Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Gary and Jos Kimlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip My wife is studying for a master in Sustainable Agriculture, I'm a little selective in what I read on the subject and so we often argue about such matters. I tutor OS students in critical reading (many are trained to believe everything that they read and suffer real trauma when presented with varying opinions in a lit. review) so I discard papers that do not have a stand alone logical development that fits the pattern I use for students. (I wouldn't read much of my own ravings) Are you sure that's why you don't read things? I'm very sceptical. snip Do you seriously believe that alternative agriculture can match the production of the industrialised systems and then increase production to meet increasing global demand? ( I allow the same level of subsidy that you demonstrate for the Brits). No need for subsidies. I think I gave you these before, but maybe they didn't stand up to your critical reading criteria: One 15-year study found that organic farming is not only kinder to the environment than conventional, intensive agriculture but has comparable yields of both products and profits. The study showed that yields of organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically improves. (Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P. Sarrantonio, M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262-265.) A Rodale study found that organic farm yields equal factory farm yields after four years using organic techniques. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment, says Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex (Feeding the world?, SPLICE, August/September 1998, Volume 4 Issue 6). http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to feeding the world. -- The Guardian, August 24, 2000 http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4054683,00.html Organic farming can 'feed the world' -- BBC Science, September 14, 1999 http://www.purefood.org/Organic/orgfeedworld.cfm Feeding the world? Quietly, slowly and very significantly, sustainable agriculture is sweeping the farming systems of the world. http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm snip Note that I once held the view that a series of natural population crashes should be allowed to reduce human population to a level from which we could rebuild sustainably. Without the ongoing green revolution this may have happened, but there was always going to be a maximum population size beyond which the ecological damage associated with population crashes could be tolerated. Yeah, well, we've been through all that before, at least once, but you take no notice and trundle it all out all over again. That's why I'm not continuing with this any longer beyond this. I'd change what your students wrote: It's useless arguing with Harry because he doesn't hear anything that disagrees with him. Do you seriously believe that the Green Revolution helps feed people instead of starves them, helps to sustain the environment rather than ruining it? Who've you been reading, Normal Borlaug or the World Bank? You talk of land shortages? - Australia could support the same population as China or India. So could the US, or Argentina. http://soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010122king/ffcc.html F. H. King: Farmers of Forty Centuries Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] We don't need no...
-Original Message- From: F. Marc de Piolenc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2001 11:15 PM To: Biofuel List Subject: [biofuel] We don't need no... Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Nering made no claims or stipulations about population growth in his analogy. Rather, he used actual estimated increases in global energy consumption. The 5% growth per annum which he assumed is a global reality. Whether the percentage remains, increases or decreases from 5% was not his primary point. (Mind you, if the percentage changes, it will be by human choices, no matter what direction it turns.) The increase in global consumption is not only due to population increase, but flat out consumption increase by other countries adopting western uncivilization consumption patterns. No matter how you slice and dice it, 5% growth IS a simple exponential, because that growth is at least implicitly compound (if linear, you have to specify a base). And assuming a continued simple exponential growth of ANYTHING is palpable nonsense. *** Marc, I'm not a mathematician, but I believe that if you plot the mean value of the average per capita amount of energy that man can control since say, 20,000 years ago, (when it was about one manpower) to the present day, (when it is measured in megatons) you get a simple exponential curve. And if, as is quite likely, gravitational force can be controlled, that curve will reach an infinite discontinuity. Hanns *** You can have a lot of fun demonstrating that the Universe will be devoured in X years, but all you're really demonstrating is that the model is invalid. No doubt the students will remember - I only hope they remember to question! Marc de Piolenc Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
i dont know that i agree that there would be any more of a feed meal glut than there is right now. all the grain that is being produced in this country today is being marketed to every conceivable use there currently is and we still have an oversupply. currently if commodity prices are high the grain farmer sell his produce to the majority of his crop or all anyone will take to food production and the livestock feeders get what is left, this causes high feed prices to the people feeding livestock and low livestock prices, on the other hand if commodities prices are low it then becomes more feasible to market their grain through the livestock because feed is cheap and more often than not when feedstocks are depressed, livestock markets are up. i am no economist and certainly not as educated as most of you on here seem to be, that is just my humble viewpoint from out here in the country where all of this stuff takes place. what i guess i am trying to say is that there is more than one way to market grains and oilseeds, and one more way, ie ethanol and biodiesel production only gives one more option of a way to market a product that we seem able to produce an abundance of. and hey, if the point comes to where grains or other fermenting stocks are too expesive to use for fuel, i would be willing to bet there will be someone willing to fire up a crude oil refinery and ease our econmic woes and the cycle could start all over again. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no...
No matter how you slice and dice it, 5% growth IS a simple exponential, because that growth is at least implicitly compound (if linear, you have to specify a base). And assuming a continued simple exponential growth of ANYTHING is palpable nonsense. You can have a lot of fun demonstrating that the Universe will be devoured in X years, but all you're really demonstrating is that the model is invalid. No doubt the students will remember - I only hope they remember to question! Marc de Piolenc ... Marc, I believe that if you have such serious contentions with Dr. Nering's teaching methodology and or motives, that you should express them to him. If you wish, I can scrounge up an address. But for now, he can be contacted through the mathematics department at Arizona State University. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
It depends what you mean by farming. So-called conventional farming - industrialised farming - is fossil-fuel intensive, economically expensive, and the ecological costs are externalised. They can be and have been costed. By costed I meant included in the price. Because infrastructure is paid for by taxes, all business are subsidised to some extent, agriculture is probably the most subsidised ( no judgment). The brit figures are an excellent example. My wife is studying for a master in Sustainable Agriculture, I'm a little selective in what I read on the subject and so we often argue about such matters. I tutor OS students in critical reading (many are trained to believe everything that they read and suffer real trauma when presented with varying opinions in a lit. review) so I discard papers that do not have a stand alone logical development that fits the pattern I use for students. (I wouldn't read much of my own ravings) Anyway I accept that biodynamic, organic and non-genetically modified farming can be profitable on an investment/ return basis and indeed Oz would likely make more export dollars concentrating on these niche markets. If the premise that there is no more quality farmland to be had that can or rather may be used to increase production is valid then the tones/hectare becomes significant. In Oz we are being forced to retire land because of salinity. Porous alluvium over marine sediments-seems that the land near to the water is amongst the least suitable for irrigation. The irrigation farmers want the graziers to reforest the hills to lower the salt water tables, not that it would help unless the water use is minimised. Oz has many millions of hectares of flat volcanic clays that would not be subject to salinity, provided that they used good water. Of course there is no good water within cooee of the land in question. The point( there is one) is that in my experience there is no land suitable for agriculture that isn't in use and there are few sites left that combine water storage potential with suitable soils to facilitate multi-cropping. I expect this to be the situation world wide. Do you seriously believe that alternative agriculture can match the production of the industrialised systems and then increase production to meet increasing global demand? ( I allow the same level of subsidy that you demonstrate for the Brits). You have been long suffering and supportive - I owe you an explanation of my motivation.(with the associated risks involved with soul baring) Here our arguments are generally about the proportion of the natural resource that must be reserved for the rest of nature-habitat and species. The environmentalists that I slag are those who would, in this context, deny us the ability to improve the lot of the underprivileged, both here and globally. I do have reasons that make sense, to me at least. For a premise I would state that unless we can stabilise the world's human population, ecological sustainability is impossible, natural or non-Malthusian economics may eventually reduce human population by itself, however, I make the value judgment that the cost to the natural world would be unacceptable, indeed with 6 billion plus the effect could actually cause an extinction of humans as well as many other species and most natural habitats. Note that I once held the view that a series of natural population crashes should be allowed to reduce human population to a level from which we could rebuild sustainably. Without the ongoing green revolution this may have happened, but there was always going to be a maximum population size beyond which the ecological damage associated with population crashes could be tolerated. Is the 6 billion the magic maximum? Has my human conscience rejected the costs in human suffering associated with population crashes cut in? Indeed my perception of acceptable ecological damage may have changed. Only Lassie knows! Some one else can judge. The only projections that I am aware of, that show world population ultimately declining, involve an increase in the modal standard of living, globally. Particularly in terms of food security and education. I hope that my comments are generally consistent with a desire to achieve an improved global standard of living and, subsequently, population decline via a decreased birth rate. I am guilty of assuming that initiatives that may reduce productivity or the rate of increase of productivity are contrary to improving living standards and as such diminish from a sustainable future. A very few people are prepared to see a positive correlation between population size and global production and make the logical connection that limiting production will limit population. My line is that though this is probably true, to me it no longer leads to a sustainable future for the reasons that I outlined above. -The outcome is not worth the costs! Totally a value judgment? My students once wrote in a year book: You cannot win an
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
i agree with keith, the american farmer and i suppose farmers all over the world have become so proficient at producing commodities that we cant get rid of them. why do you think the american farmers are crying about low prices so much, its because there is more of the stuff laying around than we can consume. graineries and storage facilities all over the nation are full and there are mountains of corn and other grains outside going to waste that we could be running through our vehicles and other machinery. there is less land in production now than there was 30 years ago and we still have a surplus. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
In Oz farming is on the nose and considered by some environmental groups as the industry that should be eliminated ASAP because of its impact. Environmental costs of farming are no more costed than those of any other industry. If mineral fuel sources are replaced by renewable combustion then the only environmental saving is in the release of CO2. The arguments against global warming are mostly social or humanitarian since the rate of warming is likely within the parameters of natural change. Given the apparent attitude of some environmentalists to humanitarian issues this spells hypocrisy. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
You have removed calorific value of the farm product. At present (6 billion)we are capable of sufficient overproduction to wear that, but at 18 billion (2050?)we would not, try 50 billion people. The projections that show population leveling off and then decreasing require that a minimum global standard of living (including education) be achieved. How does elimination of fossil fuels assist that? If we in the first world are not prepared to give up our wealth or share of production then achieving population control requires a massive increase in global production, a simple choice. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Is there a chart somewheres showing the amount of meal left after oil extraction for each crop like there is for oil per pound or acre? And would it neccesarily cause a glut -- perhaps with many crops the meal could be then used for ethanol production? Appal Energy wrote: Herein lies the biggest concern relative to biodiesel - a feed meal glut - thereby bringing offerings for oil bearing commodities down. The farming community needs to bring every oil bearing seed possible into play to regulate the feed meal production or else more farmers will succcumb to bankruptcy when the backlash of a glut hits. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!!
Marc, Dr. Nering made no claims or stipulations about population growth in his analogy. Rather, he used actual estimated increases in global energy consumption. The 5% growth per annum which he assumed is a global reality. Whether the percentage remains, increases or decreases from 5% was not his primary point. (Mind you, if the percentage changes, it will be by human choices, no matter what direction it turns.) The increase in global consumption is not only due to population increase, but flat out consumption increase by other countries adopting western uncivilization consumption patterns. There is no reason to fault his example. It is accurate two fold - both in the analogy of exponential growth and the basic concept of finite resource consumption. Take note: He did not pull a Nostradamus and predict the year, day or hour of the last wheeze. He simply took some of the fossil fuel industry's best guesses, incorporated statistical growth rates and extrapolated what is as real of a possibility as anything anyone else can provide. Pray tell how is that wrong? It's actually quite an impressive way to teach a calculus problem, all the while addressing real world problems. I doubt if any of his students will ever forget it. Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] This article makes the Malthusian error of assuming that a quantity will continue to grow along a simple exponential, when in fact real living systems always level off through interaction with others. Using the same simplistic, pseudo-scientific arguments, one can easily prove that Mankind is already extinct. Very silly - and discredits the idea of resource conservation when the kids realize that the argument is bogus. Glad I didn't have this guy for a teacher. Marc de Piolenc Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Harmon, Don't let Club Sierra hear you say that. They apparently think that agriculture should deal solely with food and not mix with energy issues. Take the weight of each oilseed per bushel, subtract 94% of the oil weight (cold pressing leaves ~ 6% of the oil in the feed meal), subtract any hull weight and you have your answer. For solvent extraction, for all practical intents and purposes, calculate a 0% oil remainder. Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a chart somewheres showing the amount of meal left after oil extraction for each crop like there is for oil per pound or acre? And would it neccesarily cause a glut -- perhaps with many crops the meal could be then used for ethanol production? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Gary and Jos Kimlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Oz farming is on the nose and considered by some environmental groups as the industry that should be eliminated ASAP because of its impact. Environmental costs of farming are no more costed than those of any other industry. It depends what you mean by farming. So-called conventional farming - industrialised farming - is fossil-fuel intensive, economically expensive, and the ecological costs are externalised. They can be and have been costed. http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991218/newsstory4.html Crops without profit Britain is paying an extraordinary price for its agriculture FARMING costs Britain more than £2.3 billion each year, according to the most detailed study yet of the industry's wider balance sheet. This bill, which includes the cost of cleaning up pollution, repairing habitats and coping with sickness caused by farming, almost equals the industry's income. The study puts figures on the external costs of farming--the costs that farmers themselves don't have to pay for. It comes up with a cost of £208 per hectare, which is double the amount suggested by previous, less detailed, studies of the costs in Germany and the US. But the survey's chief author, Jules Pretty of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex, still describes this figure as very conservative. [more] Sustainable farming methods work better, don't have these problems, don't mean lower yields, and their use is growing rapidly worldwide. Plenty of references for that here: http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html If mineral fuel sources are replaced by renewable combustion then the only environmental saving is in the release of CO2. ?? You think it's just the fuel? The arguments against global warming are mostly social or humanitarian since the rate of warming is likely within the parameters of natural change. Very unclear - you mean the arguments for global warming? You'd seem to be ignoring a rather vast amount of accumulating evidence worldwide, including much in Australia, along with the opinion of many thousands of scientists. Given the apparent attitude of some environmentalists to humanitarian issues this spells hypocrisy. You keep painting environmentalists with this same rather strange and marginal broad brush, without any references or apparent foundation. Which environmentalists are you referring to? Or are you just slinging mud? Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
j johnny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree with keith, the american farmer and i suppose farmers all over the world have become so proficient at producing commodities that we cant get rid of them. why do you think the american farmers are crying about low prices so much, its because there is more of the stuff laying around than we can consume. graineries and storage facilities all over the nation are full and there are mountains of corn and other grains outside going to waste that we could be running through our vehicles and other machinery. there is less land in production now than there was 30 years ago and we still have a surplus. Hi Li'l Johnny Thankyou! Yep, and also yep. It's often been said that the real problem of agriculture is overproduction. The corn and grain mountains and other surplus mountains aren't confined to the US, all the developed countries have them, and that has far more to do with a rigged economic system than with their efficiency. To be a bit simplistic about it, the current solution to overproduction is concentration through livestock production. That makes sense, but the current, er, system is hopelessly inefficient and wasteful, with very high externalised costs. There are better ways. Integrated biofuels production is a better way. If the focus was turned round and placed firmly at on-farm and local-community level rather than in ADM's boardroom, it would also do a great deal to help the other issue, that of economics, the real problem of which isn't how to achieve greater growth and top-level profitability but how to achieve more equitable distribution. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!!
as countries like china develop, I believe his figures might end up being conservative. He knows his topic, and is a respected scientist. Doesn't make him right, but does lend credence to what he says. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: F. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM Subject: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency This article makes the Malthusian error of assuming that a quantity will continue to grow along a simple exponential, when in fact real living systems always level off through interaction with others. Using the same simplistic, pseudo-scientific arguments, one can easily prove that Mankind is already extinct. Very silly - and discredits the idea of resource conservation when the kids realize that the argument is bogus. Glad I didn't have this guy for a teacher. Marc de Piolenc Message: 4 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:29:54 +1200 From: David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: We don't need no stinking efficiency (?) Todd, A good article and one everyone on this group should read. I recently said it is estimated that if we keep finding oil at the same rate it is estimated that we have a 70 year supply but that I believe we could halve that with the increasing number of vehicles and countries like China coming on stream. While I have never sat down and done the maths the examples below show that I may not be too far off the mark. B.r., David - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:00 AM Subject: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency (?) New York Times, OP-ED, June 4, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinion/04NERI.html The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply By EVAR D. NERING COTTSDALE, Ariz. - When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about resource use. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
and after the meal has been fermented for ethanol, the mash can be used as animal feed, compost, or raw material for a biodigester. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:53 PM Subject: Re: Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency (?) Is there a chart somewheres showing the amount of meal left after oil extraction for each crop like there is for oil per pound or acre? And would it neccesarily cause a glut -- perhaps with many crops the meal could be then used for ethanol production? Appal Energy wrote: Herein lies the biggest concern relative to biodiesel - a feed meal glut - thereby bringing offerings for oil bearing commodities down. The farming community needs to bring every oil bearing seed possible into play to regulate the feed meal production or else more farmers will succcumb to bankruptcy when the backlash of a glut hits. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Mothers milk. No matter how you say it to decrease rate of increase and ultimately the rate of usage, you need to make it more expensive in terms of disposable income of the major user groups. This has the effect of making fuel unavailable to the poor while increasing the flow on costs of most (all?) production including food. Only those NGO's that are comfortable with a raised poverty level (minimum life sustaining income) would attempt to reduce supply or increase cost of fuels without poverty alleviation as a prerequisite. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
We take the value of something on the short term basis of its supply and demand. The value is relative and can change depending on how you look at it. When everyone wants gas, price goes up. When we don't want it, it goes down. We do not take into account the long term value of a resource. Is it renewable? Can we get more when we use it up? We should view our earth as a spacecraft with limited resources for a growing crew. Digging for crude is like hunting for bisson. Man learned to farm and aquaculture to sustain his food needs and we should do the same with our energy needs. Grow it instead of hunting for it. Ken At 10:00 AM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote: New York Times, OP-ED, June 4, 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinion/04NERI.html The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply By EVAR D. NERING COTTSDALE, Ariz. - When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about resource use. In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil - that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years. Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years. Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet - a bonanza - and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years. Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work. The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example - it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use exponential as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable. Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half - to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is. This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero - or even begin to consume less. I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate. Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources. It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world. Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University. Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/free_video/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Ken! Whether you dig it,grow it or catch it as sunlight. If there is an exponential increase in the rate of use of energy it would need to come from an infinite source at a potentially infinite rate, to be sustainable. There is an absolute limit to Cultivatable land, one we reached at least 30 years ago. The reason Governments even notice concerns about climate change is that it may mean less land is suitable for cultivation, at least on a national basis. We NEED to take the exponential out of first world consumer patterns. We NEED to use what we know about human population dynamics to take the exponential out of population growth. I might just stop about there, I'm starting to preach again - at least if you get to hear me do the passion bit on the rostrum it can be entertaining. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
When you start to grow it. The real cost of a sustainable energy source is taken into account. If we continue to look for cheap, free crude oil which costs only the exploration and development cost plus profit. This is not sustainable. It does not reflect the real cost of the resource. Cost will check demand just like the Fed use interest rates to spur or stop economic growth. This non-renewable resource has no cost, its price less. ken At 04:37 PM 6/5/01 +1000, you wrote: Ken! Whether you dig it,grow it or catch it as sunlight. If there is an exponential increase in the rate of use of energy it would need to come from an infinite source at a potentially infinite rate, to be sustainable. There is an absolute limit to Cultivatable land, one we reached at least 30 years ago. The reason Governments even notice concerns about climate change is that it may mean less land is suitable for cultivation, at least on a national basis. We NEED to take the exponential out of first world consumer patterns. We NEED to use what we know about human population dynamics to take the exponential out of population growth. I might just stop about there, I'm starting to preach again - at least if you get to hear me do the passion bit on the rostrum it can be entertaining. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/free_video/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Ken! Whether you dig it,grow it or catch it as sunlight. If there is an exponential increase in the rate of use of energy it would need to come from an infinite source at a potentially infinite rate, to be sustainable. There is an absolute limit to Cultivatable land, one we reached at least 30 years ago. Not true, and not an issue - food production and biofuels production are compatible, not competitors. See previous posts. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ The reason Governments even notice concerns about climate change is that it may mean less land is suitable for cultivation, at least on a national basis. We NEED to take the exponential out of first world consumer patterns. We NEED to use what we know about human population dynamics to take the exponential out of population growth. I might just stop about there, I'm starting to preach again - at least if you get to hear me do the passion bit on the rostrum it can be entertaining. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Food vs Biodiesel production was Re: [biofuel] We don't need no stinking efficiency!!!! (?)
Ken! Whether you dig it,grow it or catch it as sunlight. If there is an exponential increase in the rate of use of energy it would need to come from an infinite source at a potentially infinite rate, to be sustainable. There is an absolute limit to Cultivatable land, one we reached at least 30 years ago. Not true, and not an issue - food production and biofuels production are compatible, not competitors. See previous posts. .. Think this one out. One 60# bushel of soy yields ~1+ gallons of cold pressed oil (11#s when solvent extracted). It also yields ~45#s of 48% high protein feed meal. Place the one gallon of biodiesel in the tank of a high fuel economy diesel passenger car. Place the 45#s of meal in the passenger's seat. Assume that your only food source for one day is the feed meal. Start the car and proceed down the road. See which runs out first. Had the trip been 500 miles, the fuel economy of the car been 50 mpg, you would have been the impetus for amassing 450#s of food, yet only consuming perhaps 1. Herein lies the biggest concern relative to biodiesel - a feed meal glut - thereby bringing offerings for oil bearing commodities down. The farming community needs to bring every oil bearing seed possible into play to regulate the feed meal production or else more farmers will succcumb to bankruptcy when the backlash of a glut hits. Sorry, but it's a reality. Perhaps now some will see why high oil / low meal yielding crops like hemp must be brought into the market - to reduce feed meal supply relative to oil production. It's not a hippie vs conservative thing. It's a survival thing. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
