Biofuels: Good, bad or otherwise?

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by ecodharmamark, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A recent discussion on the value associated with biofuel production and use raises several questions, primarily:

    Is the production of biofuel considered a practice commiserate with the ethics and principles of permaculture?

    In answering this question, several key concepts first need to be refined (pardon the pun), or in the least, revisited:

    What are the ethics of permaculture?

    What constitutes biofuel?

    Are all biofuel production practices the same?

    The ethics of permaculture remain a contested paradigm. Some would argue that Mollison's Design Manual is the 'bible' of permaculture, and therefore the words contained within are the 'gospel', and never should they be questioned, for example:

    I think maybe you should read the manual,page 2 is where you will find the ethics.
    1.2 to be precise.
    It's,ethic 3
    "Set limits to the population and consumption"
    No mention of fair share.

    Source: Loss of confidence in the PDC course, #11

    Others (and in particular, Holmgren, co-founder of the permaculture concept) assert that permaculture has come a long way since the publication of the Designer's Manual, and that 'fair share', or a 'redistribution of surplus' is now one of the accepted ethical norms:

    ...ethical principles were not explicitly listed in early permaculture literature. Since the development of the Permaculture Design Course, ethics have generally been covered by three broad maxims, or principles:

    Care for the earth
    Care for people
    Set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus.

    Source: Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability, p. 1 (my emphasis in bold)

    Holmgren devotes a bit over a page (eight paragraphs) to the notion of 'redistribution of surplus', and embedded within his discourse are several dilemmas raised and left open for further discussion:

    Redistribute Surplus requires us to share surplus resources to help the earth and people beyond our immediate circle of power and responsibility...

    This provides the context for consideration of those apparent tensions and dilemmas between the personal and the collective...

    ...how to give in ways that show true altruism has always been problematic, but in the modern world it is an ethical question of great magnitude and complexity.

    Source: ibid, pp. 9-10

    As a summary response to the first question, 'the ethics of permaculture' is a subject that remains open to a wide field of thought and expression. As such, ethics discourse should form the basis of any discussion concerned with the practice of permaculture, and nowhere is this more important, than in a discussion about biofuels.

    Biofuels have been defined through the lens of several key players, for example:

    Peak bodies

    ...liquid fuels which have been derived from other materials such as waste plant and animal matter. There are two main types of biofuels - bioethanol and biodiesel...

    Government entities

    ...fuels made from renewable biological feedstocks, either crops or waste. The most common biofuels currently available are biodiesel and ethanol. Biofuels are generally blended with petroleum. B5 is diesel containing 5% biodiesel; E10 is petrol containing 10% ethanol...

    Giants of multinational capitalism

    ...fuel that is derived from biomass - recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts - from sources such as farming, forestry, and biodegradable industrial and municipal waste...

    Permaculture groups

    ...fuels that are generated by solar energy and photosynthesis, either on an annual basis (crops, grasses, etc.) or over a period of a number of years (trees). Biofuels do work, but the scale of use is the main issue with them, since our overconsumption cannot be met with biofuels. Anyone promoting biofuels at a minimum should be a vegetarian (or raising their own farm animals on foods that are not edible by people) to reduce the acreage needed to support their own consumption. There is not enough agricultural land to replace our current use of oil, we are not going to be flying biodiesel 757s...

    Global conservation movements

    ...products that can be processed into liquid fuels (e.g. bioethanol, biodiesel) for either transport or burning processes...

    Humanitarian organisations

    The generation of fuel from biological sources, including agricultural products like corn, sorghum and sugar cane...

    Academic institutions

    Modern biofuels are largely made from sugar. Basically, plants (like corn) take energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds (like sugar) that enable the plants to save the energy for later...

    There are lots of problems with these biofuels though, including the low energy-density of ethanol and the fact that growing crops for biomass can expend a lot of energy – and take resources away from traditional food crops...

    Individuals from within the infinitely broad spectrum of the post-modern anarchist tradition

    Biofuels (bio-ethanol, made from crops such as maize and sugar cane and biodiesel, made from oil seed crops like sunflowers) [as] alternatives to conventional petrol and diesel are being touted as green solutions to many of our environmental problems...

    The bottom line is that we, as a society, as a civilisation, are oil addicts in a state of utter denial. What is required is that we ween ourselves off the stuff as quickly and as completely as possible, or we’ll soon find ourselves down Shit Street in a pedalo (to paraphrase James Howard Kunstler)...

    Many views, many agendas, many outcomes...

    What is clear from studying the above, is that the veracity of claims made by those who would promote biofuels as an ethical (in the permaculture sense) alternative to the world's increasing dependency upon non-renewable fossil fuels, need to be examined within a fine-grained contextual praxis. No two biofuel production strategies will be the same - each will have its own set of parameters by which we should judge the practice by.

    In sum, take the time to study the individual biofuel project as it presents itself. Use your own understanding of what it means to practice 'ethical permaculture' (is there any other kind?). Be your own judge, and (to borrow that old biblical phrase) judge not others unless ye are prepared to be judged thyself.

    Further reading:

    Earthscan publication search: 'biofuel'
     
  2. pebble

    pebble Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    inland Otago, NZ
    Climate:
    Inland maritime/hot/dry/frosty
    "Biofuels: Good, bad or otherwise?"

    Is that a rhetorical question Marko? You've made such a good answer in the first post, not sure if the rest of the thread is needed ;-)

    Yes we need to vastly limit the amount of energy we use. I prefer powerdown to collapse (at least today), so I can see ethical use of locally produce biofuels as part of that transition. Mostly my thinking on that that comes from hack culture, where people are starting to produce their own vehicle fuels from a local 'waste' (eg vege oil). But I think it's up to individual communities to make larger decisions about which biofuels can be made locally and how that gets distributed. Biofuels themselves are no more unethical than any other form of power (and possible less than say battery dependent solar for instance).

    Biofuels as a saviour from peak oil is obviously unethical and a complete fantasy in practical terms.
     
  3. Mechandy

    Mechandy Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does that include bicycle and battery / solar combinations, Pebble?

    Mechandy
     
  4. pebble

    pebble Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    inland Otago, NZ
    Climate:
    Inland maritime/hot/dry/frosty
    Possibly. It would really depend on how each was produced and maintained, what part of the world it is in, etc. Is it better for me to import new solar components with limited lives (battery), or hack what we already have here?

    As Marko said we need to examine each technology within "a fine-grained contextual praxis".
     
  5. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Marko

    Big problems in “Goat-Town” and time is short so I must be brief (no cheering!!).

    I have already posted a lot on Biofuel and nobody likes repetition. As you may have noted, this is a subject close to my heart, so here goes.

    In my opinion biofuel will become big business and yet again it will be the most vulnerable peoples of the world who will go hungry to keep the gas-guzzlers on the road.

    Eventually it will be outlawed under international law for countries unable to feed their populations and a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, no one will care and certainly no one will go to war to save anyone else ……. although the weapons of war will be used to control the starving. Horrible pictures will be shown on the TV, but after 9pm so as not to upset the kids.

    Unfortunately biofuel appears to release more CO2 into the atmosphere than fossil fuel so the devastating climatic change heading this way will probably speed-up and effectively destroy the very regions of the earth producing the bulk of the Biofuel …….. after that all hell will break-out!!

    So, what can I do to try and help-out, since there are so many here who seem to want to choke themselves on biofuel and feel issues of ethics should be left to local communities, or its so difficult to swallow they may need to take a break.

    As an aside, I have decided to continue to call myself an Ecologist since I have a degree in the subject and I find the lack of standards in Permaculture disturbing.

    OK, … so we need to try and head-off this global climatic change caused by the release of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, otherwise billions of people are going to die. AND, we need to produce some biofuel for permaculture.

    Here I borrow from a fellow scientist, James Lovelock, but he seems OK about it.

    There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

    The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit.

    Permaculture can help enormously in this process by speeding up ecosystems and helping to guarantee food supplies.

    After a couple of years you get nice clean air and we can get back to setting the world to rights again!

    For those who may be upset by anything I’ve written, remember this is coming straight-off the keyboard because I’ve got several sick goats on my hands and their lives mean a lot to me!

    Peter
     
  6. Don Hansford

    Don Hansford Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I tend to disagree with this part in particular, but as there is so much disinformation around about CO2, it is quite a moot point. I also have some issues with Lovelock's idea - burn stuff to save the atmosphere?? Hmmm...
    I do agree that no amount of biofuel production will meet our present oil based consumption. The problem is that politicians AND big business wants us to keep on cutting, burning, digging and dumping, because the entire economies of the western world, (and increasingly, the eastern as well) are balanced upon the notion of constant growth, which needs to be kept rolling by ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy.
    I think that biofuels do play a part in our future, but not as a replacement for ALL our fossil fuel usage. I also think that biofuels fit well with Permaculture ethics and principles
     
  7. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no difference between biofuels and fossil fuels, they are made from the same substances just over a different period of time. Infact biofuels would be more damaging to the envirionment if you are using them to fight CO2 induced warming as you are able to obtain 100% of the above ground bulk as you chop it off at the ground where a percentage of fossil fuels are difficult to obtain. You also lose soil everytime you plant and harvest a crop unless you are following soil restoration practices.

    The amount of energy required at the moment to produce 1 calorie of food is between 7 and 10 calories. This is raw food and therefore doesn’t need to be refined if you needed to refine the food the energy ratio would start to head towards 15 calories or even more. This means the process of converting food into biofuels is a net energy loss and should not be considered sustainable or green purely for this fact let alone the fact that you are destroying farming areas due to the monoculture agriculture we currently employ and would need to employ to make biofuels.

    If society is to move forward and become sustainable we need to get the ratio of input energy to output energy a lot lower and where possible start to store energy in the soil for future generations, biofuels is not a way to do this. Growing food at home and not requiring resources is a much better idea than planting a biofuel crop and calling it carbon neutral or planting monoculture crops as carbon offsets.

    Biofuels will be the big thing of the next 10 or 20 years as people will believe they are good for the environment as they aren’t the big bad fossil fuels, people need to be aware that the push behind biofuels just like the push behind CO2 induced climate change in based on someone making money. If there wasn’t money to be made from doing it, it would be a non issue however while people are chasing green products there will be green swindlers to take their money.
     
  8. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Don Hansford

    Yeh, … I take your point about disinformation, however Lovelock is an independent, has a good, if not sometimes outspoken reputation, …. On several occasions he has actually stated that climate change is a concept too complicated for us to understand and that simulation models are a joke.

    The biosphere represents the most efficient means of capturing large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere but then we have to trap it in a solidified form. It’s a bit like putting the fossil fuel back under the earth.

    I had noticed quite a few recent articles on the forum concerning the benefits to soil of bio-char, which may be worth pursuing. A big problem is that the organic material that would normally be returned to the soil in a permaculture is the very material that needs to be reduced to carbon. However, if a mass permaculture system could be created, with its inherent ability to increase the rate at which ecosystems can regenerate, and something could be integrated regarding bio-char, it is possible that a balance could be struck between essential food production and dramatic reductions in atmospheric CO2, thus avoiding a global catastrophe on two counts!
     
  9. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the fact is though.. that fossil fuels are stored in a stable way. If we were to leave them alone they (and their carbon) would stay there indefinitely.
    There is a limit to the carbon that can be lost through biofuels (unfortunately that cap is the total of all trees etc and soil carbon- yes a doomsday thought).. if the bio fuels were producde in a way that returned at least some carbon into a stable form (biochar???) ,then that is a net reduction in atmospheric carbon right?

    As an aside, the main reason I like biochar.. is that be spreading it around paddocks, it makes it really hard and therefore expensive, and unlikely that the carbon would be mined later for use as a fuel. Ever farmer / person who digs it into their soil, is squirreling it away out of harm... even coal isn't mined in it's natural place if it is mixed in with too much soil / other rock..

    Biofuels, at least a little bit better than fossil fuels?
     
  10. Adam

    Adam Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I am currently doing my master's in Sustainable Development and I have studied biofuels quite a lot, so perhaps I can add my two cents to the subject.
    I would have to agree with Don H that this statement is under most circumstances, quite false. In almost all cases, when a life-cycle analysis of biofuels is compared side by side to a life-cycle analysis of fossil fuels, biofuels do not emit as much CO2 or greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. However, that doesn't mean we should all be jumping on the biofuel bandwagon just yet!

    Also, Marko is absolutely right that biofuels should be examined individually. I would like differentiate between the three main types of biofuels currently in use, because they are quite different:

    1. Bioethanol - Ethanol made from fermentation of sugars, usually mixed with gasoline
    2. Biodiesel - A mixture of fatty acid and alkyl esters obtained through transesterification of oils/fats, usually mixed with conventional diesel fuel
    3. Biogas - Methane (CH4) created by anaerobic digestion of organic matter

    Bioethanol is the least sustainable of the three biofuels, especially when produced from corn and other food crops. Burning food is just stupid. The current obsession with bioethanol in the U.S., Brazil, and other countries is just absurd. It is well documented that bioethanol production is linked with food scarcity, too. Any bioethanol claims of sustainability and tie-ins to permaculture are misguided at best and greenwashing at worst. There does seem to be a little promise in the experimental production of bioethanol from lignocellulose waste materials, though, but I am quite skeptical that bioethanol production from even these materials is wise considering the value that such materials hold as a mulch. But again, nobody is even sure that bioethnaol from lignocellulose is even viable due to the large amount of pretreatment necessary to break down the material. The jury is still out on that one.

    Biodiesel is not much better than bioethanol and has a lot of the same problems in terms of its production, as it is primarily produced from food crops or from big monoculture plantations of oil palms. There is a very big connection to biodiesel production and deforestation that is quite troubling. What does look promising for biodiesel is the experimental production of biodiesel from microalgae. It seems like there could be a great potential there to combine waste management with biodiesel production. I guess we will also have to wait and see about that.

    Biogas is probably the least well known of the three, but it is quite big here in Sweden. In fact, where I live, the city buses and municipal vehicles all run on biogas produced from local waste materials. Biogas is also probably the most sustainable of the three biofuels because it is usually produced from "waste" materials like sewage sludge, manure slurry, slaughterhouse waste, source-separated household waste, etc. The sludge that is produced as a byproduct of the biogas digestion can also be used as a fertilizer on crops, although this sludge usually contains heavy metals due to the incorporation of sewage sludges (but not moreso than most chemical fertilizers). Also, it can be done on either a large scale (as it is done here in Sweden), or on a household-scale like it is done in many places in China and SE Asia.

    So, to answer your question, I do think biogas (especially household or farm-scale biogas) can be consistent with permaculture ethics and has a place in permaculture systems, especially in developing countries where fuelwood and other traditional cooking fuels are in short supply. :y: It can help people become more self-sufficient and utilize organic "waste" materials more efficiently. And the organic matter that is not turned into methane can be applied as a nutrient-rich fertilizer.

    Bioethanol and biodiesel are really not sustainble socially and environmentally, and their economic sustainability is even somewhat dubious as well (when you factor in the external costs). Therefore, I don't think they are consistent with permaculture ethics and I would be wary of anyone who aims to produce those fuels using permaculture methods. :n: Barring any major scientific discoveries (don't hold your breath), I don't think they should really play a role as future or current energy sources.
     
  11. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Dreamie.

    I’ve seen the figures and would tend to go with them.

    I agree that biofuels will be a big business. It’s the same story, a big pot of green paint and billions into the pockets of the multinationals.

    Personally, I believe that people do understand but its easier to shout down dissenting voices than to take a whack over the head from the riot police who just happen to be subcontracted from the multinationals.

    I would also tend to believe that permaculture itself will fall prey to the “Green Wash” effect but on a much smaller scale. It’s almost 30 years on since Mollison and Holmgren pulled permaculture from the existing University systems, however, there don’t seem to be any standards (in the academic sense), no major research papers (although I believe Holmgren has done as much as he can), no integrated database that I can find that documents individual permacultures. It’s an awful lot to take on faith.

    For the moment it’s a collection of interesting ecological phenomena that have yet to be fully evaluated.
     
  12. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Adam

    Are you the man tonight !!!

    Very well written, extremely clear, taking in all the issues, ……. and showing me to be wrong on CO2 fossil to bio ratio’s!

    That was a real debate and hopefully will encourage others to ask questions and get involved. This is too important to leave to the politicians!

    If its already operational do you have anything on localised climatic effects?

    If its low carbon output to high energy return, could you link-in high efficiency carbon gathering via the biosphere, re charcoal, or some other method?

    Are you planning to put something together at a National level. Sweden has a very good reputation here in Europe so if you convince them, the rest of Europe may well follow.

    Ok, …. I know Northern European Temperate zones don’t have the same climatic risk factor as tropical or sub-tropical zones, however, country by country you could end-up with a snowball all the way to the equator!

    You seem to be very well placed to make a difference.

    Don’t forget to keep us posted and if you want to bounce a few ideas around ……… no problem!

    Peter
     
  13. Don Hansford

    Don Hansford Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you say "corn & other food crops" you are opening yet another area where there is so much for/against information as to make it very difficult to find the real relevant stuff. Burning food is stupid, but how do you qualify "food". Most (around 80% if you can believe the figures) of the US corn crop is inedible, cooked or raw. It is purely industrial corn, made to be used as either stockfeed, or chemical/industrial reduction to its' basic starches and sugars for use in our increasingly manufactured foods. Many nations (starving or otherwise) don't want GM corn, so you couldn't feed it to the starving millions even if you could afford to get it there.

    Regarding "The current obsession with bioethanol in the U.S., Brazil, and other countries is just absurd" ... The jury is still out on that one, too. Brazil, with a once huge sugar industry going down the tubes because of the increase in subsidised production of manufactured HFCS (High Fructose Corn Starch), sought to kill two birds with one stone - a dying sugar industry, and the ever increasing price of imported oil. Depending who you listen to (and who pays their wages) they are either leading the world in this area, or broke and starving. I may have to actually visit Brazil one day to find out for sure! :D As for the US and other governments - greenwashing is the correct term. Keep the populace fat, dumb and happy so we can get another term in office to line our pockets. :(

    On a yield per acre basis, cattails used for water treatment come in at around 2500 US gals per acre. (If the lignocellulose process ever takes flight, that would increase to around 10,000 US gals). Corn, on the other hand, comes in somewhere between mesquite, potatoes and prickly pear cactus, at 200 - 400 US gals per acre, depending on the growing conditions, fertiliser usage, etc.

    One side effect of using corn is very little known. If you feed corn to cattle, they eventually die, because their system cannot handle the large amount of starch. If you process the corn for ethanol, you use up the starch (turning it into sugars to get the ethanol). The resulting "waste" is actually better for the cattle! It still contains all the proteins, minerals, etc, just doesn't have the starch - so it is easier for the cattle to digest.

    I do believe that biofuels can be a part of a Permaculture system. But they are not a replacement for fossil fuels. At least not the way we currently use fossil fuels
     
  14. Adam

    Adam Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Peter, thanks very much for your compliments and encouraging words!

    What is the 'it' you are referring to here? I am also a little unclear about what you are referring to with your carbon output question. Are you referring to biogas in both cases, or something else entirely?

    If you are talking about biogas, then I can tell you that Sweden has already made biogas a priority and always seem to be working to develop more biogas plants and infrastructure. The development is a now a bit limited here by the availability and ease of acquiring the "waste" materials. Biogas is also growing in Switzerland and Germany, so hopefully it will spread to the rest of the EU. Also, although I can't remember its name I do know that there is a Swedish biogas company here that has a partnership in China (where household biogas digesters are gaining in popularity) and is helping to develop large-scale biogas plants there. If the large-scale plants really take off in China then there could definitely be a snowball effect like you mentioned.


    Don H,
    What kind of information is it that you are looking for? I don't think putting it in those terms makes it difficult to discuss the relevant information. I can go to greater specifics about individual crops and their efficiency in terms of ethanol production, but the point is even the most efficient (sugarcane) is not sustainable socially or environmentally.
    Well the inedible corn you refer to can be processed into edible products, so it's still food in my book (although of course our industrial food system blurs the line). But anyway that's not the point. Whether the crop is edible or not doesn't really matter, it's whether land is being used to grow fuelcrops that could otherwise be used to grow food for people, or in the case of SE Asia and Brazil, land that would otherwise be rainforest.

    I think an interesting irony of the whole biofuel movement is that the supporters of biofuels (corporate interests like Monsanto) claim that there is plenty of land to go around to grow both massive amounts of biofuels and food. And the detractors of organic farming (usually the same corporate interests) say we couldn't possibly have enough land to grow enough food for the world using entirely organic methods.

    Well it's at least absurd from a sustainability point of view. That is quite clear to me. Of course there are plenty of politicians, sugar & corn farmers, Monsanto people, and other vested interests who will continually espouse the merits of bioethanol in these places, but would you expect any less when they are the ones profiting from it?

    Yep, that is why conventional feedlot dairies burn through their dairy cows so fast (and use so much antibiotics to try and keep the cows healthy). Grass-fed dairy cows will produce milk and remain healthy for a much longer (something along the lines of 5x-10x I believe) period of time -- without the antibiotics of course!
     
  15. Don Hansford

    Don Hansford Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I spent much of my early years on my Grandads' dairy farm - the only medical stuff I can recall using was calcium borogluconate, milk of magnesia (for milk fever and grass staggers) and, very rarely, an udder injected antibiotic for mastitis. Since it was a stud property, any cow that was too subsceptible to mastitis was sold. Oh yes, and we used Stockholm Tar on any cuts or wounds (on the animals and ourselves). They were great days, hard work and lots of boots in the bum, but great all the same :D
     
  16. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    There’s a tremendous amount of information on the forum but its not consolidated and difficult to access in a direct form. There have already been several calls for members with permacultures to document their sites, experiences, ……. perhaps producing an eBook at the end of each year of what’s happening around the world? Downloadable by anyone, no copyright no restrictions.

    Marko got us started on Biofuels and we’ve collected a lot of information and opinion. The fact that they exist, and will continue to exist means that there use must exist within an ethical and sustainable environment. However, someone needs to pull it all together otherwise its all just hot air and nobody will show the slightest interest.

    Adam’s doing the Master’s so has access to all the information and lives within a country using biofuel ……… ok, I know I’m being very unfair here because we all have other things in our lives. I know that there are a lot of permaculturists here who have no problem with biofuel and could advise on its sustainable creation. No one person gets to write anything and we all get a shout when it comes to the final consolidated document, but the moderators decision is final.

    What say you Marko? Its your call!
     
  17. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Peter

    I'm not sure of what it is that you are asking me to decide upon. Perhaps you can elaborate?

    If it is the writing of a 'permaculture biofuels manifesto' that you are referring to, then I believe we need to do a lot more work, or at least review the work that has previously been done.

    For example, before 'use' must come 'produce'. Biofuels are derived from biomass. So perhaps this is where the conversation should now be directed, to the production of biomass?

    As such, Holmgren's Chapter 2 Catch and Store Energy in Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability is, I believe, as good as place as any to start. It's all pretty well much there!

    I'd be interested to know what rough number of people who visit the Forum have read Holmgren's Pathways?

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  18. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Me! And it's a very good read. I like his academic approach to permaculture. I think that the universe was blessed to have the synergy between David's rationalism and Bill Mollison's gut instincts and showmanship. Without it I doubt that Permaculture would have become what it is.
     
  19. PeterFD

    PeterFD Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Marko

    Exactly! A 'permaculture biofuels manifesto'. I said it’s your call because you started the thread so that makes you the moderator?

    You do have a particular clarity in your writing and a style that is instantly recognisable. I could visit a thread anywhere on the forum and I would know instantly if you wrote it; and I cannot say that about anyone else.

    Content is all-important, but without clarity is lost! Style, I believe gives presence. For someone to download a datasheet or eBook anywhere in the world and to instantly recognised its origin is worth a lot ……… especially if we intend to move centre stage and stop “fiddling at the edges”.

    As a newcomer to the idea of permaculture last year, I made the mistake of buying a copy of Mollisions Designers Guide. I admire Bill immensely but his style of presentation drives me to distraction! Holmgren, from what I've read of his on the Internet is much more to my taste.

    I’ll see what I can do. Any particular edition?

    I think we need to be as pragmatic as possible when it comes to pulling the text together, I suppose someone could advise on the computer side. Can we have an expandable page that we can all add to and then formulate into a single statement? Can we pull together the various pieces needed for an eBook on Biofuels?

    I got an update from John123 about the Dung Beetle thread I started a long time ago and we got to discussing parasite control and prairies etc. In this particular case I had though perhaps a datasheet or possibly a discussion document that could circulate and be amended worldwide by anyone with animals?

    In many ways it’s the big leap in the dark!

    Well, here in France its 6:30 am, the goats have been tucked up for a couple of hours now, so its about my turn! One of the older mothers with two babies didn’t make it this afternoon, probably the extreme heat ………. still gets to me.

    Speak to you soon,

    Peter
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Peter

    I cannot comment about Mollison as a person, as I have never met the man, nor have a read (in its entirety) The Designers Manual. However, I have (and continue to) read Permaculture One (1978 ) and Two (1979), and Introduction to Permaculture (1991). All are excellent, in my opinion, and show a marked progression in Mollison's thinking over time.

    Holmgren, on the other hand, is a person that I have spent some time with on a few occasions, and therefore in my mind practically everything that comes out of his mouth (or off his keyboard) makes perfect sense. It is for this reason that I cannot recommend too highly the reading of Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability (multiple printings, but only one edition, as far as I am aware).

    I now realise that I have previously referred to Chapter 2 only in this thread, as it relates specifically to the topic, but I would like to now suggest to all who are seriously contemplating a broader study of the permaculture concept in theory and practice (including the production and use of biofuels), please try to read the whole book - many times!

    I will try to offer more to this thread as time allows. In the meantime, please do not feel that just because I 'started' it, I need to 'moderate' it. In the true permaculture sense, Peter, we are all 'moderators' within our own spheres of thought and action. As such, anyone should feel welcome to give to, or to take from this thread, at any given time.

    Peace to you, your family, the goats, and your community, Markos.
     

Share This Page

-->