| Author |
Message |
Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 2:21 pm: | |
It occured to me today, that bio-diesel is derrived from soy products or animal fats/oils...
A thought if I may:
Most of the bulk plants we grow (like soy) depend on modern farming technology based on petrolium based fertilizers and tractors doing the "grunt work" (which need fuel). Animals need food to eat, and the fats/oils must be processed at plants (which require energy to run, and a steady supply of material which must be brought in by trucks or rail, also fuel consumers).
Question 1:
Is the consumption of fuel being calculated in by the people who determine what percentage of fuel or chemicals are being consumed to produce Bio-Diesel, speciffically the root-food source?
Question 2:
Are we really getting away from petrolium even with 100% Bio-Diesel? Or are we just kidding ourselves?
Please all who read this comment away (I'd like to see another thread of the magnatude of the "fans" thread...)
Tim |
TWODOGS (Twodogs)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 2:38 pm: | |
...............  |
Macgyver (91flyer)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 2:52 pm: | |
But, here's another question... What happens when the BioDiesel industry becomes self sufficient on its own product? Can that happen? Is there enough of a power conversion to do that? And what happens when you add in "cracking" technologies to "Bio Fuels"? does that even work? Can there be an increase in the fuels usable power with cracking? (Think Super Carbs).
So, I think the question may not be "Are we really getting away from petrol?", but "when can bio fuels efficiently and effectively replace petrol in the in-between steps and is it possible to produce enough crop for use as both food and fuel sources?"
Another interesting question is... When will there be a GM source for biofuels to be directly produced, without special refining, or is it possible to create a self-running "farm" to produce these things without human intervention, or at least, very little?
You bring up interesting questions, but as you see... the answers themselves are also questions... Which just makes you go "huh?" a little more on the original questions!!
-Mac |
Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 3:01 pm: | |
That's the idea...
I'm just trying to point out that some of the hype about Bio-Diesel leaves a lot of questions. Is bio-diesel a "replacement" or a shell game? If the source of the petrolium replacement is petrolium, then we haven't actually improved our situation. Then, the only reason the fuel is cheaper (taking into account the source of the fertilizer etc.) is the tax break the government gave it. People would be yelling and screaming why is Bio-Diesel just as expensive as petrolium-based diesel? (riots...) I'm considering the conservation of energy theory. While soy based bio-diesel gets a lot of enery from the sun, is that gain lost when you subtract the processing and fertilizer gain (petolium based) that went into the plant? Anyway, aren't these farms getting paid by the government to break even?
Who else has an opinion/thought?
Tim |
Craig (Ceieio)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 3:29 pm: | |
In these early stages of bio diesel, and with most of the talk about small-scale home-brew, I think that there is a practical nature to it.
If you go back to the 1960's and early 1970's most sawmills (out west at least) had "Wigwam" burners on site where all the sawdust, bark, and "undesireable" wood was burned. Today all of that material is processed and turned into things like partical board, OSB, manufactured lap siding, and so on. This takes pressure off of dimensional lumber and makes the natural resource (trees) stretch further.
In the early stages of Bio Diesel, I think there is a heavy component of waste recovery. A small bio-diesel plant opened last week at our state capital (Salem) that will produce 1,000,000 gallons per year. If I understand the newscast correctly, it looks as if most of the oil will come from a potato chip factory.
As far as the econimic impact and true cost... I think it would be like unraveling DNA. There are a number of different farm subsidy programs that would have to be figured in along with production costs.
One way to look at the farm programs is that they already exist today, so they are baked into the economy already, so just look at production costs.
There are some programs like PIK (Planted in Kind) where the government pays farmers NOT to grow crops that could be redirected or eliminated in favor of crops that produce vegatable oils for bio diesel production. There could be a net gain in the economy with that money going to production rather than paying for non-production.
Is it possible to go 100% bio? Who knows. Much would have to happen in technology and such. Probably not in our lifetimes. Hey, if we could go 100% bio I would probably lose weight... who could afford fried food if pump demand drove the cost of French Fries? :-)
Craig - MC7 |
Ross Carlisle (Rrc62)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:10 pm: | |
We are so dependent on petroleum that just about any alternative fuel will consume petroleum somewhere in it's production. That will eventually have to change, but we probably won't see it in our lifetime.
Y'all might think I'm nuts, but I think nuclear power will eventually make a comeback. As proven by the nuclear power plants and nuclear powered ships, it is about the only self sustaining energy source. Imagine a car that runs for a year or more on a single uranium power cell. When that cell is depleted, remove it and plug in a new one. Same on the nuclear powered ships, just on a much smaller scale. Power cells may even outlast the car.
I can picture a small reactor providing steam to a generator which would drive electric motors. There would need to be water storage, which might be an issue depending on consumption.
The first powered automobiles were powered with steam. Whouldn't it be ironic if in 100 years, we were right back to running on steam again?
Hydrogen is also interesting, but the problem is it's production costs. It may be enviromentally friendly, but I don't see it ever beeing an inexpensive fuel for the masses like gasoline USED to be.
Biodiesel might look good now, but just like gasoline and diesel, the resources needed to produce it will be depleted once millions upon millions of people become dependent on it. About the only resource found on earth that is in enough abundance to stand up to our usage demands is the atom...which brings us back to nuclear power.
Ross |
Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:23 pm: | |
I read somewhere they are going to build the first fusion powerplant in France. They said it would produce much less waste and have even less risk. Of course it will me a long long time before they get it online. |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:32 pm: | |
I think Mac's question is a good one. "'is it possible to produce enough crop for use as both food and fuel sources?'"
One of the significant problems that looms for food production in North America is sufficient water. The problem has been rearing its head for a while, before water's role in the production of any fuel.
If you do a study on the various alternative forms of energy, meaning sources other than coal, oil, and nuclear, you will probably find that U. S. use of energy dwarfs the practical potential outputs of all alternative energy sources put together, even after these sources are developed far beyond their present status.
Our country needs crude oil. I've heard "reduction of energy use" criticized as being "an extreme measure." However, our currently extensive use of energy resources that are finite, and becoming increasingly expensive, is setting the stage for future events. When events finally unfold, things usually happen fast. All too often, the response of the people is: "What happened? Why didn't somebody do something to prevent this?"
Bio-diesel certainly can't make or break us. It is an alternative supply of fuel. I think the most important contribution of its appearance is its ability to make people think seriously about the future of our country.
Also, I'm a Willie Nelson fan. I hope bio-diesel makes him a lot of do-re-mi.
Robert |
TWODOGS (Twodogs)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:43 pm: | |
on a recent trip to Ok. I mixed 10 gallons of used (filtered)oil into 100 gallons of diesel...no smoke,free 80 miles... |
Stan
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 5:50 pm: | |
Bio diesel is a big feel good advertising program of various level of government. Except for the argument that every little bit helps, there is not much future in growing crops for fuel. Byproducts and waste from crop processing is being used for small scale electric generators. The volume of petroleum used in the world every day is beyond most peoples comprehension and can't be compared to the production of Mazola.
On a separate not, Secretary Snow was in Fort McMurray, Alberta this past week to see the oil production from a reserve equal to Saudi Arabia. A few months ago Vice President Cheney said he didn't know the reserve existed. It has been procucing oil since the 1930's but only in a big way for about twenty years. There may be many other similar reserves that are not being used.
If the environmentalists have their way there will be no oil development in North America. The NIMBY syndrome is alive and well. |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 7:25 pm: | |
Stan is correct - but I'll go one step further - There are huge untapped reserves of oil located on and immediately offshore of the NA continent - If we were truly 'out of crude', private industry would already be working on, or already have, its replacement (another reason why greed is good) - The so-called 'environmentalist lobby' has been succesful in both causing there to be more stringent and safer requirements in the production, distribution, and consumption of oil, while substantially inhibiting the proliferation, expansion, and development of our own oil/gas resources. IMHO - the former merely required an application of science and engineering to find a viable solution while the latter is a purely political knee-jerk reactionary stance which totally discounts our technical ability to develop a solution - I believe that most who frequent this board are old enough to remember the 30+ year old 'oil scare' of the early 70's - if you recall, based on the current (in the 70's) consumption we were supposed to have run out of crude by now - at the same time of this scare, the oil co's were trying to permit the construction of the Alyeska pipeline and Prudhoe oil field - It is my opinion that the course of events as unfolded then were a concerted political effort to gain these permits and other concessions for the industry as a whole - fast forward to today and you will find a current lack of new domestic oil production, refinery capacity and facilities, add to that diminishing production such as Alyeska running under capacity, all mainly due to 'environmental' restrictions and the 'politicaly mandated' (non)permitting processes - I believe that Alyeska currently runs at 30% or less of capacity upon cessation of the Prudhoe production, meanwhile they are seeking to permit the introduction of production next door in the ANWR (are you beginning to see a pattern here?) and the extension of the pipeline - It is certainly arguable that based on the nearly 30 year history of its operation, there are no overwhelming valid objections to this request, yet this subject is a veritable political 'hot potato' - Fortunately Corporate America knows that there are no "true environmentalists" and that when they find out how certain environmental legislation will impact them negatively they will unabashedly withdraw from whole hearted objection and merely "acquiesce to the masses demands" meanwhile mumbling under their breath about the impending destruction of the environment by the ignorant said "masses" -
Niles
P.S. - It has been rumored to me by a number of people who should be in the know that there is apparently a huge verified reserve of oil conveniently located on Cook inlet near Hope AK which is said to be at least double the size of Prudhoe, but that, politically, it will never be developed due to its location and because of what occured with the Exxon Valdez - Florida recently was succesful in recieving guarantees for no offshore production within the longitudinal boundaries the state, although the amount of reserve and the economic viability of production were questionable and it may have been a paper victory |
Frank Allen
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 8:56 pm: | |
dont matter how much crude is avail the price is going up up up, we dont have the refineries to produce any more and there are no plans to build any in our time, there is no incentive to do so, it would lower the price and the BIG money people arent going to have it so we just keep paying big bucks for fuel that should be .35 cents a gal,
Frank allen
4106 |
Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:37 pm: | |
I love this thread it reminds me of a book I just read a few months ago. State of Fear, by Michael Crighton. I grew up in the late 1980s and know all two well about how the schools advertise for the environmental lobby. If they had spend half as much time teaching me math as they did teaching us the world would end because of the ozone layer and oil compaines. I would be a genius. |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 10:09 pm: | |
Michael Crighton: No truth to Global Warming ....
DDT is your friend..... Nuclear Power is perfectly safe...
Michael Crighton's novels make great toilet reading...
I'm no "Greenie" or "tree hugger", and I do believe the envirowhackos
are overstepping the issues at hand... But Michael Crighton ignores fact
and instead supports big corporate greed.
Let -him- drink the DDT and inhale the toxic waste. |
Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 10:42 pm: | |
It may be an amusing thing to point out that the discovery of "Cold Fusion" occurred on the same day as the Exxon Valdez whoopsy. It's also fun to read that most who disputed the concept of cold fusion gave up their experiments after 2-3 days (SRI and our Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division at China Lake, and the Navy Research Labratory {aka. NRL} say cold fusion can take up to a week to "ignite")...
Tim |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:04 pm: | |
Cold Fusion - Now there's a challenge - A true 'pocket rocket' - here's an interesting excerpt on "alternative fuels" from COLD FUSION TIMES
In presidential campaign of 2004, Bush and Kerry managed to find one piece of common ground: Both spoke glowingly of a future powered by fuel cells. Hydrogen would free us from our dependence on fossil fuels and would dramatically curb emissions of air pollutants, including carbon dioxide, the gas chiefly blamed for global warming. The entire worldwide energy market would evolve into a “hydrogen economy” based on clean, abundant power. Auto manufacturers and environmentalists alike happily rode the bandwagon, pointing to hydrogen as the next big thing in U.S. energy policy. Yet the truth is that we aren’t much closer to a commercially viable hydrogen-powered car than we are to cold fusion or a cure for cancer.
HYDROGEN IS AN ABUNDANT FUEL
True, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe; it’s so plentiful that the sun consumes 600 million tons of it every second. But unlike oil, vast reservoirs of hydrogen don’t exist here on Earth. Instead, hydrogen atoms are bound up in molecules with other elements, and we must expend energy to extract the hydrogen so it can be used in fuel cells. We’ll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put into it. “Hydrogen is a currency, not a primary energy source,” explains Geoffrey Ballard, the father of the modern-day fuel cell and co-founder of Ballard Power Systems, the world’s leading fuel-cell developer. “It’s a means of getting energy from where you created it to where you need it.”
HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS WILL END GLOBAL WARMING
Unlike internal combustion engines, hydrogen fuel cells do not emit carbon dioxide. But extracting hydrogen from natural gas, today’s primary source, does. And wresting hydrogen from water through electrolysis takes tremendous amounts of energy. If that energy comes from power plants burning fossil fuels, the end product may be clean hydrogen, but the process used to obtain it is still dirty. .... The result: even more C02. In fact, driving a fuel cell car with hydrogen extracted from natural gas or water could produce a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. ... In the short term, nuclear power may be the easiest way to produce hydrogen without pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Electricity from a nuclear plant would electrolyze water—splitting H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Ballard champions the idea, calling nuclear power “extremely important, unless we see some other major breakthrough that none of us has envisioned.” |
paranoidoftheoceanguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 12:01 am: | |
wonder how long till the movie MadMax will become true |
Username
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 2:08 am: | |
There's an interesting and irreverent definition of modern agriculture, i.e. that it's the use of sun, soil, air, and water to turn petroleum into food.
The sorry fact of the matter is, that it's true: it takes 20 calories of energy input to produce 1 calorie of food value; I don't think that includes the (potentially intercontinental) transportation of the product to the retailer.
On the other hand, state of the art organic farming requires something like 1 calorie of input to produce 5-10 calories of food value - something to think about...
Indeed, it is possible to grow, harvest, and process crops for their fuel value and realize a net gain. However, I don't recall the numbers as to whether there is enough arable land to produce enough fuel and food combined; perhaps a smaller population?
However, there is more than enough surface area to meet current energy needs via wind and photovoltaic sources; only an efficient storage technology is additionally required. Currently, the installed cost of large scale wind energy is about $1 per watt of capacity; anyone know how that compares with fossil?
The total available mass of fissionable matter is less than that of coal. Additionally, the byproducts of both refining and 'combustion' are highly toxic, and will remain so for several times the duration of recorded history. Lastly, the only thing that makes nuclear economically feasable is the Price-Andersen Act, the government mandated limit of $1B on the industry's liability.
The duration of availability of fossils fuels is debatable to an extent. That duration is not infinite, however; care ye not of thy children, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs, or ....? Or is just blind faith in a solution that is at play? (If so, well, the solution is already here; the sole question is its cost, again vs. thy offspring's welfare...)
Regardless of availability, use of fossil fuels constitutes a planetary scale experiment; those who poo-poo the "environmentalist's" assertions of global warming have little to offer in their stead, and regardless have thus basically argued that our knowledge of the biosphere is indadequate to support an assertion that adding so much carbon dioxide to it is harmless.
Why gamble on such a huge scale when safer alternatives already exist?
It would appear that blind unfounded faith is operative, along with hatred of those who would challenge it. |
Stan
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 8:37 am: | |
Username: If you are an organic farmer (or any other kind of farmer) you better hope that nobody builds a large windfarm upwind from your farm.
For years we were told that dams would not affect a river downstream except in a benificial manner by controlling flow. We now know that that the entire eco system has changed along rivers with dams.
When you take energy out of the wind do you really believe that there will be no effect on the weather patterns downwind?
You are correct that we need a better means of storing solar energy. It might be on the market tomorrow or not in your lifetime. Like hydrogen as fuel, it is pointless to keep putting the cart before the horse.
I was unaware that organic farming could produce 100 times the amount of food with the same energy input as conventional farming. It sounds like a license to steal as organic food cost a lot more than conventional food. |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:10 am: | |
To add to Stan's comments...
Here in Florida, the weather conditions continue to change,
and for the worse. Where once it rained daily to almost a
clock-setting accuracy, it rains only infrequently, and drought
is common.
Where once large areas of wetlands supported the evaporation
and eco-chain of water distribution events, housing developments
and major shopping districts now stand. Thousands of acres of land have
been paved over, adding dry heat to what was once damp and moist.
The high and low pressure areas have moved from the positions
they've held for hundreds of years, and we're now seeing hurricanes
hit areas that once enjoyed the benefits of a safe harbour.
Cape Canaveral had always been considered safe from hurricane
damage, but we're seeing damage lately from hurricanes...
"Big business' with its corporate greed, can dictate disaster from
it's windowed offices... and usually only with a modest donation to
the political body granting it's wishes.
There's more than enough fossil fuel in this earth, and it's being
generated daily, albeit not as fast as it's being used... There has
been no scare tactic regarding "a lack of supply", just higher
prices to line the pockets of the industry. But the higher price will
serve to quell the desire to waste the fuel more than any legislation,
or attempt to regulate the American's wasteful use of it.
Unfortunately, we will see the cost of everything rise as fuel prices
steal from all industries "bottom line". Indirectly, we all pay for
that Hummer, Escalade and other Stupid Useless Vehicles
as much as we pay for other's desires to have shopping malls
and housing developments become part of our sacred environment.
There. That was -my- opinion. |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:13 am: | |
I'm so pissed, I'm gonna' take the hound out for a joyride
and burn a few hundred gal...
(Hey.... fill 'er up) |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 1:40 pm: | |
Username, Some questions for you.
"There's an interesting and irreverent definition of modern agriculture, i.e. that it's the use of sun, soil, air, and water to turn petroleum into food."
Can we produce enough food for America, here within our borders, today, without petroleum and pesticides?
"The sorry fact of the matter is, that it's true: it takes 20 calories of energy input to produce 1 calorie of food value; I don't think that includes the (potentially intercontinental) transportation of the product to the retailer."
"On the other hand, state of the art organic farming requires something like 1 calorie of input to produce 5-10 calories of food value - something to think about... "
Will you send me or help me find more information relevant to your statements?
"Indeed, it is possible to grow, harvest, and process crops for their fuel value and realize a net gain. However, I don't recall the numbers as to whether there is enough arable land to produce enough fuel and food combined; perhaps a smaller population?"
Do you have any ideas on how there might come to be a significantly smaller population? I believe that our coming generations, sooner or later, are facing the possibility of a population crash similar to those which have happened before in human history, and which happen regularly among populations of animals whose populations outgrow their food supplies. I my lifespan, according to census reports, world population went from under three billion to over 6 billion.
"However, there is more than enough surface area to meet current energy needs via wind and photovoltaic sources; only an efficient storage technology is additionally required. Currently, the installed cost of large scale wind energy is about $1 per watt of capacity; anyone know how that compares with fossil?"
I have no commercial power going to my house trailer, hence, no electric bill. I use only photovoltaic panels, two of them, totaling about 110 watts, with a back-up 6.5 hp Tecumsah spinning an old Chrysler automotive alternator. If I used only lights, the panels and batteries would be sufficient. But I'm using automotive batteries, together with some supposedly deep cycle ones, for storage. I bought used ones in good condition that cost about $10 apiece. They don't work very well when being discharged and then not immediately charged back up. They become sulfated and lose practically all their ability to hold a charge. A workable definition of a deep cycle battery is: It isn't. However, there are high priced batteries that would fare much better than my used automotives and marine. I've been interested in solar and wind for a long time and have about five years experience living with it. Also several years of experience living with no electricity at all. Energy storage is indeed a significant weak point in solar or wind technology. In order to use this laptop, I often need to hear the putt of the Tecumsah. At night, always. I'll offer this advice to you or anyone who uses a similar gen. Run it at an idle. An alternator doesn't have to spin fast in order to charge. Gasoline stretches two to three times further, and if your plug fouls sooner, it's a lot cheaper than the gas, and, can be cleaned. But be careful. A new motor should be run at higher rpm for a while, and under load, in order to properly break-in. Do you know where I can buy used, good condition, batteries of the type that are used for power back-up systems?
"The total available mass of fissionable matter is less than that of coal. Additionally, the byproducts of both refining and 'combustion' are highly toxic, and will remain so for several times the duration of recorded history. Lastly, the only thing that makes nuclear economically feasable is the Price-Andersen Act, the government mandated limit of $1B on the industry's liability. "
Do you have information you would be willing to share with me about the mining and refining of pitchblend?
"The duration of availability of fossils fuels is debatable to an extent. That duration is not infinite, however; care ye not of thy children, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs, or ....? Or is just blind faith in a solution that is at play? (If so, well, the solution is already here; the sole question is its cost, again vs. thy offspring's welfare...)
Regardless of availability, use of fossil fuels constitutes a planetary scale experiment; those who poo-poo the "environmentalist's" assertions of global warming have little to offer in their stead, and regardless have thus basically argued that our knowledge of the biosphere is indadequate to support an assertion that adding so much carbon dioxide to it is harmless.
Why gamble on such a huge scale when safer alternatives already exist?"
I own and drive for profit (hopefully) an eighteen wheeler. My use of fuel hovers around 20,000 gallons a year. I'm in no position to preach to anyone. I also founded and was president of a watershed associaton for many years. It offers a unique view. It can be easy to hate, sometimes, but it is always a waste of time. Survival is what's important. Awareness for its own sake is still a better long term tool for survival than awareness spawned by hatred, and it is still a barbaric world. My understanding of our predicament is this: We need a lot of crude oil, coal, and nuclear power, just to get from day to day, and to keep our economy operating at a level where as many people as possible have an income. Also, the United States must not only maintain its present status of military and economic power, but should seek to improve the status. It still is a barbaric world. However, as you have correctly stated, fossils and uranium are available in finite quantities. Also, the use of these energy sources produces effects that contaminate the air, water, soil, and ultimately ourselves, even though the extent to which these effects are acceptable or not is still a matter of contention. I think we need to begin building an economy that will work, and that does not depend upon fuels that will run out or which, when used, cause any unhealthy conditions for us. We need to do this without undermining the present economy, the one that gets us from day to day and keeps us fed, or as some might argue, overfed. That was very easy to state. However, how do we get enough people in a free society, who are mostly well fed and experience little shortage of anything, to agree upon a course of action that will require an investment in the future (long term) on their part? If there is one thing I have learned in my life, it's that I can be wrong, when I've been so sure that I was right. On the other hand, what do you do if you are right? Davy Crockett, (or was it Daniel Boone?) said: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." I've had people ask me: "How do you know you're right?" That's a weak question. A tough question is: "What do you do if you are right?"
"It would appear that blind unfounded faith is operative, along with hatred of those who would challenge it.”
How does one go about changing that?
Robert |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 3:05 pm: | |
I believe that we may have forgotten that we have the technical ability NOW to solve our problems in an environmentaly nuetral (if not friendly - truth is - the mere act of living is in itself not 'environmentaly friendly' to other life forms - in its purest definition) manner - You must remember all fuel sources are finite, and that includes the sun - Contrary to religious dogma, science and engineering will provide the answers, not divine intervention -
Just a caution to be careful who you assign the Scarlet "E" to - Every single living thing that CONSUMES ANYTHING and DISCHARGES ANYTHING in its wake is CAUSTIC to the ENVIRONMENT - the rhetoric expelled every day on arguing who is the biggest polluter is greater than the time or energy spent resolving the pollutant at the source -
Just one idea - PACKAGING - a meritless source of pollution which requires enormous amounts of energy to produce, transport and discard - mainly used for advertising - solution - government outlaws individual packaging - all advertisement now is located on the product itself - seems simple enough - no one has lost anything - why can't we just solve these little problems and maybe the big picture will take care of itself - Like the old adage, watch the pennies and the dollars will follow - but we keep trying to kill an ant with an Atom Bomb, and take out all of our conveniences moving us back into the dark ages, when all we have to do is make some simple decisions which do not inconvenience any one or harm any persons rights -
I think I'm done now - I'm gonna drive my bus to the land fill - and ponder my existence (see how I made this ON TOPIC) -
Niles |
Pat Bartlett (Muddog16)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Niles just a comment about Religion and Science, I know its hard to believe but both are actually on the same page, Science is just to young to realize this!......Have a good day |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 4:39 pm: | |
Pat - thanks for allowing me to clarify the above iteration - not bashing religion - just seperating the mortal world with mortal problems and mortal solutions vs. immortality .... which I think religion is, and should be, all about .... but I may be wrong there too .... meanwhile, Keep the Faith .... and seriously, You have a good day too .....
"I love the smell of LAND FILLS in the morning." Lt. Col. William Kilgore, Apocalypse Now -- 1979 |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 7:59 pm: | |
Holy crap, Robert... That's a big 10-4!
And wasn't it Tonto that once said: "What do you mean we, paleface?" |
Stephen Fessenden (Sffess)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:15 pm: | |
Brazil has many vehicles that run on pure ethanol and has for many years. They just made up their political mind that they were going to do it. It can be done with biodiesel. We just have to make up our minds and do it, get past the initial ineffeciency to a really workable system. |
Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:48 pm: | |
Here may be one solution. It sure would be much more efficent than making bio diesel. They have a lot on their site to read over.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/how/index.asp
http://www.changingworldtech.com/ |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:57 pm: | |
I think Tonto mostly said: "Kemosabe right! Me do." |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:03 am: | |
HAR de HAR HAR!
Ahh, ok Robert...
Tonto goes to a psychiatrist. "Doc, I keep having these alternating
recurring dreams. First I'm a teepee; then I'm a wigwam; then I'm a
teepee; then I'm a wigwam. It's driving me crazy. What's wrong with
me?"
The doc replies: "It's very simple Tonto, you're two tents." |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:38 am: | |
Tonto doesn't worry about the dreams. He's yankin' the paleface shrink's chain. He got the wampum for his game from selling fuel, something he doesn't like, to the palefaces. What he'd like, is to have his old hunting ground. Tonto doesn't think about any of this. He waits. |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:32 pm: | |
Tonto's waited too long already. It's time for him to become
part of the political landscape, and do what should have been
done long ago. |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:55 pm: | |
How |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:24 pm: | |
What? |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:29 pm: | |
Ok, what? |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:14 pm: | |
"About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo
moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the
terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the
lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were
two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits.
Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching
the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended
by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were
noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the
man did not know English, his son asked for him, who the
strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that
they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon.
The man became very excited and asked if he could send a
message to the moon with the astronauts. The NASA personnel
thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder.
After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to
translate. His son would not. Later, they tried a few more
people on the reservation to translate and every person they
asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with
cash in hand someone translated the message:
"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
(How that?) |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:15 pm: | |
A scientist worth his sodium-chloride takes nothing for granted.
Let us begin with an example. Satellite communication relies upon relativity in its design. Many of us use satellite communication in one form or another. Therefore, relativity, which is no longer only a theory, but is demonstrated, plays a part in our day to day lives. Until Albert Einstein theorized relativity and then demonstrated its reality, Newtonian physics was undisputed and accepted. Newtonian physics dictates that if you traveled at 50 miles an hour for 10 hours, you'd have gone 500 miles, with respect to some immovable reference point. When you'd turned around, and come home, you'd not have aged any differently from those who'd been sitting in your parlor during your trip. Newtonian physics assumes time to be a constant. That turned out to be not true. Time for you, relative to your "relatives," slowed down while you were moving, relative to them. They have aged more than you did, perhaps some fraction of a micro-second. At the speeds and distances in our daily lives, this effect is usually to small to be noticed. But it makes a big difference when a satellite is moving at many thousands of miles per hour, and has computers deciphering millions of bits per second. If engineers tried to develop satellite communication and global positioning systems without taking into account relativity, they would never work properly, and no one would know why. Einstein showed that time can dilate and contract, and that the speed of light was, in fact, the constant.
You see, Einstein did not take it for granted that Newtonian physics could not be wrong. He was "Johnny Lunchbucket." He was a rebel throughout his school years. An inspired and independent, though disciplined, thinker, with a college education, he developed his theory as a young man working day to day, all day, in a patent office. He had a wife and kids to support. He had a boss watching over him. He concealed his notes and drawings.
The renowned physicists of the day, mostly in university and laboratory environments, were baffled by certain inconsistencies while observing phenomena. Some of these inconsistencies had to do with efforts in measuring the speed of light. No one knew of anything but the system that had been worked out by Isaac Newton, who was, in his time, a disciplined thinker in Einstein's league, but who did not have the more accurate measuring devices of later centuries.
Einstein took nothing for granted in his search for a solution to the problems at hand, and began to doubt the physics of Sir Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein was the man who ultimately explained the troubling discrepancies that the other scientists of the world could not explain. If we expect science to illuminate our way in the matters of fueling ourselves and feeding ourselves, then we should admire, and try to emulate the disciplined qualities of a man who showed himself to be one of the greatest of scientists. He was a man who worked hard and took nothing for granted in his search for answers.
Questions: Why, if mankind is the most intelligent of all animals, is mankind experiencing problems? Is there really any such thing as pollution? At all? Also, if we want fuel, and bio-diesel can be produced, how can bio-diesel be anything but good? Where is there any room for discussion? If bio-diesel cost more to produce than it was worth, no one would buy it, right? There would be no discussion. Traditionally, elephants move through an area and eat and trample to an extent that they have to move on, because there's little left for them where they've just been. There won't be much there for them for a long time. Other forms of life move in and find the area left by the elephants to be suitable for their needs. Are elephants "environmentally unfriendly?" To themselves? To anything? What does "environmental" mean? Beavers build good dams that inundate large areas. They destroy many forms of life within the acreage of their lake in order to subjugate that territory to their own usage. They incessantly move downstream and place dams everywhere they see water flowing. Are beavers environmentally unfriendly?
Without taking for granted that we are more intelligent than any other animal, or that we are the only technological animal, let's try out a definition of technology: "Appropriating something that is available, and using it." By this definition, the nest of a Baltimore oriole, which is a composite of mud and grass, or similar material, hanging from the limb of a tree, is a technological achievement. A beaver dam is a technological achievement. A motor vehicle is a technological achievement, and so is bio-diesel. A recently born (within decades) crocodile uses the heat from decomposition of vegetation to incubate her eggs. Did she invent the process, or was it passed on to her from ancestry? Since when? A beaver gnaws a tree and adds it to his hut in the middle of his new lake. Did he invent the activity, or the dam? Did he learn it from his community? A man drives his car to the store. Did he invent the car, or were cars already around when he was born? Who taught him to drive? Is bio-diesel a new invention, or just oil.
It can hardly be proven that animals other than humans think, but it can hardly be disproved. It cannot be disproved that animals make carefully considered decisions. I've watched dogs, cats, and wild animals for a long time, and it appears to me that they think things over quite a bit. Just an observation. Observation plays a large part in any science, but science is first and foremost a discipline. Humans can be observed doing things that appear to be thoughtless, and indeed, some actions are not preceded by thought or need to be, or perhaps should be. What's really going on?
Scientifically speaking, we can't prove we are more intelligent than other animals. Can we, without vanity or presumption, define intelligence as something that we have and other animals don't? There is one thing that is observable. The things we humans do in building and enjoying our relatively complex technology, are related to the human hand and its opposing thumb. Swinging a golf club, focusing a microscope, using a keyboard, buttoning a shirt, building and firing every weapon from a slingshot to a thermonuclear bomb, holding a steering wheel, putting on earphones, etc......... The thing that we have that other animals don't, is the human hand which can pick up things and use them as tools. We cannot prove that the communication other animals have within their species is less deep or meaningful than our own. We cannot prove that the histories of their ancestors are not available to them in some way, shape, or form. We cannot prove that other animals are not highly intelligent. We use the written word, but since when?
Is it a scientific idea that there is a "human world" in conflict with the "natural world?" Where has it ever been shown that we are not, as humans, completely natural in everything we do. If we look at our clothing, our buildings, vehicles, spaceships, or porn, and think this is proof that we are more intelligent than other animals, is this scientific, or vain? I know how to use a 9/16" open end wrench, and can intuitively suppose when a box end or socket wrench might work better. I was taught, but I did not invent any of those tools, or the threaded nuts and bolts to which they apply. A bear can be taught to ride a unicycle. I can't ride a unicycle. I suppose I might learn, and then I suppose further that I'd then think I was as smart as the bear.
The wheel was in use in Europe Before Christ. The abilities to smelt copper, make bronze, smelt iron, even produce steel, have been around a long time. It is only within the past century that bearings capable of rolling a million miles have been in use. If we want to be scientific in our view of ourselves, we have to admit that our technology is passed from generation to generation and that few of us personally can claim any credit for its presence. Therefore, is it scientific, or vain, to point at present technology and claim, "There, that's proof that I am smarter than any other animal." Is tinkering with something until it does something a sign of intelligence beyond the ability of other animals or an example of how "handy it is to have hands?" What is the scientific interpretation.
In the arena of scientific discovery at the time Albert Einstein made his mark, there was great disturbance and controversy over issues that no one could resolve. Einstein saw that the answer lay outside the boundaries of accepted belief. In the arena of 21st century resource use and management, there is also great controversy. I believe the answer also lays outside the boundaries of accepted belief. That belief is that we are more intelligent. The same science that is supposed to save us must actually point out that, according to the precepts of good science, there is no evidence that humans have more intelligence or have the means to deliver themselves from the consequences of overpopulation. There is no evidence that we can ultimately escape the fate of other animal or past human populations which is to be culled by cold, hunger, disease, and ultimately, predators or enemies.
Our cleverness and our hands are what has allowed us to vastly populate the world and subjugate so much of its resources. But cleverness will only get us to a certain point. When we tinker and tamper too much, we begin to "fix what ain't broke" which is the cardinal sin of the mechanic. (Another cardinal sin: "Torque it till it strips and then back off a quarter turn.") Diseases, famine, war and decline are as much a part of the globe as peace, bounty, love and happiness. What lies ahead of us at present population levels? All animals are clever. However, it's also true that all animal populations are ultimately held in check by things that are beyond their control. In our continual use of limited resources, we are not generally behaving any differently than any other animal behaves. Scientifically speaking, the only edge we have, that can be unequivocally observed, is the hand, not superior intelligence. The notion that humans will always be able to solve problems as they crop up has no basis. The Earth cannot sustain its present population of humans indefinitely. The only question is: How close are we to facing the same fate as other animals, to have our population reduced drastically by things beyond our control. A good scientist would have to prescribe restraint in resource use and voluntary reduction of population. However, being a good scientist, he would also have to wonder whether humans are any more capable of that than deer.
The first Americans, the so-called Indians, lived here for many thousands of years. I recently read that the oldest skull found was found around Mexico City from around 13,000 years ago. According to everything I've ever read, these people lived in what Europeans would describe as the "stone age." I don't recall reading that these first Americans made extensive use of the wheel. But there doesn't seem to be much controversy among archaeologists that these people did alter their environment to various degrees. I have read that forest burning was done to create better habitat for game animals and hence better hunting. I have also read that these people knew starvation during long, cold winters. Yet their ways of life, which varied from tribe to tribe, continued for millennia after millennia without any EPA or DEP any environmental police. They supposedly lived in every part of the Americas from the Arctic Ocean to the southern tip of South America. They lived in the mountains, swamps, and deserts. They were highly intelligent and the various tribal civilizations had trade that had artifacts from Florida showing up at many places throughout the continent. But there weren't that many of these people by today's standards of population level. They took, for the most part, what the Earth had to offer without altering it to the point that a millennium or two down the line, things would look much better or worse than the day before. There was some organized agriculture, some irrigation engineering works that still exist today in areas of Arizona, some hunting, and some gathering. But all of this with a relatively small population by today's standards.
In the few hundred years since the first European settlements took hold on this continent. The population of the U. S. alone went up to around 300 million people. This many people can never live off the land the way that the relatively small number of First Americans did. We have to dig into the planet in major ways to feed as many people as we have today. How long can it go on? Technological advances have usually preceded population increases throughout modern history. Fluctuation of animal populations is more the rule than the exception. Humans have made great technological advances in a relatively short amount of time and population has accordingly soared. Bio-diesel may be a temporary stop-gap tactic, but if anyone is really interested in the fate of coming generations, a harder look at all resources is called for, especially water. Fuel can't be grown without water.
When Einstein disproved Sir Isaac Newton, he did it by offering the proper solution, because he was a great thinker and scientist. When I offer the theory that humans are really no more or less intelligent than other animals, and aren't going to find any clever ways out, I'm no Albert Einstein. But perhaps there is something to the theory and maybe someone can use it. |
David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:39 pm: | |
WOW...
That needs to be archived and published! |
Richard Bowyer (Drivingmisslazy)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 7:48 am: | |
Double WOW. An excellent writeup and I certainly appreciate not only the time but the thought that had to go into it. Thanks, very much.
Richard |
Username
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:42 am: | |
"A scientist worth his sodium-chloride takes nothing for granted."
Not to quash the poetic, but poetry and rigor are things to balance.
One always operates from a context, for to truly take nothing for granted is simply beyond the scope of the rational faculty. The actual trick is to view that context as a model, i.e. a present tense construct that one has no qualms about modifying if need be, vs. a belief, which is of a past tense nature, cast in stone.
In other words, it is willingness to be wrong.
"...let's try out a definition of technology: 'Appropriating something that is available, and using it.'"
How about we use the actual definition, contained in the very word itself: knowledge of technique? Knowledge and application are very distinct things, so much so that it is often not apparent that two applications are related via common underlying technology.
So, perhaps more the distinction between man and animal is not so much their respective applications of technique, but rather their knowledge thereof. Knowledge can be embedded in many media: DNA, muscle memory, writings, sculpture, et al, and in that mysterious entity, the 'mind'. In man, the latter media is much more developed, enabling the processing and mutation of ideas much more quickly than is the case for DNA, which mutates over multiple generations, or muscle memory, which mutates over a lifetime.
As an aside, the enormous rate of species extinction that is currently occurring could be viewed as an act of natural selection in a competition between DNA and mind as knowledge storage and processing media. Too bad that human mind still depends on human DNA, and, by extension, to its myriad cousins, i.e. these vanishing species.... Note that it is still the case, despite advances in and hoopla about bioengineering, that many important medicines are derived from nature.
So there is this mind, this platform that supports 'rational thinking'. It is often thought that that the rational, the reasonable, is an objective thing having a constant existence beyond that of a given individual, e.g. as in "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". This view is quite wholly mistaken. Rationality is not a thing, it is a technique; like any other technique, it has manifold application.
It has often been said that, by itself, technology is neither good nor bad, but rather only its applications can be so judged. Turning now to application, and to that which is the applicator, i.e. values: Rationality is nothing more than a tool in service of values, a means of their advancement in a given domain of application; it is by no means whatsoever their master.
The utility of rationality is a function of its operating context; if the only tool that you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Indeed, the Western mind’s rapaciousness is pretty well characterized by such a dearth of context. The greater the diversity and range of scales of one’s operating context, the more effective one can be.
Utility also depends on conscious ownership of one’s values, which impel the rational faculty into use. The conscious, as holder of context, can direct the rational faculty with a measure of nuance; the unconscious is of singular and narrow focus, virtually devoid of context.
Mankind has billions of years’ experience in operating from the context of an individual, and tens to hundreds of thousands of years’ experience operating from the context of a village / tribe of various sizes. The effectiveness of our rational faculty has brought our numbers to the point where what we must now do is adopt an operating context of planetary scope, inclusive of our actual situation as one species in an interdependent web of many. In this regard we are yet by and large unconscious, and are so to our peril. Studies have shown that we are already about 20% over the planet’s carrying capacity, and considerably moreso should all people come to enjoy the standard of living of the first world nations. Better we effect that ourselves via natural attrition than via war, famine, pestilence, etc., as shall surely be the case otherwise. |
Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:30 pm: | |
Well this post has exceeded my expectations by leaps and bounds. This is a heck of a group to talk to (and you guys, just keep proving it).
With the last two major posts in mind (the first by Mr. Harsell and the second by the anonymous Username fellow), getting back to energy sources...
Is it the opinion of this board (I just love the sound of that...) that further research should be put forth into a new form of energy "creation", or is our current method of "consumption" (a "technique" passed down from the very roots of our species) the real problem? I ask this question as a way of seperating old technique from new tecnique (ie., the consumption of substance by destruction aka. fission/fossil fuel vs. the creation of substance by consolidation, aka. fusion...).
While these new energy concepts focus on sustaining the work we do while we are alive, this still leaves out the necessary changes to ensure that we can sustain the very lives themselves (as seen in Africa recently - food water, shelter; "the basic three").
Comments?
Cheers!
Tim |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:23 pm: | |
Username: One may indeed proceed without taking anything for granted. One must always operate from a context, it's true, often several or many of them at once, knowingly fully that any one of them, or several, or all of them may prove false. One may always consider before venturing out: "Is this worth the gain?" The consequences of being wrong vary depending upon one's circumstances. I consider myself fortunate to have found this forum. I thank you for your critique and will consider it carefully.
I consider knowledge to be something that is gained through struggle and that once attained, is incorporated into one's entire being.
I would still like more information on energy uses in modern agriculture and state of the art organic farming. Will you help me there?
Robert |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:17 pm: | |
Tim: With the amount of people we now have, there are already laws in parts of the country that ban barbeques and woodstoves. These are two amenities that a lot of people don't want to lose. Combustion is highly regulated. Most of it is still allowed because our country would come to a halt without it. But, as it has happened, regulation can become prohibition.
With a lot of engineering and a lot of can do-ism and who knows, we may have miniature suns all over the earth. There was a time when the sunlight that came from above was considered bountiful, and even worshipped. If fusion reactors actually do replace coal, oil, and U burners, at least maybe a lot of folks will get their barbecues back.
Since the thread of this discussion began with bio-diesel, I think your post gives a good chance to return. Is there enough water and land to grow fuel for the U. S., and still grow enough food? I do remember reading articles about the steady lowering of aquifers that midwest farmers rely upon for their crops. Those farmers were saying: "We know that water is going to run out soon, but what can we do? We've got mortgages and mouths to feed. We've got to keep using it." They had a show on Nova about the same subject. If you know of any studies that are being done on such aquifers, I'd like to find out more.
U. S. energy use is tremendous. I don't think there's any way enough fuel could be grown to match it, but I'd like to see the numbers.
How close is a break-through in fusion? There always seems to be more energy used in creating the fusion than is generated. Have there been any recent advances?
Robert |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:49 pm: | |
Tim: In regard to your question in your first post about the amount of petroleum used in the production of bio-diesel. Username stated in his June 11 post that modern agriculture uses 20 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food value. How many calories are needed to produce one calorie of bio-diesel? Without having any further numbers, or understanding the full scope of bio-diesel production, we're without a good answer. I wonder where Username got his info. It could be that bio-diesel is something that is completely subsidized to the point where it doesn't make any sense at all except to give false hope. |
Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:25 pm: | |
Has anybody read over the link to the website I listed? TCP sounds like it has a lot of potential. However it may just be a lot of marketing hype. If it works it would be a lot better than bio diesel because it would utilize all parts of organic matter (plants). We could make oil from sewage sludge and lawn clippings even dig up old landfills and convert the stuff to oil. I am no scientist so I really don't know much about the TCP process they have developed. |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 8:07 pm: | |
Hi Mike,
Who's that in the picture on your profile page?
I followed the links you listed. Burning ag waste isn't the same as burning municipal waste, I don't believe. A trash to energy facility is received in host cities with similar lack of enthusiasm as would be for a nuclear waste site.
They're fancy incinerators to the people who end up living near one.
Most people who live downwind are not going to be happy about the stack. The companies swear that their facility is clean, wholesome, and just what everybody needs, but as far as I know, their main problem is finding a place to build one. Poor cities where the residents have few resources with which to oppose the corporate giants have been the locations chosen in the past, according the few experiences I've had.
Robert |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:37 pm: | |
Username: I believe that the human race could be standing on the threshold of making the decision you offered in your last post. "Better we effect that ourselves via natural attrition than via war, famine, pestilence, etc., as shall surely be the case otherwise." If the chance doesn't slip away, it would be another defining moment differentiating us from other animals. Humans have made many concessions in living the lot of the human. We not only flaunt our clothing in ever changing fashion, we need it. I once read an account of a polar explorer, and in his description of his exploits he remarked something to the effect: "I was cradling my life in my very hands." This was when things were going very badly with cold, wind, blinding snow, being lost with no end in sight, when a wrong move could mean certain death. Is this not what we would be doing as a species? Would we not be putting our consciousness on the line, where if we failed, it would be proof that we were no better than the other critters? Could this be something that people unconsciously fear more than the specter of famine and disease? |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:09 pm: | |
Naww. I think most of us are more afraid of removing the
damned bus toilet. |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:33 pm: | |
Tim: If you search Modern Agriculture "energy input" on google there's a lot of information on energy requirements for modern agriculture. It looks like there would be a high consumption of fuel in growing fuel. |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:42 pm: | |
volume 6 is a dandy |
Robert Harsell (Stonefly)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:48 am: | |
and listen Jtng, or whatever your name is, just wipe, wrap, and toss. Never mind the damned toilet. awright????????? |
Username
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:24 am: | |
Robert:
I regret that I have no links for you, as I am not much of a bookmark maker. Consequently, my numbers are subject to the accuracy of my memory, but I'd like to believe that at least the general proportions are valid.
I think that the issue of whether or not one can not take anything for granted is somewhat definitional. I would assert that it is in general quite problematic for adults to disassociate their awareness from their rational faculties and their 'ego', and that, until such time as one has done so, there is no awareness that there is a quantity of belief, i.e. things being taken for granted, that is operating behind the scenes and thus doing some amount of the 'driving'. Having once achieved such dissociation, one then knows that there is such a thing as a blind spot, but actual reduction of its size (never mind the matter of whether or not it is eliminateable) would appear to be a matter of lifelong arduousness.
Yes, the problem of the drawing down of the (Oglala?) aquifer that underlies the middle of the country, and was filled during / after the most recent ice age, is a big one. Then again, I recall once reading about a guy (Indian, I think) near Green River, UT, who grew a successful crop of melons with a total of about 1" of water. Anyone remember the old adage about planting root crops by the dark of the moon, and surface crops by its light? Too bad that folk wisdom has been so thoroughly scorned and steamrollered by this disease of 'modernity'...
Fusion energy is no answer, as it too produces radioactive combustion byproducts. Granted, the half-lives are shorter (decades vs. millenia), but the material is gaseous or liquid, which makes containment more challenging. Also, as with any nuclear process, neutron bombardment of the reactor vessel will in time render it radioactive.
It is also noteworthy that control of nonweapon nuclear fusion has been pursued for about half a century. During that time, estimates of further time until viability have never fallen below another few decades...
My post of 14 July has a flaw in the last paragraph: the last sentence should read "Better we effect a reduction in population ourselves via natural attrition than via war, famine, pestilence, etc., as shall surely be the case otherwise."; apologies.
We are indeed so cradling. Another analogy is of us as an infant, sucking at the petroleum yielding teat of our earth mother Gaia; shall we succeed in weaning ourselves from it? A flip view is that of an addict who once enjoyed a nice high, but now is spiraling downward. Or, how about man as parasite? In a book about the Ebola virus ("The Hot Zone"?), the author proposed the view of emerging diseases as a manifestation of Gaia's immune system, as She attempts to deal with a cancer upon her skin, i.e. us.
It is not a question of "better"; why is it neccesary for us to be "better" than "the animals", whatever in the universe that means? Here is a prime example of things being taken for granted, i.e. a) an arguably worthless imperative (to be better), which both demands of its victim/host an extraordinary energy input in its sustenance and defence and which wields considerable influence upon the infectee's worldview, and b) an unarticulated and therefore unexaminable and inarguable definition of "better".
I once read on a milk carton some poetry that asserted that we, both as individuals and as collectives, do not fear our weakness, but rather our immense power. At the moment I'm thinking of our power to hypnotize ourselves, and the guilt that we, consciously or not, experience when we come to witness, again consciously or not, the havoc wrought while in our trances, and the consequent need to defend our egos therefrom with yet further hypnotic acts, e.g. denial, projection, etc.
The unconscious and the conscious interact best in the context of a "horse and rider" relationship, rather than a state of mixed estrangement / warfare / undifferentiated identification.
Tim:
Surely it must be clear to you that the issue is not resolveable to an either/or. But, for simplicity's sake, perhaps there is merit in a view of it as a somewhat abstract equation:
PopulationSize * StandardOfLiving = ResourceBase * UtilizationEfficiency
Where the conception of the terms on the right hand side of the equation incorporates an imperative of long term sustainability.
While abstract, it is also extraordinarily, starkly real, and awaiting our gaze and recognition. Our failure thus far to control our numbers is interpretable as a manifestation of an unconscious imperative to demonstrate our "superiority" vs. the remainder of creation, i.e. an excess of regard for ourselves, an infantile egocentrism.
At the same time, this failure in fact demonstrates a lack of differentiation from animals, whose numbers are also controlled not consciously but in response to food availability; whereas success, as part of change in context from the species to the planetary, would indeed be a demonstrable differentiation, and would also signal a successful rapproachment between our conscious and unconscious or, if you would, our divine and animal natures. |
Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:45 pm: | |
Well I can now say that Username is definately NOT George W. Bush (1 down ~6 billion to go). To articulate...
While I do not have any web-links to research on Hot Fusion, there have been some gains in the last 10 years in the actual research of cold fusion link 1, and it's reality as an energy source link 2. After the 1989 release of cold-fusion by Ponds and Fleischmann, which was an unfortunate political event, scientists have taken on the questions/research posed by them and have made some "headway". I quote headway, because there hasn't been enough funding for anything of real substance to be accomplished (ie. powering a house for a week).
However, with the research that the U.S. Navy (see link 1) and several other labs have done, they have basically determined the "optimal point of opperational efficiency" for a cold fusion reaction. They have also made discoveries on other very important facts about material purity/quality, and its effects on the actual reaction. Deuterium (pronounced doo-tear-ee-um), which is a hydrogen isotope, will release tritium (radioactive) if the reaction is not being run efficiently. Normally the waste of a cold fusion reaction is H^4 (helium, non-radioactive) with no neuton (radioactive) release.
As for fusion being ten years off, I'd say that would depend heavily on the funding and effort put into its research (something that has been missing).
Hot Fusion (plasma fusion, etc.) is probably more like 15 years away (they have funding), and depending on whethter or not the very public/political damage from 1989 can be undone, cold fusion is about 20 years away from being a viable energy source. Let's not overlook that they have proven that cold fusion can be very powerful (one experiment produced so much energy, that the containment vessle exploded destroying the lab and killing the head scientist about three years ago). The field is more concerned about safety than anything else.
For just about the most acurate info about the experimets and the reprocussions of the recent research, this is a link to a Google search which has numerous web sites and publications, etc.
Username:
I definately belive in balance in a system. That is getting into a partially religious topic though... I'd hate to go down the road about why modern Christian religions have undone some of the best balanced lifestyles we've known as a species. The ladies would love to hear that they are just as important as men, and "Bible Belt'ers" would call me sacreligious etc. Not pretty. But to truncate that topic, I'd say we are way out-of-balance, and our lifestyles, beliefs, and meathods are mostly to blame.
Tim |
Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:30 pm: | |
Tim, I cannot agree with you more about fusion. I am do have much of a technical understanding of the whole thing but from what I understand I think the idea is a good one. Like you said it is a lack of funding not knowledge. Would the nuclear bomb have been developed as quickly if we were not in the middle of WWII? If us winning a world war depended on fusion energy, we would be able to develope it quickly in my opinion. |
Stephen Fessenden (Sffess)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:02 am: | |
If a farmer is producing for biodiesel, you think he is going to be running pertoleum diesel in his equipment? |
NewbeeMC9
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:19 am: | |
My $.02, IMHO(and subject to change, the reason i read this board is to make adjustments), and I need another cup of coffee.
Lest we forget the "Conservaton of Energy"
~Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form.(maybe this can be disproved)
- even with the deisel engine seemingly effeicient, more of your $2+ gallon is still used by your radiators than your tires.
On biodesiel:
Just a way of harnessing/storing solar energy in a usable form with present technology. Can it replace Oil? Who cares if it is a usable/renewable resource on it own account and can make a large difference. Why does one thing need to replace oil? We americans do like choices and diversity. Even though I don't like the price hike on fuel, it's the only thing that will drive change that is not death oreinted. Generally humans don't want to change unless they feel pain. We would'nt be having this thread if fuel were still $.35 unless there was some kind of pain. We still have a lot of improvements to make and not one thing will solve all of them.
on Standard of living: We shouild think for ourselves and what that needs to be. (right now it's what the wife tells me) even the guy that lived on the pond only did it for a couple years(Theroux? Walden pond? I'm Suffering from CRS)
Thanks all for your views, I have enjoied
NewbeeMC9 |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page