Re: Research Topics

["Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>]

Dear Dave


>
> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > People usually blame Lawyers for the troubles of Society, but
> > in the case of
> > Biomass, I think the villains are the Accountants. :-) Where
> > they err is by
> > failing to point out where Biomass is really good
> > (environmental impact) and
> > really bad (physical handling properties) in a way that these
> > features are
> > "digitized with a dollar value." If this was done, it would
> > be very apparent
> > what the REAL REASONS were for why biomass is not in generally more
> > widespread use.
> >
>
> Actually, Kevin, I think you can blame consumerism.  We live in a
monetized
> society.  Unless you can convert benefits into money, they don't exist
(try
> trading "goodwill" into groceries).  It's not the job of accountants to
> assign non-monetary value to revenues or assets.

True!! The job of the Accountants is to assign monetary values to revenues,
assets and liabilities. This is what I contend they have failed to have
done.

What is the dollar cost to the environment in particular, and Society as a
whole, for sulphur released with the combustin of coal? What is the true
cost of an additional ton of fossil carbon in the biosphere? The same
questions should be asked for nitrous oxides, hydrocarbon vapors, methane
escape at the time of coal mining, etc...

> In the U.S., consumers have spoken: they aren't interested in paying for
> green energy, even though they say they might.

But why should they??? I feel what they should buy is what is the best for
their personal pocket book. The problem is that there are hidden subsidies
and distortions that result in fossil fuels being available at lower than
their real cost to Society as a whole.

  They are interested in
> driving SUVs and pickup trucks, and having lots of eletrical devices in
> their homes.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with that either. What is wrong is when hidden
subsidies distort reality and enable them to do this.

> Sustainability must be monetized through policy (i.e., laws, tax credits,
> RPS, etc).  Otherwise, biomass has to compete with the incumbents on their
> own terms.

Well, do you want to drag a gasifier and a cord of wood behind your SUV? :-)
You certainly don't want to do that now, but if gasoline prices in the US
were up to Eoropan levels, you would probably consider it.

Sadly, fossil fuels are, in most cases, the best value for the dollar. Until
fossil fuel prices increase to reflect their true costs, biomass energy will
be at a serious and real disadvantage.

 Until you get the politicians to go along, you are not going to
> change the economic systems currently in place.

Well, if the Accountants would give them the "true facts", that would be a
major step forward. :-)
>
Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm



-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200202/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon