very pie-in-the-sky, but how about this proposition: The amount of energy we should use is the amount that can be captured by = covering every existing roof with the highest-tech energy capture device = currently available--photovoltaics, I assume. Surely someone has calculated how much energy this would capture, and = how it stacks up against our current energy use? Presumably we would = need to massively reduce energy use for this to come close to meeting = our needs, but ultimately it would seem the moral path to head down. = (Along with other renewables, especially wind, though I like this a lot = better than fueling machines with photosynthate when people are = starving) --- end of quote --- ___
Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency
One observation keeps me skeptical of ethanol: photosynthesis is only 1% efficient at converting sunlight to biomass. So regardless of how many resources are used to produce biomass of any kind for energy production, the same area covered with solar PV cells is 10-15 times more efficient. Now if we can just resurrect the electric car and convince ADM to grow polysilicon. ;-) It has been hypothesized that the surface area of Arizona covered with PV could supply the US with all it's electricity needs. Along similar lines: wind power in the Dakotas could do likewise. While I understand the limitations, logistic and political issues of these proposals the point is that A) these technologies are practical and available, not as low percentage contributors, but replacements for fossil fuels. One additional advantage of wind over bio-fuels is that wind is a simultaneous adjunct to agriculture, producing both energetic and economic benefits to farmers, and the general population. With these power sources in place other renewable bio-fuels could replace fossils for transportation. And lets now forget the most immediate energy source: conservation! David David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123 On Jan 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Maiken Winter wrote: Hi all, We just had a discussion on ethanol on the Tompkins Sustainability listserv, and I would like to share one of the most interesting inputs from an employee of an independent energy firm in our area: At Cornell, a study has shown the inefficiency of ethanol; please see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ ethanol.toocostly.ssl.htmlhttp://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/ July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html It seems as if the final word on energy efficiency is still out. Pimental, who is widely and correctly quoted, is viewed as an extremist. ( He may still be right), Most research indicates a tiny bit of positive energy produced with corn to ethanol9 10-20%, and a little better for Biodiesel from soybeans. Some interesting articles are listed below: Drunk on Ethanol- Audubon Society: http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.htmlhttp:// magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.html But the reformulated-gasoline program has turned out to be a colossal failure, and the ethanol industry has transmogrified into a sacrosanct, pork-swilling behemoth that gets bigger and hungrier with each feeding. Ethanol dirties the air more than it cleans it. Its production requires vast plantings of corn, which wipe out fish and wildlife by destroying habitat and polluting air, soil, and water. Of all crops grown in the United States, corn demands the most massive fixes of herbicides, insecticides, and chemical fertilizers, while creating the most soil erosion. Does it take more energy to make ethanol than is contained in ethanol? That question continues to haunt the ethanol industry even after 27 years of expanding production. Over the years more than 20 scientific studies have examined the question. This document contains links to the major studies of the subject completed during the last decade. http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.htmlhttp:// www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html Here is a good article from renewable energy access, by LesterBrown of Worldwatch. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/ story;jsessionidhttp://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/ reinsider/story;jsessionid =DDB1143EA1BF449D5EFC92ADE6723FDE?id=47092 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that distilleries will require only 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But here at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), we estimate that distilleries will need 139 million tons -- more than twice as much. If the EPI estimate is at all close to the mark, the emerging competition between cars and people for grain will likely drive world grain prices to levels never seen before. The key questions are: How high will grain prices rise? When will the crunch come? And what will be the worldwide effect of rising food prices? From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. Today's Ithaca Journal has a report on Mexican President tries to contain tortilla prices due to a surge in corn prices driven by the US
Summer Undergrad Research: Urban Watershed Ecology
RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES IN URBAN ECOSYSTEM STUDIES The Environmental Institute of Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio seeks qualified and enthusiastic participants for a Research Experiences for Undergraduates program emphasizing urban watershed ecology. The program stresses interdisciplinary approaches to urban ecosystem studies and a collaborative, collegial research environment with participants of diverse educational and life experiences. Possible research areas for summer 2007 include urban forest food-web dynamics, climate change biology, invasive species in urban ecosystems, and ecology or population genetics of urban stream organisms. The program also provides research training, educational/career guidance, and opportunities to interact with academic scientists and environmental professionals from a variety of state and federal agencies. Applicants must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and students in good standing at an accredited U.S. college or university. Only students graduating after fall 2007 will be considered. Dates for the 10-week program are May 21 through July 28, 2007. Successful applicants will receive a stipend of $4,120 and a research supply budget of $600. On-campus housing will be provided to students from outside the Cleveland, Ohio area. Support for travel to and from Cleveland is also available. Review of applications will begin March 1, 2007. Additional program information and on-line application materials may be found at www.csuohio.edu/ei (click the button labeled REU/PI). You may also contact Dr. B. Michael Walton, Director, Environmental Institute, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115 ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or telephone: 216-687-4890 or 2407). This program is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Students from underrepresented groups in the sciences are encouraged to apply.
Restoration Ecology Assistant (6-9 months)(2 positions)
CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN INSTITUTE FOR PLANT BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION Prairie River Ecosystems RESTORATION ECOLOGY ASSISTANTS (2 positions, 6-9 months, starting as early as March 5, 2007) Looking for two individuals who are hardy, passionate about native plants, have good knowledge of native flora or capacity and willingness to learn it, relish being out-of-doors and are eager for hands-on restoration experience. PURPOSE The goal of this 6 9 month position is to assist in the management and development of natural areas created at the Chicago Botanic Garden; specifically, the 15-acre Dixon Prairie and a 25-acre urban river corridor. About 250 native plant species grow in the six prairie types found in the Dixon prairies (mesic, gravel, sand, wet, savanna and fen), and about 200 native plant species in the various wetland and prairie communities that traverse the river corridor. RESPONSIBILITIES The assistant will be expected to learn a major component of the flora of the two natural areas, described above, including non-native species (particularly ones needing management through mowing, pulling, digging, cutting, deadheading, treating with herbicide, etc.). Safe operation of small equipment including mowers, hedge trimmers, water pumps, and sprayers will be required. In addition to weed management, enhancement activities such as seeding, planting, watering, seed nursery care, seed collection and cleaning will be performed, all under the supervision of the Gardens restoration ecologist. An important responsibility of the assistant will be to supervise volunteers in the above- referenced activities. Depending on availability during controlled burn seasons, the assistant may be able to assist in this activity. The assistant also will participate in plant surveys, data entry, and, potentially, literature research and report writing. Miscellaneous office work, equipment care, and organizational duties will be required. POSITION REQUIREMENTS BS in ecology, botany or biological sciences. Plant identification skills (preferably experience in the use of a dichotomous key). Knowledge of local flora preferred but not required. Individuals must be able to work alone for long hours in the out-of-doors performing arduous tasks. Applicants should be comfortable working in a river or lake. Organizational and people skills and an ability to work both independently as well as in a team setting. The assistant is expected to be able to take and pass the State of Illinois General Standards Pesticide License Test and be able to carry a 25 -pound herbicide backpack sprayer for two to three hours at a time. Experience with Microsoft Office Excel and Word programs is desirable, as is the ability to conduct research on the Web. A valid drivers license is necessary with a good driving record. SALARY: $10-12/hour plus paid holidays. APPLICATION DEADLINE: When filled. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Forward a cover letter (explaining work goals, reason for seeking position) and resume by e-mail to Joan OShaughnessy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arrange for a copy of your transcript to be sent to Joan OShaughnessy, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, IL 60022.
Re: Energy Evaluation of alternatives Hydrogen Re: If not Ethan...
Wayne asks: How many equal units are required to put one unit of hydrogen to work in the entire range of its applications, including those required for distribution, storage, etc.? I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I suspect that most of your questions can be answered by reading this authoritative article that appeared in Physics Today a few years ago: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html Hydrogen can be produced by any number of means: by heat distillation of organics, such as methane, coal, natural gas, methanol, biogas, etc; from bacteria or algae through photosynthesis; or by using electricity or sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It's the last method, photoelectrolysis, that is considered to be the holy grail of the hydrogen economy; it requires no intermediate step involving electricity. In the article referenced above, the authors strongly suggest that photoelectrolysis can be conducted as a nanoscale process, in a semiconductor. If so, we're likely to have all of the hydrogen we will need in a very readily usable form. A stored fuel is necessary for transportation needs, especially airplanes, but it's also extremely useful as a stored energy buffer when electricity produced by wind or solar is not available. Hydrogen is nearly the ideal match for hybrid vehicles. It can either be used as a fuel in fuel cells directly producing electricity or consumed in on-board internal combustion engines, when needed. But beyond these needs, we're not likely to consume anywhere near as much hydrogen in the future as we do fossil petroleum fuels today. Much of our energy use will undoubtedly be converted to use electricity directly, including plug-in hybrid cars. While the majority of that electricity will likely remain produced at centralized power plants, it will also begin to produced at ever greater proportions on-site, at homes and businesses. We're not so much short of energy (or even ideas) as we are the cost structure to make all of this come to fruitition, but it will happen. Wirt Atmar
also
It also takes a large amount of energy [oil or nat gas] to cook the grass into ethanol. The use of switchgrass as a biofuel feedstock is not as environmentally benign as one would hope. It does take land from other uses (food, range, livestock, native prairie) and these new varieties of switchgrass have very low root/shoot ratios. This means that this crop will need more irrigation and fertilization than its wild cousin. Although a perennial crop, replanting will be required periodically so at those points soil erosion can be a problem. Loss of excess fertilizer to ground and surface water is also an issue. What would really be a tragedy is if native grassland is plowed up and replanted with this, when native grassland is extremely endangered and there are the LIHD alternatives described in Mike Palmer's website and the Tilman et al. paper. Linda Wallace Linda L. Wallace, Ph.D. Director, Kessler Farm Field Laboratory Professor of Botany Department of Botany Microbiology University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 (405) 325-6685 FAX (405) 325-7619 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kristina Pendergrass wrote: Here in Alabama, we recently heard a news story of a biofuel plant (Perihelion Global) being opened in Opp, Alabama. This plant is planning to make biofuel from peanuts, which is obviously a boon to peanut farmers down in the south. Originally, I thought that they were going to use the wastes from peanut crops (e.g. shells) which is why Bill's email (below) prompted me to respond, but after re-reading the news story just now, I think they will be using the peanuts themselves: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6006238 I guess there will be some of the same issues here as with corn (monoculture, food crop), though I don't know how the energetics will work out in this case. Here also is an article about research being done at Auburn University, also in Alabama, concerning the use of switchgrass (high-yield, low-input, drought-tolerant, etc.) as a potential biodfuel crop: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/adm/comm/news/2006/bransby.php Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574 I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
The ethics of energy
Why is it that people are failing to address the issue that Americans are using an excessive amount of energy, much of which has to do with our acceptance of wastefulness? Nature, it seems, tends to utilize resources with minimal waste and high efficiency, and strangely enough, humans refuse to follow the only model that we know actually works. Instead, people are seeking ways to maintain and justify the current level of energy consumption. Besides a lust for money, can someone tell me why electricity is produced from a dam in Montana and is sent to meet demand in Missouri, while simultaneously; electricity produced in Washington is sent to meet the demand in Montana? Has someone calculated how much energy would be saved if the energy produced in a region was used to satisfy 100% of regional demand before any of it were exported, and when it was exported, it was supplied to meet the demand in the nearest neighboring region? This is completely within our power and authority. Ethanol Questions: How will these vast fields of grain be yearly fertilized and pesticided without a vast supply of petroleum for making the fertilizer and pesticides? Corn uses a lot of water, more than most other crops, I think. Where will the vast amount of water come from for irrigating such large scale farm operations? The aquifers of the plains are dwindling. Are we willing to drain the Great Lakes in order to make fuel? Let's ask MI, WI, IL, IN, OH, NY and Canada. Question: How will we be able to produce enough grain for ethanol when we are plowing up the high quality farmland everyday in order to build subdivisions? Answer: Subdivide the entire country into 20 acre ranchettes, and use the grass clippings from the hundreds of millions of acres of Kentucky bluegrass lawns to produce ethanol. Why not build dams on rivers in Antarctica and Greenland in order to capitalize on the melting ice? We continue to extract resources from the environment, but do we replace anything? To my mind, taking without giving back is stealing, and in most minds, I believe, stealing is wrong. How are we investing in the environment (mitigating impacts that we cause doesnt count) in order to show our appreciation for the freely given gifts that we receive and depend upon in order to live? What can we give nature that it doesnt already have, that it cant give itself? The answer is appreciation, honor, and respect. Nature will not be mocked. Nature is not our slave. True Native American wisdom fully understands this and acts upon it: in order to be taken care of by nature, you must appreciate, respect, and honor natures gifts. Not just say that we do, but do so through actions. This is true both individually, and as a collective of individuals at varying scales. Dont take my word for it though, find out for yourself. You have heard of the observer effect right, where the act of observation changes the phenomenon being observed? Accordingly, we will influence the very outcomes of these energy issues simply through the way we choose to observe them. We must be thoughtful regarding how we will observe, describe, quantify, and/or qualify the nature the issue. Im not speaking specifically to ecologists when I say this- Im looking to all people, and reminding myself. Before we begin an experiment, we must decide not only decide how to design the experiment, but we must recognize that by observing it we will change it, and that how we observe the experiment will likewise change the outcome. If the reason for implementing an intensive system such as ethanol production is completely one-dimensional- to fill the gap left by dwindling oil supplies- then we are in for a rocky road. Similarly, a designed system manages only the outcomes that it has been designed to manage. If we dont integrate considerations of ethics, culture, economics, and environment in the engineering of an energy system, but instead design for very specific outcomes like maximizing BTUs, we will surely experience additional results that are unmanageable under the established design. If you have not yet read the following book, I urge you to take a closer look. It is called The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture, 1978 essays by Wendell Berry. In the 1970's Wendell Berry made an analysis of America that hit the mark so painfully well, that no one has been willing to step forward to champion or even offer refutation or counter arguments since the book was published nearly 30 years ago. On growth and development of society: We are ecologists, we know what would happen if things like bacteria and mold just continued to grow, if they manipulated their environment to allow their colonies to continue to grow, instead of cycling. What would happen if our lawns just continued to grow and grow all year round? We have to maintain the lawn because we know that uncontrolled growth is cancer and is grotesque. Would we want to cut grass in the dead of
“Professorship in Dynamic Modeling” here in beautiful Canada!
Dearest Ecologists, Please note below information on a Professorship in Dynamic Modeling here with us in beautiful Canada! Consider applying, but do not write to or inquire with me directly. Best, Marco PS: Official posting at http://careers.peopleclick.com/jobposts/Client40_UofC/BU1/External/32- 4705.htm Or http://www.ucalgary.ca/hr/career/ Marco Musiani, PhD Assistant Professor Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 Canada Office 3171, Ph. (403) 220-2604, Lab 220-2475, Fax 284-4399 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED], Web http://www.ucalgary.ca/~mmusiani *** Title: Professorship in Dynamic Modeling of Complex Bio-Social Systems, Impact Assessment and Management Duration: Continuing Initial Term Requirements --- - Education: Ph.D. Experience: Not Indicated Description --- - The Faculty of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary invites applications for a full-time tenure-track Professorship in Dynamic Modeling of Complex Bio-Social Systems, and Impact Assessment and Management. This tenure track appointment will be at the rank of assistant or associate professor, commensurate with qualifications and experience. The Faculty offers a research-based Master of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) encouraging certification in areas of professional practice recognized by the Canadian Environmental Certification Approvals Board (CECAB) or other organizations. We also offer a Ph.D. As a non- departmental, professional graduate-level Faculty, we provide an interdisciplinary teaching and learning environment that emphasizes a cooperative, collegial approach to research, scholarship and outreach. Fields of study are offered in Architecture, Environmental Design, Environmental Science, Planning, Urban Design, and Industrial Design. The Faculty has a strong history and a growing reputation in research, scholarship, creative activity and professional practice in areas related to environmental intervention and sustainability. In addition to a strong regional focus in Western Canada the Faculty is engaged internationally in research and teaching in the United States, Mexico, South America, Europe, and Asia. Major research areas of the Environmental Science Field of Study include: assessment of development and industry effects on wildlife, plants, communities, watersheds, and ecosystems; human effects on multiple species interactions and biological processes at multiple scales; ecological design for planning at scales ranging from species to communities and from municipal to regional scales; management of environmental systems; and environmental policy. Applications are invited from suitably qualified candidates who can take a lead role in research and teaching involving dynamic modeling of environmental systems, and impact assessment and management in the context of ecological designs for regional to landscape-scale planning. The successful candidate will provide leadership in the development and delivery of courses, studios, and seminars, and in the supervision of Masters Degree and Ph.D. students. S/he will be expected to contribute to the Facultys core curriculum. The successful candidate will develop a robust high quality research program involving creative scholarship and peer reviewed and professional publication related to his/her areas of expertise. Evidence of collaboration with other researchers, and with agencies, non-government organizations, and industry is an asset. Applicants must possess a Ph.D. and a record of publication and research productivity appropriate to rank in the field of dynamic modeling of environmental systems, and impact assessment. Previous teaching experience at the graduate level is desirable, as well as advanced knowledge and excellent understanding of concepts, themes and principles of systems dynamics modeling, impact assessment and management, and ecological design, especially applications to the energy industry and regional planning. Eligibility for certification by a relevant professional organization and previous experience in professional practice are desirable. The application deadline is March 1, 2007. The selection committee will begin reviewing applications on or about March 15, 2007. The competition will be reopened if there are no suitable applications. Interested candidates should submit a statement of interest, Curriculum Vitae and names of three references to: Professor Cormack Gates, Director, Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4 Attention:
Re: If not ethanol--a modest proposal
Excellent point Chris. I was in China last summer, and saw solar hot water heating units literally covering all rooftops of apartment buildings in many cities. I was last there 8 years ago, and don't recall seeing any. These were free-standing units, and were for sale everywhere. Seeing so many in use in such a short span of years made me wonder why it hasn't happened here! Peter Woodbury Christopher A. Farmer wrote: Hello All, I have been watching this debate for a few days now before chiming in. While I agree with David's point that if biofuels are to work, we must first reduce the demand on them by utilizing other renewable energy sources like the sun. I would, however like to caution everyone that a high-tech fix usually has high capital costs and that lower tech fixes are often the best approach. In most cases, simpler solutions like passive or active solar water heating are much more efficient and durable than PV, not to mention simpler. This kind of thinking needs to manifest itself in our national energy policy in terms of massive demand side management and simple solutions to our remaining energy demand. ~Chris Farmer --- DAVID WHITACRE wrote: This may sound very pie-in-the-sky, but how about this proposition: The amount of energy we should use is the amount that can be captured by = covering every existing roof with the highest-tech energy capture device = currently available--photovoltaics, I assume. Surely someone has calculated how much energy this would capture, and = how it stacks up against our current energy use? Presumably we would = need to massively reduce energy use for this to come close to meeting = our needs, but ultimately it would seem the moral path to head down. = (Along with other renewables, especially wind, though I like this a lot = better than fueling machines with photosynthate when people are = starving) --- end of quote --- ___ -- % Dr. Peter Woodbury, Research Associate Crop and Soil Sciences Department 233 Emerson Hall Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853 607.255.1448 %
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
What exactly IS enhanced biodiversity? That phrase could include abnormally high biodiversity, increased invasive biodiversity and so on and so forth. Greater biodiversity is not necessarily better On 2/2/07, Michael Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the website and the phrase that caught my eye was: Whether or not yields are enhanced by diveristy remains an open question. However, there is no question that harvesting grasslands, even low-diversity and degraded grasslands, enhances their biodiversity. Hopefully, funding agencies will start supplying funds so we, as scientist, can answer this question more fully. In Nebraska, using corn for ethanol is a big political move by politicians and hopefully we can start using the natural grasslands and benefit from the natural landscape and move away from monocultures. I have enjoyed the discussion Michael Mellon --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure other literature goes more into depth, but Lester Brown's book Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (which I highly recommend, by the way) mentions replacing coal-fired electric power and then using the electricity generated at night (when demand is lower) to produce hydrogen (I presume through electrolysis). This hydrogen can then be burned to produce more electricity during the day, or be pumped into cars for transportation, etc. -Tim Nuttle I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert _= ___ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com --=20 James J. Roper Depto Zoologia,UFPR Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764 celular: 55 41 99870543 Casa: 55 41 33857249 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D http://jjroper.googlepages.com/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ ---
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
Dear Folks: I agree with one of Mr. Cherubini's points but beg to differ with the rest. On Feb 2, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote: How about serious energy conservation beginning today? Yes, of course! Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you that the greatest return on one's investment is reducing current energy use rather than just going into new technological solutions. We almost never hear professional ecologists or activist organizations (e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists) proposing immediately lifestyle sacrifices to set an example for the rest of society. I must be in a different universe, as this is exactly what 'activist' organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests and proposes; see for yourself: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ Very simple, low tech sacrifices. What would it take, for example, to get todays ecologists and activists out of there 3,300 pound, 25 miles per gallon Subaru Forester SUV's and back into the 2,500 pound, 34 miles per gallon Toyota Tercel Station Wagon type vehicles they drove 20 years ago? I frankly don't think todays ecologists and activists are willing to drive a Tercel like vehicle anymore because: This is, of course, your opinion, which you are entitled to; however, do you have ANY evidence for this? 1) They don't want to drive a car that doesn't have 300 lbs worth of air bags and structural reinforcements to aid crashworthiness. I want a safe car, not a BIG car. 2) They don't want to drive a car that has fuel economy optimizing narrow wheels and tires like the Tercel did. All of them!? I do. 3) They don't want to drive a car that has a fuel economy optimizing 70 horsepower engine that takes 15 seconds to accelerate to 60 MPH like the Tercel did. Really!? are you sure you are not writing about NASCAR fans? 4) They don't want to drive a a car that has a 5-speed manual transmission like the Tercel did. Mine does 5). They don't even want to see the national 55 miles per hour speed limit reinstated. you have data for this? Likewise, I don't think todays professional ecologists (in the USA) and activists are willing to live in 900-1,400 square foot homes like they did 20 years ago. Instead, it's typical nowadays to see them purchasing 1,600 - 2,200 square foot homes just like other people in society that have household incomes in the $60,000 - $120,000 per year range. As far as I can tell, the other ecologists/scientists that I know and work with try to live modestly and set examples for their students. In fact, on campuses I have studied and worked at the students often have vehicles and lifestyles that fit your description more than do the faculty. My colleagues and myself try to teach in the classroom and by example. For the most part, we don't tell people what they are doing is wrong -- instead, we try to show them how each and everyone of them can make lifestyle choices that add up to real differences. Because you have made such sweeping statements about ecologists, please indulge me in one of my ow. Most people would not be comfortable writing and teaching about conservation/environmental issues unless they were also putting at least some of their teachings into practice. And I have to ask: what sort of vehicle do you own? Rene Borgella
Re: Energy
And, to pile on to Jake's excellent suggestion, and in the spirit of adding more bad news, I suggest the following resources: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net http://www.princeton.edu/ and especially http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-06-02.html http://www.oriononline.org/pages/oo/curwis/index_kunstler.html These few websites provide an entree into the vast literature on this topic. They suggest that the only economically scalable alternative to oil is conservation. Good luck with that. Guy R. McPherson On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Colleagues: Whatever our solution, we'd better get cracking, though some argue it's too late. Truly, the world depends on us (i.e., ecologists are arguably best prepped to tackle this monumental global problem). For more information, I'd suggest the following sources of info for starters: The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler. $8 on Amazon. The Oil Drum: Discussions about energy and our future. http://www.theoildrum.com/ Energy Bulletin: Peak Oil News Clearinghouse. http://www.energybulletin.net/ You won't like what you read. Jake F. Weltzin Guy R. McPherson, Professor University of Arizona School of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology Evolutionary Biology Biological Sciences East 325 Tucson, Arizona 85721 voice: 520-621-5389 fax:520-621-8801 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] url:http://ag.arizona.edu/~grm/ Read about my 2006 novel, Academic Pursuits at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413799698/sr=8-2/qid=1146851752/ref=sr_1_2/104-3436866-5550355?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Read about my 2006 book, Letters to a Young Academic: Seeking Teachable Moments at http://www.rowmaneducation.com/ISBN/1578863376 Read about my 2005 book, Killing the Natives: Has the American Dream Become a Nightmare? at http://www.whitmorebooks.com/kinahasamdrb.html
Global warming- what about geothermal heat?
Why is the media reporting that the UN determined that the cause of global warming human activity, when in fact this is not what the most recent UN report stated? Instead, what was stated was that humans are very likely a cause (e.g. one of the causes) of global warming. Has anyone studied whether a large proportion of global warming is being caused by an increase in geothermal heating of the oceans? I recently read an article stating that the deep oceans are heating. I think that geothermal heating of oceans could increase if a hot spot in the earth's core moved from below a continent to below an ocean. Would not an increase in ocean temperatures cause lower carbon dioxide solubility and thus release a significant amount into the atmosphere? Correct me if I'm wrong, but air is a poor conductor of heat, especially in comparison to water. Therefore, do not the oceans heat the atmosphere more than the atmosphere heats the oceans? I thought that heating of the oceans is generally due to solar radiation and geothermal heating. Considering that greenhouse gases don't increase the intensity of solar radiation reaching earth, and also that air is a poor conductor of heat, how then could atmospheric heating heat the oceans? Furthermore, I would think that the melting of the ice cap on the North Pole would be caused by water temperatures much more than air temperatures. Is it likewise ridiculous to think that the sun could also be getting hotter? Has anyone checked lately? Am I missing something here, or does it really not add up? Honestly, I can't accept that humans are THE cause of global warming, or even the most significant cause of it, until I find answers to these questions. Patrick
Landscape Ecologist Position - open 2/1 - 3/2 and supervisory ecologist/biologist position
South Florida Natural Resources Center at Everglades National Park is recuiting several ecologists. Two are listed right now. 1. The South Florida Natural Resources Center at Everglades National Park is recruiting for a Landscape Ecologist position. Please forward this announcement to scientists that may be interested. For more information on the position, please go to http://www.usajobs.gov/ and search vacancy announcement # HRF 07-045 GS-0408-12/13 Open Period: Thursday, February 01, 2007 to Friday, March 02, 2007 General Position Description: As lead Landscape Ecologist, develops and implements a scientific program that applies the tools and principles of landscape ecology and ecosystems science to evaluate hydrological restoration alternatives. Coordinates the integration of landscape ecology models with hydrological and other ecological models in order to develop a regional ecosystem perspective on Everglades restoration. Performs landscape modeling analysis of the ecological requirements of key plant and animal populations to understand the effects of hydrologic patterns, regional land use dynamics, and water management practices on freshwater plant and animal communities. Uses landscape modeling methods to evaluate the dynamics and impacts of exotic species on park ecosystems, spatial aspects of the biology and ecology of key indicator species, the spread and ecological effects of fires across the landscape, and the spatial factors regulating animal and plant populations. Performs landscape modeling and analysis on vegetation, soils, and related physical landscape features, with a focus on the relationship between spatial and temporal hydrological patterns and structural landscape elements. The environment is typified by climatic extremes (droughts, floods, and hurricanes), fire, and past and present human alteration. 2. The South Florida Natural Resources Center at Everglades National Park is recruiting for a supervisory ecologist/biologist position. Please forward this announcement to scientists that may be interested. For more information on the position, please go to http://www.usajobs.gov/ and search vacancy announcement # HRF 07-049 GS-0401-13 or 0408-13 Open Period: Friday, January 19, 2007 to Tuesday, February 20, 2007 General Position Description: Many of the ecological communities in Everglades National Park and in other south Florida parks have declined due to changes in water management. This position will supervise a team of approximately 7 biologists that assess the effects of restoration projects on NPS lands. It is established as a member of an interdisciplinary team of National Park Service (NPS) scientists and managers charged with providing the agency's scientific assessment and analysis needs for ecosystem restoration activities, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CERP plan implements regional-scale changes in water management and land use that are designed to provide ecological restoration benefits. The team evaluates the planning and implementation phases of the CERP projects relative to NPS lands and waters, and contributes to the interagency program focused on coordinating the environmental components of CERP. ** David E. Hallac Chief, Biological Resources Branch South Florida Natural Resources Center Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks 950 N. Krome Avenue Homestead, FL 33030 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 305-224-4239 - office 305-302-4055 - cell 305-224-4147 - fax
Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency
It is not only in Mexico that this kind of thing is happening. Now that alcohol is getting popular, it makes more money as an export commodity, and so, alcohol prices are rising. For it to be economically worthwhile to put alcohol in a car, the cost has to be 60-70% that of gasoline. Just last year it almost always was. Now, the price is going up, and all these flex= cars are opting for gasoline, because alcohol just isn't worth it. But, that ain't all. Land that was used for other crops will now come into use for sugar cane, which is very harsh on the soils. So, we will soon find ou= t that there is more profit to be had growing fuel than growing food - and just wait until China and India get into the markets. They will start buying all the fuel and driving up the prices for everyone else - supply an= d demand - they have most of the world's population, and soon, they will star= t demanding. Jim On 2/1/07, Warren W. Aney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just heard a BBC news report of protests in Mexico over the increasing price for corn flour and tortillas (an important diet product made from corn flour). Apparently the U.S. is a big source for this corn, and a reason given for this increased price was the (potential? actual?) increased demand for corn to produce ethanol. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Esat Atikkan Sent: Tuesday, 30 January, 2007 21:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency Burning EtOH or biodiesel will still add CO2 to atm Esat Atikkan Ron E. VanNimwegen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello ECOLOG-ers, These are excellent points, and another is worth considering: if we divert our energy harvest from ancient to contemporary carbon sources, aren't we still shifting an inordinate amount of carbon from the earth to its atmosphere? If our entire energy burden were placed on any bio source, how long would it take us to strip the planet down to bedrock? It sounds like alternative energy can be fueled (pun fully intended) by political reasons (independence), environmental reasons (too many for parentheses), or both. This is just armchair thinking, so the facts or alternatives might prove my concerns moot. Ron =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Ron E. VanNimwegen Ph.D. Student, Division of Biology 232 Ackert Hall Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506-4901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Maiken Winter wrote: Hi all, We just had a discussion on ethanol on the Tompkins Sustainability listserv, and I would like to share one of the most interesting inputs from an employee of an independent energy firm in our area: At Cornell, a study has shown the inefficiency of ethanol; please see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html It seems as if the final word on energy efficiency is still out. Pimental, who is widely and correctly quoted, is viewed as an extremist. ( He may still be right), Most research indicates a tiny bit of positive energy produced with corn to ethanol9 10-20%, and a little better for Biodiesel from soybeans. Some interesting articles are listed below: Drunk on Ethanol- Audubon Society: http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.html But the reformulated-gasoline program has turned out to be a colossal failure, and the ethanol industry has transmogrified into a sacrosanct, pork-swilling behemoth that gets bigger and hungrier with each feeding. Ethanol dirties the air more than it cleans it. Its production requires vast plantings of corn, which wipe out fish and wildlife by destroying habitat and polluting air, soil, and water. Of all crops grown in the United States, corn demands the most massive fixes of herbicides, insecticides, and chemical fertilizers, while creating the most soil erosion. Does it take more energy to make ethanol than is contained in ethanol? That question continues to haunt the ethanol industry even after 27 years of expanding production. Over the years more than 20 scientific studies have examined the question. This document contains links to the major studies of the subject completed during the last decade. http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html Here is a good article from renewable energy access, by LesterBrown of Worldwatch. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid =3DDDB1143EA1BF449D5EFC92ADE6723FDE?id=3D47092 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that distilleries will require only 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But here at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), we estimate that distilleries will need 139 million tons -- more than twice as much. If the EPI estimate is at all close
The ecologist's response to the problem of energy
Greetings, There are a few people on the list that keep harping about all the ecologists that drive Subaru Foresters that get 25 mpg. The individual continues saying that if they were to drive their old Toyota Tercels that had five speed transmissions and got 35 mpg the world would be a better place. Guess he's talking about me. I had a Toyota Tercel until it wrapped itself around a tree (my wife left is sitting in the driveway to go back into the house for a minute and it decided to go for a ride and the tree was in the way). I replaced it with a Subaru because I couldn't find any Tercels. But there seems to be a flaw in the argument. I'm pretty much the only ecologist that lives in my neighborhood. In fact, I'm pretty much the only ecologist that lives in my town and if I expand to the surrounding towns, there really are many of us that live in vicinity. The mix of cars in my neighborhood is broad, but I would venture to say, that my Subaru probably gets better mileage than many of the cars (Ford Explorers, GMC Suburbans,etc.). I guess if I wanted to act as a symbol for the neighborhood I could drive a Tercel, but then again that would be of little value because very few actually know that I'm an ecologist. In reality, I don't drive my Forester much, as I walk the four miles to work and actually stop to talk to folks along the way about a variety of matters including energy matters, politics, etc. My wife is the main driver of the Forester (she's not an ecologist, so I guess by the logic of the e-mail I'm referring to, it's perfectly ok for a non-ecologist to drive a Subaru) and I often catch a ride home with her and sync my schedule to hers in order to minimize trips. I guess my message is that It ain't us ecologists that are causing most of the problems. In terms of numbers we are so few compared to all the rest of the professions, that our energy usage in the totality is small. Why not pick on lawyers or cell biologist, or perhaps people like Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates who have huge homes, fleets of vehicles and large boats. Cheers, Larry PS I live in a small energy efficient home that is heated by an efficient wood stove (soapstone with catalytic converter) and the total wood burned is less than three cord a year. Most of the wood has come from slash/trash and not from harvesting live trees. -- Larry T. Spencer, Professor Emeritus of Biology Plymouth State University This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency
A number of people have suggested wind energy as a means of meeting our energy needs, so let me offer a cautionary note. Wind turbines are starting to show up on ridge tops in Pennsylvania. Besides the problem that this causes for migrating birds and bats, there are some other things to consider. The cost of purchasing and erecting a single 2 MW turbine is over $2 million, and would be prohibitively expensive if not for federal wind energy tax credits. Even in the best locations in Pennsylvania (ridge tops), these turbines only operate at an average of 30% efficiency. In theory, even at 30% efficiency, a single turbine should provide enough power for 600 homes. However, most of that electricity is produced during the spring and fall months, and power demand is highest in the summer. In theory, it would take over 5000 turbines to provide the energy equivalent of one coal fired power plant. However, to meet peak summer demand, it would take over 9000 turbines. Turbines are usually placed a minimum of 200 meters apart (8 per mile). That translates into over 1000 miles of ridge top to replace one power plant. Even if we ignore the ecological costs, there simply aren't enough ridge tops for wind to meet more than a small percentage of our electricity demands. The equation gets better in places like North Dakota that have more consistent winds, but then you face issues of energy loss during transmission to areas where electricity is needed (not to mention all the immense power lines needed). So while wind may play a role in meeting our energy demands in the future, it will not solve our energy problems. I haven't done the math, but I wonder how much energy could be saved if the same $2 million spent on one turbine were used replace a bunch of standard incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. Tim. --- Tim Maret Department of Biology Shippensburg University Shippensburg, PA 17257 717/477-1170 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Bryant Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:43 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethanol (in)efficiency One observation keeps me skeptical of ethanol: photosynthesis is only 1% efficient at converting sunlight to biomass. So regardless of how many resources are used to produce biomass of any kind for energy production, the same area covered with solar PV cells is 10-15 times more efficient. Now if we can just resurrect the electric car and convince ADM to grow polysilicon. ;-) It has been hypothesized that the surface area of Arizona covered with PV could supply the US with all it's electricity needs. Along similar lines: wind power in the Dakotas could do likewise. While I understand the limitations, logistic and political issues of these proposals the point is that A) these technologies are practical and available, not as low percentage contributors, but replacements for fossil fuels. One additional advantage of wind over bio-fuels is that wind is a simultaneous adjunct to agriculture, producing both energetic and economic benefits to farmers, and the general population. With these power sources in place other renewable bio-fuels could replace fossils for transportation. And lets now forget the most immediate energy source: conservation! David David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123 On Jan 29, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Maiken Winter wrote: Hi all, We just had a discussion on ethanol on the Tompkins Sustainability listserv, and I would like to share one of the most interesting inputs from an employee of an independent energy firm in our area: At Cornell, a study has shown the inefficiency of ethanol; please see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ ethanol.toocostly.ssl.htmlhttp://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/ July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html It seems as if the final word on energy efficiency is still out. Pimental, who is widely and correctly quoted, is viewed as an extremist. ( He may still be right), Most research indicates a tiny bit of positive energy produced with corn to ethanol9 10-20%, and a little better for Biodiesel from soybeans. Some interesting articles are listed below: Drunk on Ethanol- Audubon Society: http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.htmlhttp:// magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.html But the reformulated-gasoline program has turned out to be a colossal failure, and the ethanol industry has transmogrified into a sacrosanct, pork-swilling behemoth that gets bigger and hungrier with each feeding. Ethanol dirties the air more than it cleans it. Its production requires vast plantings of corn, which wipe out fish and wildlife by destroying habitat and polluting air, soil, and water. Of all crops grown in the United States, corn demands the most
Re: also
Not to mention the loss of biodiversity. Pure switchgrass fields have about as much biodiversity as pure fescue fields from the studies on animals that I have seen. mas tarde, EJF La Follette, Doug J - SOS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 02/02/2007 01:37 PM Please respond to La Follette, Doug J - SOS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU cc Subject also It also takes a large amount of energy [oil or nat gas] to cook the grass into ethanol. The use of switchgrass as a biofuel feedstock is not as environmentally benign as one would hope. It does take land from other uses (food, range, livestock, native prairie) and these new varieties of switchgrass have very low root/shoot ratios. This means that this crop will need more irrigation and fertilization than its wild cousin. Although a perennial crop, replanting will be required periodically so at those points soil erosion can be a problem. Loss of excess fertilizer to ground and surface water is also an issue. What would really be a tragedy is if native grassland is plowed up and replanted with this, when native grassland is extremely endangered and there are the LIHD alternatives described in Mike Palmer's website and the Tilman et al. paper. Linda Wallace Linda L. Wallace, Ph.D. Director, Kessler Farm Field Laboratory Professor of Botany Department of Botany Microbiology University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 (405) 325-6685 FAX (405) 325-7619 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kristina Pendergrass wrote: Here in Alabama, we recently heard a news story of a biofuel plant (Perihelion Global) being opened in Opp, Alabama. This plant is planning to make biofuel from peanuts, which is obviously a boon to peanut farmers down in the south. Originally, I thought that they were going to use the wastes from peanut crops (e.g. shells) which is why Bill's email (below) prompted me to respond, but after re-reading the news story just now, I think they will be using the peanuts themselves: http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6006238 I guess there will be some of the same issues here as with corn (monoculture, food crop), though I don't know how the energetics will work out in this case. Here also is an article about research being done at Auburn University, also in Alabama, concerning the use of switchgrass (high-yield, low-input, drought-tolerant, etc.) as a potential biodfuel crop: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/adm/comm/news/2006/bransby.php Kristina Pendergrass Research Associate Auburn University, AL 36849 334.844.5574 I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite ignorant about the bioenergetcs of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine environment where plants are those little one-celled critters), but I wonder whether if grasses are so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded parts of food crops, such as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that there is nutritional benefit to plowing them under, but could they be used in other ways? Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced population -- I really don't see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and solar power unless we used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce our population. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Palmer, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? Bill, Quite a number of people are working on the use of Low-Intensity, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave Tilman's term). This contrasts markedly with High-Intensity, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus. LIHD systems have advantages in not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting biodiversity and preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my arguments in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm ) ---Mike Palmer -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then? In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I wonder what they will be. Bill Silvert
Estuarine Scientist Meeting in March
The governing boards of the Atlantic Estuarine Research Society (AERS) and the Southeastern Estuarine Research Society (SEERS) would like to announce that the abstract submission for our joint meeting in Pine Knolls, NC is now open. The meeting will be March 15 - 17, 2007 and the central theme will be Global change and its effects from rivers to the sea (with an example of the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound watershed), though all studies of estuarine and coastal processes are welcome. The keynote address will be given by Dr. Bob Howarth, Human acceleration of the nitrogen cycle: trends, drivers, and steps toward solution and a panel presentation/discussion with Dave Mallinson, Courtney Hackney/Lynn Leonard, Mike Mallin, Hans Paerl, and Dave Eggleston. Please see www.aers.info for more detailed program information, abstract submission, meeting registration, and student travel/volunteer opportunities. Thank you, David Gillett and Rachael Blake AERS Program Chairs
Bigger Gun to Shoot the Feet
If we found cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy to exceed that from fossil fuels, wed have a bigger gun to shoot our cleaner feet with. Energy is one problem; all the economic sectors it powers are another. One fellow pointed out (and Im paraphrasing) that it boils down to population and consumption. Those are the twin engines of economic growth, and various ESA members have been talking about the prospects of an ESA position on economic growth for some years now. Perhaps the time is ripe for such a position. ESA is not alone in its consideration of this issue. Bioscience afforded the opportunity to describe the broader movement of professional society position-taking on economic growth: http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-6.pdf Cheers, Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ECOLOGY and SOCIETY and CULTURE Re: The ethics of energy
Good stuff, Patrick. Good question. Berry is better than most at spreading the word, and anyone who understands the principles of the energy/nutrient cycle must feel these frustrations, but the challenge is to just keep rockin' despite the hue and cry to stay the course. This listserv is one way of engaging each other, sometimes even when it makes some uncomfortable. It's kinda like Menken said about the job of journalists: . . . comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Preach, as it were, to the choir (who has proven that the choir doesn't need to hear the message again?), but engage others in ways that they can come to understand the eternal verities, reality--which, if I understand it correctly, is what the study of the earth and its life is all about? To do this effectively, may I suggest that it is vital to give others the opportunity (yes, again and again and again) to save face? Many who have endured the slings and arrows of outrageous academe, with all its backbiting, narcissism and grants/tenure fixation find it easy to fall into rigidly institutionalized habits of their own kind of self-righteousness when it comes to preaching at the rest of what's left of society, thus contributing to its continued dis-integration. No wonder terrorism has, at so many levels, and so many forms, degenerated into and come from ego- and Homo-centrism. Perhaps we need a bridging culture of ecologist-journalists who realize that humans, like all organisms, are repelled by those things which afflict them. Even the lowly planarian worm, hisher habitat disturbed by, say, a drop of saline solution, reacts by moving away from the source of irritation. Berry wrote very engaging stuff, and acquired a measure of fame well-deserved. Unfortunately, the effects of fame are corrosive to social bonds; those who would bond with Berry and others who carry the burden of fame are simply too numerous to handle. Perhaps we need to grow beyond dependence upon gurus and heroes and tap into our own social if not heroic impulses, and take a deep look, and critical, maturing look, into ourselves. This need not prevent us from engaging and being engaged by others, within and beyond our group. In this way, we can build on each other. It could happen right here on this list, and the untapped potential of this simple form of communication might nit the dis-integrating, warring, fussing parts back together again in time. To do this, I will suggest that, like the planarian worm, we retain our egos--sufficient to avoid excesses--but let the ego stop there, as Nature apparently intended, and try every second to challenge our tendencies toward egocentrism. That, it seems to me, is the greatest obstacle, but the one which takes only discipline to divorce from our psyches. Thank you, Patrick, for taking the time to contribute this. I, for one, will try to build on it. Pretty soon, if all goes well, we will see an infinite geometric expansion of the hidden consciousness we have come increasingly to ignore. WT At 11:39 AM 2/2/2007, patrick wrote: Why is it that people are failing to address the issue that Americans are using an excessive amount of energy, much of which has to do with our acceptance of wastefulness? Nature, it seems, tends to utilize resources with minimal waste and high efficiency, and strangely enough, humans refuse to follow the only model that we know actually works. Instead, people are seeking ways to maintain and justify the current level of energy consumption. Besides a lust for money, can someone tell me why electricity is produced from a dam in Montana and is sent to meet demand in Missouri, while simultaneously; electricity produced in Washington is sent to meet the demand in Montana? Has someone calculated how much energy would be saved if the energy produced in a region was used to satisfy 100% of regional demand before any of it were exported, and when it was exported, it was supplied to meet the demand in the nearest neighboring region? This is completely within our power and authority. Ethanol Questions: How will these vast fields of grain be yearly fertilized and pesticided without a vast supply of petroleum for making the fertilizer and pesticides? Corn uses a lot of water, more than most other crops, I think. Where will the vast amount of water come from for irrigating such large scale farm operations? The aquifers of the plains are dwindling. Are we willing to drain the Great Lakes in order to make fuel? Let's ask MI, WI, IL, IN, OH, NY and Canada. Question: How will we be able to produce enough grain for ethanol when we are plowing up the high quality farmland everyday in order to build subdivisions? Answer: Subdivide the entire country into 20 acre ranchettes, and use the grass clippings from the hundreds of millions of acres of Kentucky bluegrass lawns to produce ethanol. Why not build dams on rivers in Antarctica and
Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency
Tim, Yes caution is important in such matters, as has been shown by the sudden surge toward such ostensible panaceas as ethanol. However I think the most important point to keep in mind is that all forms of energy have environmental consequences (indeed human endeavors do) and that we must compare the magnitude of these impacts in choosing any energy source. You may be interested to know that the Audubon Society has gathered considerable data on new large scale wind turbines and determined that they are no more a hazard to birds and bats than any other man made structure. By comparison I would ask what the effect of fossil fuels has been on bird and bat populations? Granted I would rather not see Appalachian ridge tops bristle with any man made structure. But thoughtful and considerate siting seems to be a better solution than derision of a beneficial power source. No, the current grid system does not promote the admittedly hypothetical Dakota scenario. But the point was that both wind and solar, properly placed, can provide much more than the marginal contributions generally quoted. Economic costs are virtually always quoted as initial start up without depreciation by the savings over purchasing tons of coal or mega cubic feet of natural gas required to produce the same level of power. Not to mention the external cost of fossil fuel combustion. Perhaps Pennsylvania should consider solar PV in their power generation mix... David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123 On Feb 2, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Maret, Tim wrote: A number of people have suggested wind energy as a means of meeting our energy needs, so let me offer a cautionary note. Wind turbines are starting to show up on ridge tops in Pennsylvania. Besides the problem that this causes for migrating birds and bats, there are some other things to consider. The cost of purchasing and erecting a single 2 MW turbine is over $2 million, and would be prohibitively expensive if not for federal wind energy tax credits. Even in the best locations in Pennsylvania (ridge tops), these turbines only operate at an average of 30% efficiency. In theory, even at 30% efficiency, a single turbine should provide enough power for 600 homes. However, most of that electricity is produced during the spring and fall months, and power demand is highest in the summer. In theory, it would take over 5000 turbines to provide the energy equivalent of one coal fired power plant. However, to meet peak summer demand, it would take over 9000 turbines. Turbines are usually placed a minimum of 200 meters apart (8 per mile). That translates into over 1000 miles of ridge top to replace one power plant. Even if we ignore the ecological costs, there simply aren't enough ridge tops for wind to meet more than a small percentage of our electricity demands. The equation gets better in places like North Dakota that have more consistent winds, but then you face issues of energy loss during transmission to areas where electricity is needed (not to mention all the immense power lines needed). So while wind may play a role in meeting our energy demands in the future, it will not solve our energy problems. I haven't done the math, but I wonder how much energy could be saved if the same $2 million spent on one turbine were used replace a bunch of standard incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. Tim. --- Tim Maret Department of Biology Shippensburg University Shippensburg, PA 17257 717/477-1170 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Bryant Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:43 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethanol (in)efficiency One observation keeps me skeptical of ethanol: photosynthesis is only 1% efficient at converting sunlight to biomass. So regardless of how many resources are used to produce biomass of any kind for energy production, the same area covered with solar PV cells is 10-15 times more efficient. Now if we can just resurrect the electric car and convince ADM to grow polysilicon. ;-) It has been hypothesized that the surface area of Arizona covered with PV could supply the US with all it's electricity needs. Along similar lines: wind power in the Dakotas could do likewise. While I understand the limitations, logistic and political issues of these proposals the point is that A) these technologies are practical and available, not as low percentage contributors, but replacements for fossil fuels. One additional advantage of wind over bio-fuels is that wind is a simultaneous adjunct to agriculture, producing both energetic and economic benefits to farmers, and the general population. With these power sources in place other renewable bio-fuels could
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
René_Borgella wrote: I must be in a different universe, as this is exactly what 'activist' organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests and proposes; see for yourself: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ Prof. Borgella, the UCS website proposes building safer, cleaner and more energy efficient big, powerful, SUV's and big homes and achieving those goals via technology: e.g. UCS website says: technologies can be used to offer consumers an SUV that is safer, cleaner, and more cost effective, WHILE RETAINING THE SIZE AND PERFORMANCE SUV drivers have today. I cannot find anything on the UCS website that suggests professional scientists and environmental activists should be willing to SACRIFICE anything; e.g. SACRIFICE present day standards of living and return to the standards of the 70's and 80's, i.e. be willing to: a) live in downsized homes (900 - 1,500 square feet instead of 1,600 - 2,200 square feet). b) drive downsized vehicles with downsized engines that are much less powerful than today's vehicles. c) drive vehicles without many hundreds of pounds worth of gasoline wasting add on safety, comfort and convenience related eqipment (airbags, structural reinforcements,anti-lock brakes, electronic vehicle stability controls, automatic transmissions, all wheel drive, road hugging wide wheel tires and so forth.) d) sacrifice the present day 65-75 MPH speed limits and return to the 55 MPH national speed limit of the late 70's and 80's. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Some ecology, evoluation and behaviour papers published in Acta Zoologica Sinica
http://www.actazool.org/issuedetail.asp?volume=53number=1issue_id=209 Volume 53, Issue 1 Ecology and conservation of the leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis and clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand (In English) Sean C. AUSTIN, Michael E. TEWES, Lon I. GRASSMAN, Jr., Nova J. SILVY The influence of vegetation on lion Panthera leo group sizes in the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park, South Africa (In English) Martina TRINKEL, Ryan William VAN NIEKERK, Paul Herbert FLEISCHMANN, Neil FERGUSON, Rob SLOTOW Spatial organization of the mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus in the region of northern Bulgaria (In English) Daniela M. SIMEONOVSKA-NIKOLOVA Steppe expansion and changes in the structure of the rodent community in north-western Caspian region (Republic of Kalmykia, RF)(In English) K.A. ROGOVIN Taxonomic status of Cansumys canus (Allen ,1928) LIAO Ji-Cheng, XIAO Zhen-Long, Dong Yuan, ZHANG Zhi-Bin, LIU Nai-Fa, LI Jin- Gang Impact of recreation on forest bird communities: non-detrimental effects of trails and picnic areas (In English) David PALOMINO, Luis M. CARRASCAL Food habits of the spotted owlet Athene brama in central Punjab, Pakistan (In English) Muhammad MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN, Mirza Azhar BEG, Muhammad MUSHTAQ-UL-HASSAN, Shahnaz Ahmed RANA Earthworms' ingestion on different broad-leafed litters DONG Wei-Hua, YIN Xiu-Qin Characters of a macrobenthic community off the Changjiang River Estuary LI Bao-Quan, LI Xin-Zheng, WANG Hong-Fa, WANG Yong-Qiang, WANG Jin-Bao, ZHANG Bao-Lin Macrobenthic community characters of Zhubi Reef, Nansha Islands, South China Sea LI Xin-Zheng, LI Bao-Quan, WANG Hong-Fa, WANG Shao-Qing, WANG Jin-Bao, ZHANG Bao-Lin Phylogeny of some Muscicapinae birds based on cyt b mitochondrial gene sequences LEI Xin, LIAN Zhen-Min, LEI Fu-Min, YIN Zuo-Hua, ZHAO Hong-Feng Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the main lineages of Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) based on mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences CHEN Na, ZHU Guo-Ping, HAO Jia-Sheng, ZHANG Xiao-Ping, SU Cheng-Yong, PAN Hong-Chun, WU Dong-Xia Prolonged carrying of a dead infant among the golden monkey Rhinopithecus roxellana in the Qinling Mountains, China LÜ Jiu-Quan, ZHAO Da-Peng, LI Bao-Guo Preliminary observations on activity rhythms and foraging behaviour in the endangered limpet Patella ferruginea Free ESPINOSA, Alexandre R. GONZÁLEZ, Manuel J. MAESTRE, Darren FA, José M. GUERRA-GARCÍA, José C. GARCÍA-GÓMEZ
