XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.politics.socialism, alt.politics   
   From: plato5@dreft.org   
      
   mark.evins@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Jul 4, 1:39 am, boras  wrote:   
   >> mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>> On Jul 3, 8:08 pm, Roger Johansson  wrote:   
   >>>> On Jul 4, 12:34 am, tg  wrote:   
   >>>>> Well Roger I think you are missing the matter of energy. We are like a   
   >>>>> rich child going through the inheritance of fossil fuels, which is the   
   >>>>> only reason there are all the things you talk about. I know that in   
   >>>>> one Scandanavian country ( you know this stuff better than I do I'm   
   >>>>> sure) they plan to get all their electricity from wood in the near   
   >>>>> future, but we are not all so lucky as to have such a renewable   
   >>>>> resource. Please consider this in your analysis; there is no abundance   
   >>>>> even of food without the use of fossil energy, and the associated   
   >>>>> disturbance of our metastable climate mechanisms.   
   >>>> I am educated as an electronics engineer, and this includes a lot of   
   >>>> knowledge about physics in general, math and some chemistry.   
   >>>> I know the physical and technical limitations we are dealing with, and   
   >>>> our possibilities to produce more energy are practically endless.   
   >>> um...  no.   
   >>>> The powerful oil industry has downplayed and sabotaged the development   
   >>>> of other sources of fuel, to keep the price of oil high, for example   
   >>>> they have spread a lot of scare propaganda about nuclear energy.   
   >>>> Today we have many choices like wind and wave energy, solar energy,   
   >>>> fast growing forest energy, etc..   
   >>> There came a time in England when so much wood had been consumed that   
   >>> it was a high crime to cut wood. The land was nearly barren of trees.   
   >>> A visiting Cardinal reported back to Rome that the people of England   
   >>> were so poor that they burned rocks as fuel.   
   >>> That was coal.   
   >>> Coal produced much more energy than it's production consumed, and it   
   >>> was thus a cheap source of fuel.   
   >>> Oil was even better.   
   >>> But a funny thing happens to natural resources. They run out. We've   
   >>> reached the point where it's beginning to cost as much to produce fuel   
   >>> as the fuel itself provides. The demand increases but the production   
   >>> can't. In fact, shortly it will begin to fall behind, then further   
   >>> behind, then even further...   
   >>>> The fact that nuclear power plants are shut down for no good reason at   
   >>>> all is a sign of the fact that there is absolutely no lack of energy.   
   >>>> We have a couple of totally modern nuclear power plants in my country   
   >>>> standing still instead of producing Gigawatts of power.   
   >>>> But the producers of energy want to keep the price of energy high,   
   >>>> like the producers of anything under capitalism, that is the reason   
   >>>> why we are not producing a lot more energy in many different ways.   
   >>>> Wind and wave generators outside the coast of Alaska could produce   
   >>>> enough energy for several east coast cities, for example.   
   >>>> We could also tap into the hot center of the earth, pump down water   
   >>>> and get high pressure overheated steam in return.   
   >>>> Wind generators in the carribean and outside the southeast coast of   
   >>>> USA could suck energy out of the hurricanes and at the same time   
   >>>> decrease the damage done by the hurricanes.   
   >>> One problem of all of these technologies is that it costs more (in   
   >>> energy) to produce the machines than the machines produce.   
   >>> Solar power is not sufficient to smelt the ores necessary to make the   
   >>> equipment to generate the power.   
   >> The French use solar power to smelt metal.   
   >> They made a solar furnace.   
   >> A German factory is using the energy from solar panels to produce solar   
   >> panels.   
   >   
   > Cite?  I can't find anything which discusses these.   
   >   
   >>> Windmills are hazardous to wildlife on top of being unable to produce   
   >>> enough energy to make the machines.   
   >> 20% of the electric energy is made by windmills in Denmark.   
   >> Within the next 20 years it should raise to 50%.   
   >   
   > Which doesn't address the problems of fabrication using the produced   
   > energy nor the hazard to wildlife, nor the acreage necessary to have   
   > enough windmills to produce the electricity.   
      
   That's why Denmark has its wind farms out on the see instead of having   
   them on land.   
      
   >   
   >>> Bio fuels are useful, but as the demand for the biofuels increases the   
   >>> cost will necessarily rise as we'll be turning food into machines and   
   >>> thus competing with ourselves for the food and fuel.   
   >> Efficiency comes here in to play too.   
   >> Those factories that produce bio fuels are getting more efficient.   
   >> 90% of the houses in Greece use solar power for hot water.   
   >> It work 10-10 1/2 months a year.   
   >   
   > More efficient doesn't address the raw material problem. How much land   
   > goes to growing food to use as fuel?   
      
   There are plenty of leftovers from farming and foresting.   
   20% of the wood is useless for pulp or to make furniture but can be used   
   to produce wood pellets which are at the moment being burned at   
   factories in Sweden and Finland.   
   Those factories get 100% more energy out of those wood pellets and burn   
   the wood much cleaner then a conventional wood oven would do.   
   We in Europe pay farmers to produce an excess of sugar, fruits, vine etc   
   only then to dump it on the third world for a cost much below its costs   
   of production.   
   No land is not the problem in Europe.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> As oil disappears, so will the various chemicals and polymers produced   
   >>> from petroleum and it's byproducts. This will inevitably result in a   
   >>> higher energy cost to transport the food/fuel, to produce the food/   
   >>> fuel (agribusiness relies on fertilizers made from petroleum).   
   >>> Medical costs will rise as the materials of the trade become more   
   >>> expensive due to the scarcity of petro-chemicals and plastics and etc.   
   >> I visited once a farmer who was growing biodynamically grown food.   
   >> His apples were the biggest and were testing great.   
   >> Compost can be used to fertilize the fields.   
   >   
   > Scale is the problem. Where do you get enough compost (or manure) that   
   > is rich enough to fertilize a 4000 acre farm?   
      
    From the nearby huge pig farm perhaps?   
      
   > It wasn't until the   
   > production of synthetic (petroleum based) fertilizers that the   
   > massive, single crop factory farms became possible. Prior to that, it   
   > was smaller farms, crop rotation, and the local market.   
      
   Which are devastating the land and contribute to erosion.   
   I have met rich biodynamic farmers in Sweden.   
      
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)