4 ms·
He is absolutely correct that biofuels are not efficient use of land. But the market would quickly sort that out if it were not for biofuel subsidies. That is w
by jeremyjh 14y ago
He is absolutely correct that biofuels are not efficient use of land. But the market would quickly sort that out if it were not for biofuel subsidies. That is what needs to be stopped.
- takluyver 14y agoI'm not sure that the market would sort this out. People in the first world already pay more to fill up their car than people in the third world spend on food. And biodiversity often isn't given a monetary value at all (although there are people working on valuing ecosystem services). Subsidies aren't helping, but the underlying problem is that we want and are able to use more than our 'share' of resources.
- jeremyjh 14y agoThat isn't what the article is about. He is talking about the energy efficiency of capturing solar power via photosynthesis. From the perspective of this article, growing crops for food is just as inefficient. If acquiring solar energy through biofuels is less efficient than through photoelectric cells or other means then the market will definitely sort this out (though would not directly account for externalities such as carbon pollution).
- takluyver 14y agoThat makes more sense. But we still pay a premium for energy in a high-density, liquid form that we can pump into vehicles. Of course, that's changing as battery technology improves.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- adestefan 14y agoSubsidizes for corn based ethanol were cut in the US in FY12.
- baq 14y agomarket can't solve the current CO2 problem - it assumes the price of emissions is zero, when it clearly isn't. belief that it'll fix biofuels is naive at best. carbon and other products of burning fuel need to be taxed to have a price; musk also talks about it.
- jeremyjh 14y agoYou are right that externalities need to be captured and charged.
- nickik 14y agoSeams to me that the market it the only way we can slow global warning down. Its companys like Tesla that make a diffrence not some goverment that tries to regulate existing stuff. The have neither the insentive nor the knowlage to do so. Electric cars, solar cells are the things that will change the world, not goverment regulation.
- baq 14y agoengine type doesn't matter much, what matters is energy storage for use in that engine. batteries aren't even in the same order of magnitude of both energy density (energy per liter) and specific energy (energy per kg) compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuel and that's the problem that needs solving. tesla currently gets away with it by placing batteries in clever ways, but it's still inferior to plain old gas in multiple areas (recharge speed, maximum range, mass, etc.) what's that got to do with the market? without pricing gas correctly, electric will always be inferior. technology can only help so much - it's a question of fundamental physics of chemical bonds.
- nickik 14y agoElectirc cars are better in some respects. Nonreusable energy will get more expensive while reusable energy will get better. The market will figure out if electirc cars are a workable, maybe it want work. Maybe we should have hydrogen cars or maybe something else. Maybe we just have to live with it, use all the oil and only then we will stop. Sure you can add a carbon tax or something but that will at most drag things out (or maybe make the adoption of diffrent cars faster). Fundamentally the way we will live and how we will produce energy will be guided by markets.