PART SIX: THE OVERALL GEOPHYSIOLOGICAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY GREEN ENERGIES.

The previous chapters explored the geophysiological impacts of the four components of alternative energies. This chapter presents a short summary of the geophysiological impact of each alternative form of energy and attempts to resolve some outstanding issues. The next chapter speculates about the overall impact of all forms of alternative energy on the Earth's Photosynthetic Capacity i.e. the Earth's life support, and climate stabilization, system.

6.1: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Hydro Electric Power.

This form of energy produces no overt greenhouse emissions. However, it is responsible for the release of considerable quantities of greenhouse emissions because of the use of fossil fuels in the mining, processing, manufacturing, construction and disposal industries which support hydro-electric power. Hydro electric power has also caused a massive scale of geophysiological damage - hydro-electric reservoirs have inundated an area larger than the north sea. It is a limited form of energy and is restricted in the areas where it could be employed. Some greens support the construction smaller hydro-electric schemes on rivers which have not yet been dammed, but even if this was to happen hydro-electric power would still remain a limited form of energy. It is also limited in the sense of being able to produce only electricity.

6.2: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Tidal Power.

Tidal power has hardly been developed and there is considerable room for expansion but it remains a limited form of energy.

6.3: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Wind Power.

Wind power doesn't release greenhouse gases and doesn't damage the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity as much as hydro-electric power. It releases greenhouse gases through the matrix of industries supporting wind power in so far as these industries continue to use fossil fuels. Wind power is also a limited form of energy restricted to specific areas of high winds.

6.4: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Phytomass.

The first section assesses the proposition that the energy derived from Photosynthesis, whether Tree or crop plantations and, by association, biomass, has no overall impact on the Earth's climate. The following sections then examine the overall geophysiological impacts of Tree plantations, crop plantations, Phytoplankton/Algae, and biomass.

6.4.1: The Net Zero Emissions Scenario.

6.4.1.1: Phytomass is Greenhouse Neutral.

Greens are great supporters of those forms of energy they've dubbed as green because they believe alternative forms of energy do not destabilize the Earth's climate in the same way as fossil fuels. In green ideology, alternative forms of energy either do not release greenhouse gases e.g. solar, wind, wave, hydro-power, tidal, etc or, if they derive from Phytomass, they release only the greenhouse gases that have been extracted from the atmosphere by Photosynthesis. This has led greens to the proposition that Phytomass energies, including those derived from biomass, are greenhouse neutral. They argue there is no need to worry about the greenhouse gases released by alternative power stations, biofuelled cars, etc, because they have just been extracted from the atmosphere, "The production of CO₂ by ethanol-run vehicles is balanced by absorption in new cane. Gasohol cars run on 78% petrol-22% ethanol." [1]; "In general terms the case for biofuels seems very strong: growing energy crops can provide a significant amount of energy which, if the planting rate equals the use rate, is 'greenhouse neutral' generating no net carbon dioxide." [2]; "In principle, a biofuel plantation which grows as rapidly as the vegetation is removed can have almost zero net emissions of CO₂" [3]; .. "if the alcohol is produced from crops, as in Brazil, the carbon dioxide released can be equivalent to that absorbed by the growing crop in the first place, so that there is no net increase in carbon dioxide." [4]; "It (ethanol) produces fewer pollutants and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect." [5]

6.4.1.2: Criticisms of the Net Zero Emissions Scenario.

There are a number of criticisms of the net zero emissions scenario:-

* Firstly, if Forests are chopped/burnt down to make way for crop/Tree plantations this releases greenhouse gases, "When (natural) Forests are harvested much of the standing Wood is converted into CO₂. This happens when waste is burnt, wood decays, paper is manufactured and so on. The amount of CO₂ that is produced by those processes is so great that it would take 200 years for young trees to absorb an equivalent amount as they grow. Worldwide the conversion of old growth forests to managed logging may already have contributed 2% of the total carbon released by changes in land use over the past century." [6] Even the most rapidly growing Tree plantation would take generations to absorb the huge amount of Carbon that had been released into the atmosphere as a result of the destruction of the original natural Forest. It will never absorb that amount of Carbon if it is being periodically harvested. It is not true, then, to argue that biofuels are net zero emission energy systems because this ignores the original sin of deforestation.

* Secondly, when Forests are destroyed to make way for energy plantations this not only releases greenhouse gases it also drastically changes the area's albedo/heat effects. The albedo/heat effects of the original Forests would be quite different from those of Tree energy plantations. The greater the scale of the Forests chopped down to make way for Tree plantations, the greater the change in the albedo/heat effects, the greater the boost to global burning. Whilst biofuels may be greenhouse neutral to the extent that the Carbon released into the atmosphere is just the Carbon absorbed by plantations, they are not global warming neutral since deforestation produces a substantial change in the planet's albedo/heat effects.

* Thirdly, at present there is too much Carbon in the atmosphere (partly because of the deforestation brought about by the creation of energy plantations) so that Phytomass/biomass energies based on zero net emissions would do nothing to reduce this excess. If this excess is not removed, it will continue to destabilize the climate.

* Fourthly, there are climatic conditions under which it is dangerous to have a balance between Carbon emissions and Carbon absorption. Because the Earth's climate varies, there would be times when Carbon should be released into the atmosphere to combat global cooling and, conversely, there are times when Carbon needs to be extracted from the atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse effect. (Of course, at the moment oomans are adding to the greenhouse effect when global burning is increasing). A rigid system of Phytomass energy production does not provide the flexibility needed to regulate the climate.

Finally, the reason that greens regard biofuels as greenhouse neutral is because of their idiotic inability to carry out a full scale geophysiological assessment of alternative energies. If all the geophysiological impacts caused by biofuels were calculated not merely the growing of crops, but the mining, processing and manufacturing, etc, of all the equipment and machinery used to generate biofuels, they would come to a different conclusion about the geophysiological neutrality of biofuels. Although the following quote is a limited energy analysis rather than a full scale geophysiological analysis it does have the merit of moving in the direction of including some of the many factors that need to be assessed, "The net energy obtained from biomass is the energy obtained from using the fuel, less the energy expended in growing the biomass, harvesting it, converting it to the fuel and transporting it to the point of use. (Comparing) the estimated energy costs of producing ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil and in southern USA. The amount of ethanol produced per hectare was similar in the two regions. The energy costs on the farm include not just the fuel used by the tractors and other machinery, but also the energy used to make that machinery, to make ammonium fertiliser and pesticides chemically, to mine and transport other fertilisers. The energy in the food eaten by the farm workers is also included, but is a small proportion of the total. In Brazil the total energy used on the farm was nearly a quarter of the energy content of the ethanol produced, and in Louisiana it was nearly a half. The difference between the two areas was partly due to greater use of fertilisers and pesticides in Louisiana, and partly due to more use of machines there and less of human labour. Another major energy cost arises because (of distillation). The energy required for this is more than half the energy content of the pure alcohol. The result is that in Louisiana the total energy expended to obtain the ethanol is more than the ethanol contains, so no energy is actually gained; the amount of energy is a negative number. In Brazil the net energy is a positive amount .. about one-fifth of the total energy in the ethanol." [7]

6.4.1.3: Energy from Nowhere.

What makes the proposition that Phytomass plantations are greenhouse neutral even more fanciful is that Phytomass projects are often praised because more energy is obtained from them than is put into them, "Figures from Britain's Department of Trade and Industry suggest that diesel from rapeseed generates at most twice as much energy as is required to produce it. Solid biofuels are more economical and environmentally friendly than liquid biofuels. The DTI's energy tech support unit at Harwell estimates that energy output from solid biofuels is up to 30 times that required to produce them - perhaps even higher for miscanthus (elephant grass). [8] The reason for this is that plantations are simply exploiting the capital of Carbon stored in the soil. Once this stock of Carbon has been exhausted the amount of energy of derived from the plantation drops considerably. Another reason so much energy is derived from plantations is because of the use of fertilisers. On a worldwide scale it has been estimated that, "Synthetic fertilisers provide about 40% of all nitrogen taken up by these crops. .. about one third of the protein in humanity's diet depends on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser." [9]

6.4.2: A Geophysiological Assessment of Tree Plantations.

6.4.2.1: No Environmental Assessment of Tree Plantations.

As far as is known, there are no environmental analyzes of Tree plantations. This is primarily because greens believe in the greenhouse neutral fantasy - what is the point of investigating a phenomenon when, by definition, it is greenhouse neutral? The most common analyzes tend to be energy or economic analyzes. There are many greens who claim to take the environment into account but then insist on using energy/economic analyzes which are oblivious of the Earth's life support system. Energy analyzes cannot give any indication of the effects of energy plantations on the Earth's life sustaining processes. If greens won't use analyzes of the Earth's life support system why do they claim to be green?

There are some limited environmental estimates, "The US Department of Energy has postulated that a wood fired electric power plant using a short rotation (rapid growth) managed forest to provide its fuel, could absorb 159.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each gigawatt hour of electricity produced over the lifetime of the plant." [10] Wood fired power plants can now absorb atmospheric Carbon - will the wonders of modern technology never cease? style="mso-spacerun: yes">

It has been estimated that Tree plantations absorb Carbon at the rate of 3,500 pounds of CO₂ per acre annually - which happens to be the same amount emitted by the average car, "This suggests that to establish a proper carbon balance with the atmosphere, each automobile in the world would require its own acre of young forest: a stark way of stating the greenhouse control challenge." [11]

6.4.2.2: The Energy Ratio of Tree Plantations.

Energy analyzes measure the energy ratio i.e. energy input/output, "The net energy obtained from biomass is the energy obtained from using the fuel, less the energy expended in growing the biomass, harvesting it, converting it to the fuel and transporting it to the point of use." [12]

There are a number of energy ratio estimates of Tree plantations, "The energy ratio (for short rotation coppicing) has been put at between 10 and 100, much higher than for the liquid biofuels like rme/diesel. The bottom line could be that src for energy is just too land intensive: the average power output works out at around 3 mw(e)h/yr/hectare, about 40 times more per kwh than a windfarm. Although farm land is relatively cheap, and not the main cost factor, this may be one part of the reason why the economics of src still look a little problematic." [13]; "The energy ratio (i.e. available energy output in the crop divided by the energy input requirement, for growing, harvesting and transport) has been put at between 10 and 100." [14]; (Solid biofuels provided by src for combustion is currently seen as the best option). "Certainly the energy ratio is much better between 1:1.10 and 1:1.30." [15]; "The overall energy ratio of short rotation coppice (SRC) is approximately 15 to 20:1 based on practical trials (energy out: energy in). This is substantially higher than energy balances of other biofuels such as biodiesel (with an energy balance of 1.3-3.8), produced from arable food crops." [16]

6.4.2.3: Regional Wood Economies.

Alternative energy generated by Tree plantations have nothing in common with regional Wood economies relying on renewable energy. In order to create a sustainable planet it is necessary to create regional Forests, climate Forests, and ooman free Wilderness areas. Regional Forests would be the basis of regional Wood economies providing oomans with the food, clothing, energy, and commodities, needed for a convivial existence. Climate Forests would drastically reduce the current level of atmospheric Carbon to the much safer levels that existed prior to the industrial revolution and ensure climate stabilization. The amount of energy which regional Forests could provide would be highly limited. Oomans would have to use far less energy but it would be renewable energy and they would be living on a planet with a stable climate. Tree plantations do not combat global burning, they enhance it.

6.4.2.4: The Implications of Burning Wood for the Stock of Carbon Stored by Plantations.

Greens have a surprising number of fantasies about the nature of Phytomass. Besides the greenhouse neutral fantasy, another was mentioned in chapter one, that young Trees absorb more Carbon from the atmosphere than mature Trees so the best way of combating global burning is to cut down natural Forests and replace them with Tree plantations planted by multi-national corporations. According to this fantasy, replacing natural Forests with Tree Plantations boosts Photosynthesis. Following the logic of this argument, Tree Plantations also boost the storage of Carbon in comparison to natural Forests. Criticizing this proposition should generate feedback criticisms of the original assumptions.

Monocultural Tree plantations do not store as much Carbon as natural Forests because whilst plantations focus on Tree growth, natural Forests store Carbon not only in Tree growth but in the form of soil, soil litter and Wildlife. Monocultural Tree plantations store even less Carbon if they are harvested on a frequent basis. If they are harvested every three years then, in effect, the amount of Carbon stored is the average amount of Carbon absorbed over this period. In comparison, natural Forests continue to store the Carbon absorbed over this period. It might be countered that it is absurd to compare the storage of Carbon where one set of Trees is logged and another isn't and yet this is exactly the absurdity of the claim being made by the supporters of Tree Plantations i.e. that Tree plantations grow so rapidly that even though they are periodically harvested they still store more Carbon than natural Forests which have not been harvested. The reduction in the Carbon storage of Tree plantations is even more stark if the harvested wood is consumed as a form of energy rather than being preserved as furniture or used in timber framed houses. If the wood from a Tree plantation is turned into furniture then the Carbon is prevented from reaching the atmosphere. Although it is not being stored in the Tree plantation it is still being stored. But when the wood is converted into a biofuel its store of Carbon is immediately released into the atmosphere.

6.4.3: A Geophysiological Assessment of Crop Plantations.

6.4.3.1: Ethanol.

6.4.3.1.1: The Economic Cost of Ethanol Driven Cars.

During the 1970s brazil, like many other industrializing countries, was being crippled by the import of oil - mainly consumed by the military and ruling elite, "The resulting dependence on imported oil often cripples the already strained economies of these countries. In a country like Brazil , for example, the value of oil imports in 1985 was some 43% of imports as a whole." [17] According to one commentator, the development of an ethanol industry has meant that, "Over the last ten years, Proalcohol saved the country an estimated $20 billion in oil imports." [18] Other commentators provide a less impressive saving, "Brazil obtains .. 28% of its energy needs from sugar cane biomass reserves. This represents a major saving on petrol imports amounting to US$8.9 billion from 1976 to 1985." [19] What this also seems to imply is that in 1985 despite meeting 28% of its energy needs from ethanol, brazil was still importing oil amounting to 43% of its total import bill.

The alleged savings on petrol imports should, however, be offset by government subsidies for ethanol. Without subsidies, ethanol would be much more expensive than petrol and motorists would not buy it, "The product (ethanol) was so successful that, until last year, 90% of all new cars sold in Brazil ran on it. Since 1985, the state has spent $10 billion on subsidizing consumption, because each barrel of alcohol costs about $30 more to produce than one of imported petrol." [20] .. "from 1975 to 1987 the proalcohol programme shaved $10.4 billion off brazil's oil import bill. But the industry absorbed $9 billion in government subsidies during the same period." [21]

In order to maximize cane sugar production large amounts of oil are required. For example:-

* in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, to boost sugar cane output;

* as a fuel to drive combine harvesters/tractors/crop spraying planes, alcohol refineries, and,

* as a fuel to transport ethanol from refineries to petrol filling stations.

Given the huge quantities of oil needed to produce ethanol, it is obvious why this bioliquid could never be profitable. Even if petrol prices rise, ethanol won't become more economically attractive because a significant proportion of the cost of producing ethanol depends on the price of petrol. Ethanol will never undercut the price of oil. It should not be surprising to learn that, "When the government jacked up the price for ethanol last october (1988), the alcohol cars suddenly became far less attractive." [22]

6.4.3.1.2: The Energy Cost of Ethanol Driven Cars.

Just as the financial savings obtained by reducing oil imports are offset by government subsidies to the ethanol industry, so the amount of oil saved by using ethanol is offset by the extra oil that needs to be imported for the sake of maintaining the ethanol industry.

6.4.3.1.3: The Comparative and Political Costs of Ethanol Driven Cars.

The comparative cost of ethanol is perhaps higher than its financial costs. The vast area of land used for growing sugar beet could be used for better purposes, "More than 6 million acres of the best agricultural land are now devoted to feeding cars .." [23] The proalcohol experiment was primarily a way for the brazilian government to hand over large sums of money to the ruling landowners. It has helped them to consolidate their power in society .. "because each alcohol distillery needs about 15,000 acres of land to be viable, production has fallen entirely into the hands of large plantation owners." [24]

6.4.3.1.4: The Energy Cost of Ethanol Driven Cars.

The amount of land that would be required to provide ethanol for cars is enormous, "The Worldwatch Institute has calculated that up to 40% of the entire US corn harvest would have to be earmarked for ethanol production in order to meet just 10% of current fuel demand." [25]

6.4.3.1.5: Conclusion.

The ethanol experiment in brazil is hailed as a success not merely because it provides large amounts of energy but because it is alleged to be greenhouse neutral. However, a substantial part of the success of this experiment as far as energy is concerned is due to ethanol's dependence on oil. Whilst it is possible grow sugarcane and generate ethanol without the aid of fossil fuels, this is not the case in the brazilian experiment which is highly dependent on large quantities of oil. The brazilians are in effect using substantial quantities of crude oil to produce similar quantities of ethanol. From a geophysiological perspective, all they are doing is taking crude oil for a biological walk around the Planet's Carbon spiral - and, in the process, damaging the Earth's life-sustaining processes. It is absurd to claim the brazilian ethanol experiment is greenhouse neutral when it is just as much of a gas guzzling industry as the car or Animal exploitation industry.

6.4.3.2: Bio-diesel.

In europe, the intensification of agricultural, and factory, pharming brought about by the common agricultural policy has created a vast area of surplus agricultural land. Pharmers are being paid to take 15% of their land out of production. However, the land can be used to grow oil rapeseed, "Set aside land can be used to grow biodiesel." [26] The scale of set-aside land which could eventually be used for rapeseed production is substantial .. "the European Union's current strategy is to take land out of production and move from a system of price support to one based on income support via area payments for land in production. To qualify for such payments farmers must set aside 15% of their eligible land area. For the UK some 650,000 ha has now been entered into the various set aside schemes. For the whole of Europe the figure is in excess of 4 million ha." [27]

The growth in the use of set-aside land for oilseed rape has been considerable. In germany, "Biodiesel, the alternative fuel derived from rape seed .. could displace as much as 400,000 tonnes of fossil fuel a year in Germany - equivalent to 640,000 tonnes of CO₂ - which is 0.5-0.7% of the country's total emissions .. and would cost 1.1 billion DM (£400million)." [28] In brutland, oilseed rape is the country's fastest growing crop. In 1984 only 61,000 tonnes were harvested where by 1993 it had leapt to 1,300,000 and now constitutes a £350 million business for brutish farmers.

The energy ratio of biodiesel is not impressive. According to the sustainable agriculture, food and environment organization (safe) the energy balance for biodiesel (rme) is about 1:1.3, "But even so, if all set aside land was used for biodiesel .. there would be only a 3.5% reduction in diesel related CO₂ emissions. The safe report concludes that 'large scale liquid biofuels production seems to offer few benefits' especially since its economics are very uncertain, with subsidies being required. Biofuels, say safe, also have little to offer as a transport fuel - at best reducing current petrol use by 6% if all e.u. set aside land was used for liquid biofuels. In a sense its just a 'technical fix' to keep cars going." [29]

There isn't enough land in brutland to grow biodiesel to fuel the cars on the roads, "One estimate suggests that each car needs roughly one hectare of oil seed rape to run for a year. There are 24 million hectares of land in the u.k. and almost 24 million vehicles. So we'd have to use all the u.k's land area - including roads!" [30]

6.4.4: A Geophysiological Assessment of Phytoplankton/Algae.

It has been speculated that instead of relying upon Forests for energy/resources, the stabilization of the climate, the creation of a sustainable planet, and a healthy planetary life support system, oomans should chop down the Forests and rely solely on Phytoplankton/Algae, "Instead of growing trees we could grow more algae, which absorbs about a third of the world's carbon dioxide." [31] Why 'waste' land by embarking upon mass Reforestation projects to protect the Earth's life support system when the oceans could be used? The idea seems attractive. It is tempting to believe the vast size of aquatic Phytomass could mop up excessive quantities of atmospheric CO₂. It could also provide considerable amounts of energy to enable oomans to live a convivial life. This dual role could be aided by seeding the oceans. However, as has already been concluded, there are considerable dangers in seeding the oceans. It is almost impossible to know how to boost Phytoplankton without triggering off an explosion of Algae which could end up suffocating Phytoplankton and thereby dramatically reducing global Photosynthesis. Another drawback is that if Forests continued to be used to generate energy, then oomans would have huge quantities of resources at their disposal which would enable them to extend their destructive influence over even more of the planet.

6.4.5: A Geophysiological Assessment of Biomass.

Developing biofuels from manure is an entirely different, and far more geophysiologically dangerous prospect than deriving them from crops - even though manure ultimately derives from Phytomass! Quite simply, the greater the production of manure, the greater the amount of biofuels, the greater the economic and population overgrowths, the greater the destruction of the Earth's life support system. Biofuels developed from Manure encourage the production of more Manure whether this might be through increasing ooman, or Animal, livestock populations. This could lead only to the disruption of the Earth's Photosynthetic stabilization of the climate

6.4.6: Conclusions.

6.4.6.1: Phytofuel Perspectives.

From an anthropogenic perspective, the more land needed for biofuels, the less there would be for food. From a geophysiological perspective, the more land used for biofuels, the greater the damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, the less land there would be for the Photosynthetic stabilization of the climate.

6.4.6.2: The Benefits of Relying on Phytofuels.

The major advantage accruing from biofuels becoming the sole source of fuel for cars would be that vast numbers of cars would have to be taken off the roads because they could never meet current fuel demands. As has just been noted one estimate suggests that a car needs a hectare of oil seed rape to run for a year. The uk has 24 million hectares of land and almost 24 million vehicles. If the transmission losses of biogas were anything like those of natural gas then the number of cars on the roads would drop even more markedly, "A study by Dean Abrahamson of the University of Minnesota found that, compared with oil heating, the methane leaking from natural gas distribution systems has such a powerful greenhouse effect that it offsets any CO₂ reduction benefits of switching to gas heating." [32]; "It is conceivable that cars running on natural gas would produce more 'CO₂ equivalent' than conventional petroleum driven vehicles, because of methane leakages occurring during the production and distribution of fuel." [33]

It is simply not possible to restore the Earth's life support system with the current number of vehicles on the roads. Trying to balance the greenhouse emissions of fossil-fuelled cars with Forest which could absorb these emissions would require a vast global Reforestation scheme, "This suggests that to establish a proper carbon balance with the atmosphere, each automobile in the world (400 million and rising) would require its own acre of young forest: a stark way of stating the greenhouse control challenge." [34]

6.4.6.3: The Futility of Phytofuels.

It will never be possible to generate sufficient quantities of phytofuels to meet the current consumption of oil and petrol. Although it is true that the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity produces vastly more energy than current anthropogenic consumption only a fraction of this is available for exploitation - the energy required to collect the Earth's entire Photosynthetic capacity might be greater than could be provided by the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The amount of Phytomass within reach of oomans is far smaller than the Earth's total Phytomass. As a consequence, the amount of energy that could be developed from Phytomass/biomass is small in comparison to the current consumption of fossil fuels.

6.5: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Solar Cell Energy.

6.5.1: The Astronomic Abundance of Solar Energy.

One of the most widely accepted criticisms of alternative energy is that it can't produce energy on the same scale as fossil fuels/nuclear power, "I am unhappily convinced that most small, renewable sources will be extremely costly either in human skills and time or in capital investment." [35] It is true there are limitations to the quantities of energy that could be generated from alternative forms of energy such as hydro electric power, tidal power, biofuels, wind power, wave power, etc. style='color:blue'> There are only a limited number of Trees which can grow on Earth; only a limited number of rivers to dams, etc. However, as far as solar power is concerned, there are virtually no limits. As far as solar energy is concerned not even the sky is the limit. It has been pointed out that, "If all fossil fuels in the Earth's crust could be burned, it would provide the equivalent of only a few weeks of sunlight - and the sun is expected to last for another 4 billion years. It is clear, then, which source of energy we must count on in the long run." [36] Solar energy is astronomically more abundant than fossil fuels not merely coal, gas, and oil, but shale, tars, and peat, etc. The problem with green energy is not that there isn't enough of it but that there is so much of it that it threatens to destroy the Earth's life support system for oomans.

The amount of solar energy reaching the Earth is astronomical, "Our annual solar energy budget is roughly equivalent to 500,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil." [37] If oomans developed new technologies which captured a significant percentage of this energy, then a solar powered economy would swamp the Earth with energy. Photosynthesis absorbs about 1% of solar energy but the most advanced solar collectors can currently convert 25% of the sun's energy into electricity which is equivalent globally to 125,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil per annum. [38] If this increased to 50% then oomans would have 250,000,000,000,000 barrels at their disposal.

There are other more modest assessments of alternative energy which still add up to monumental quantities of energy, "Meeting all u.s electricity needs with (1,000-megawatt solar thermal facilities) would require about 29,000 square kilometres, an area one tenth the size of Arizona." [39]; "Renewable resources are available in immense quantities. The u.s. department of energy estimates that the annual influx of currently accessible renewable resources in the u.s. is 250 times the country's annual use of energy." [40]

6.5.2: The Geophysiological Damage caused by Solar Energy.

Solar cells could produce an astronomic abundance of energy and, supposedly, without releasing pollution and causing geophysiological devastation. Unfortunately, this is not the case:-

* solar cell technologies tend to be hi-tech. They often require the use of rare metals and often have to be treated with a variety of chemicals and solvents causing pollution and geophysiological damage. The more sophisticated the solar cells, the more pollution is likely to be generated during their production;

* the manufacture of solar cells depends on the mining, processing, construction, transport, and disposal, industries all of which cause geophysiological damage;

* the manufacture of solar cells depends on the mining, processing, construction, transport, and disposal, industries - all of which release greenhouse gases to the extent that they use fossil fuels;

* solar cells are one of the most decentralized forms of energy. If solar energy could dispense with energy transmission systems they could dramatically reduce geophysiological destruction. However, if all energy came through decentralized solar cells then people would have to use batteries to store energy. Electric cars would have to be charged at home from solar cells further increasing the reliance on batteries. But solar energy is never likely to be this decentralized. There will invariably be solar power stations and an energy transmission system which will release greenhouse gases and cause geophysiological damage. Solar power stations destroy the Photosynthetic capability of the land on which they are sited. Geophysiological destruction increases as the scale of the land covered in solar cell power stations increases.

* By far and away the greatest damage that solar cells will inflict on the Earth's life support system is enabling people to live in areas away from electricity grids whether this is in the over-industrialized world where the rich would build holiday homes in Wilderness areas, or in the industrializing world where the poor would no longer feel compelled to desert rural areas. As a consequence, even if solar power was entirely decentralized it would still end up causing a vast scale of Photosynthetic damage.

* The increasing use of solar energy would terrestrialize the sun. One green commentator even goes so far as to argue that it is a shame that so much solar energy is currently being wasted as it beams off into the universe, let alone lands on Earth, "Next, the New Nature might end the waste of the Sun's output. Through the century to come men and women will get much better at using the energy that falls on Earth. But what about the vastly greater solar energies that stream off into the void?" [41] Bringing the sun down to Earth would make the Earth more like the sun. If oomans succeeded in capturing 50% of the solar energy reaching the Earth, global temperatures would rise dramatically. Global warming wouldn't be boosted solely by Carbon emissions or geophysiological destruction but by thermal pollution. It might be argued there wouldn't be any thermal pollution since solar energy would be converted into work not heat, "Solar technologies do not disrupt the Planet's heat balance." [42]; "Photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight directly into electricity, has little or no impact on the environment." [43] It is extremely unlikely, however, that technologies could convert all solar energy into work and not cause any thermal pollution. But even if it was the case that oomans converted 100% of the captured solar energy into work thereby preventing thermal pollution, the work itself would generate a considerable degree of heat e.g. the movement of solar powered cars would generate heat as a result of friction with the air and ground.

6.6: An Overall Geophysiological Assessment of Hydrogen.

A number of commentators suspect that natural gas will succeed oil as the world's primary fuel and that this, in turn, perhaps with the help of biogas, will pave the way for the succession of hydrogen. However, the shift from the limited quantities of fossil fuels to the virtually unlimited supplies of hydrogen will not lead to the emergence of sustainable societies. On the contrary, geophysiologically speaking, it will be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Hydrogen helps to dramatically increase the efficiency of all forms of alternative energy, but the combined energy they could produce would still be limited. However, when used in conjunction with solar cell energy, hydrogen could create astronomic quantities of energy which make it seem virtually inexhaustible. Hydrogen remedies the great deficiencies of solar energy. Whilst solar cells produce electricity only inconsistently and often at times when there is no consumer demand for it, hydrogen enables solar energy to be stored so that it can be used on demand. In addition, whilst solar cells produce only electricity, hydrogen is able to convert this energy into biofuels which are far more useful than electricity. Hydrogen's greatest partner in crime isn't alternative energies but solar energy.

Solar/hydrogen energy exemplifies the great green energy con - a vast abundance of energy without the release of greenhouse gases. And for greens if there is no release of greenhouse gases there is no threat to global warming. Solar/hydrogen energy is promoted as the ultimate green fuel. Unfortunately the geophysiological damage it will cause will be significant. The mining, processing, manufacturing, construction, transportation, etc required to generate hydrogen will release a considerable amount of greenhouse pollution and cause a massive scale of geophysiological destruction. Although it is likely that as more and more of the solar/hydrogen industrial matrix replaces fossil fuels with solar/hydrogen and their release of greenhouse gases falls correspondingly, the scale of geophysiological damage will not decline. If anything, in the search for more and more resources, the geophysiological devastation is likely to increase. Another great source of geophysiological destruction is providing the energy for the invasion of the countryside and the continued occupation of rural areas. In the over-industrialized world, solar-hydrogen will enable huge numbers of people to urbanize rural areas. In the industrializing world, it will enable rural villagers to stay in rural areas, rather than moving to urban areas, and thus continue ransacking the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The final source of Photosynthetic destruction is that solar/hydrogen threatens not only to fuel the current range of products (machines, equipment) but to create an even bigger range of products. The matrix of consumption industries will also cause geophysiological devastation.

6.7: Comparisons between Different Forms of Energy.

6.7.1: Tree Plantations and Inorganic Energy.

"If and when src production picks up in a big way it could replace industrial, commercial and domestic waste as an input to combustion plants, thus undermining the contribution of waste combustion to the u.k's overall waste recycling programme. After all, burning wood chips is likely to be less complicated and risky than burning the complex mixture of rubbish .. Put another way, the waste combustion programme might be seen as a 'loss leader' or prototype for energy crop combustion, although the two may operate in parallel. Either way we are likely to see more combustion plants .." [44]

6.7.2: Tree Plantations and Biodiesel.

It is believed that Tree plantations produce more energy than biodiesel crops.

Renew.

"The energy ratio (for short rotation coppicing) has been put at between 10 and 100, much higher than for the liquid biofuels like rme/diesel." [45]

Perspectives.

"The overall energy ratio of short rotation coppice (SRC) is approximately 15 to 20:1 based on practical trials (energy out: energy in). This is substantially higher than energy balances of other biofuels such as biodiesel (with an energy balance of 1.3-3.8), produced from arable food crops. This difference is explained by the fact that the production of Woody biomass requires very low levels of external inputs. Consequently the large scale production of Woody biomass as an energy source offers the opportunity to decrease the intensity of agricultural production and level of agricultural pollution whilst providing a clean and renewable energy source. It is expected that the coppice production cycle can be repeated several times during a plantation's predicted 30 year or so life." [46]

Department of Trade and Industry.

"Figures from Britain's Department of Trade and Industry suggest that diesel from rapeseed generates at most twice as much energy as is required to produce it. Solid biofuels are more economical and environmentally friendly than liquid biofuels. The DTI's energy tech support unit at Harwell estimates that energy output from solid biofuels is up to 30 times that required to produce them - perhaps even higher for miscanthus (elephant grass). [47]

6.7.3: Inorganic Energy from Incineration and Landfill.

The geophysiological analyzes of the generation of energy from incineration and landfill are far from complete so it is not possible to say which is more geophysiologically destructive than the other. But, logically, just as is the case with manure, it would be better to recycle inorganic matter because of the resources it contains rather than using it as a source of energy. If it can't be recycled it should be burnt. However, the landfill dumping of waste should be stopped. It is unlikely that the energy obtained from landfill is anything like the scale of energy obtained from incineration.

6.7.4: Tree Plantations and Wind Pharms.

Whilst some commentators believe that Tree plantations produce more energy than wind pharms others disagree.

Renew.

.. "the average power output (of src) works out at around 3 mw(e)h/yr/hectare, about 40 times more per kwh than a windfarm." [48]

Edward I Newman.

Grubb's .. "calculations indicate that in britain the wind energy captured by an array of turbines, per unit area of ground, would average about 1.5tjha^-1yr^-1. The productivity I took as a realistic average for biomass forests in britain was 0.1tjha^-1yr^-1, a full order of magnitude lower than the energy from the wind turbines. So wind turbines can, at least in some areas, generate far more energy per hectare than plants; and plants can still be grown on much of the land between the wind towers. On the other hand, wind is a very variable source of energy, and storage of large amounts of electricity presents problems." [49]

6.7.5: Conventional Power Stations and Solar Power Stations.

One commentator argues conventional power stations require less land than solar power stations and thus cause less geophysiological destruction .. "it is unlikely that they can be used to generate electricity on a large scale because we simply do not have enough space. At current efficiencies, for example, several thousand acres of solar panels would be required to absorb enough solar energy to produce the electricity generated by a single conventional power plant." [50]

6.7.6: Conventional Power Stations and Wind Pharms.

"If you allow that each wind generator is rated at around 1 megawatt output - the generators must be spaced at some distance from one another. In theory they occupy about 3 acres each. So, to match a conventional power station a wind farm is likely to require some 3,000 acres." [51]