A Pollution Free Energy System
Hello
Sent in by a professional who wishes to remain anonymous for now.
Please read it at:
http://www.wowzone.com/energy.htm
Best wishes,
Carmen
WOW Zone
www.wowzone.com
Member of the Who's Who Historical Society
Andrew Langer
>
>A Pollution Free Energy System
>
..comprised of magnets. Now, how do you suppose that these magnetic power
generators will be created/manufactured/built without having an environmental
impact?
Moral of this story? There is no such thing as a non-impactive energy source.
- Andrew Langer
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Jeff Strickland
manufacturing process, the continued and ongoing use of this as an energy
source is certainly a step in the right direction, if it works.
Surely one can look at virtually any technology and find fault, the
challenge is to find a technology that has more benefits than drawbacks. If
a technology can produce more energy than it takes to produce the
technology, then we have a net gain in efficiency and we have a technology
that is worth further consideration.
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FNPd9.39207$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
Andrew Langer
>
>Just a moment there, Andy. While there might be some impact due to the
>manufacturing process, the continued and ongoing use of this as an energy
>source is certainly a step in the right direction, if it works.
>
I am inclined to agree, Jeff. My point was simple: every method of producing
energy has a downside, and there are no impact-free processes. Admittedly, I
was a little tired (and still am) when I wrote that response, and perhaps I came
down a little hard, but I am growing rather frustrated with people who believe
that somehow there is a source of energy out there that can be tapped and made
to provide power for billions, that will have zero impact (ie, "no pollution").
>Surely one can look at virtually any technology and find fault, the
>challenge is to find a technology that has more benefits than drawbacks.
Certainly. The problem with the energy policies being advocated by certain
groups is that they refuse to account for this... especially when you measure
_ALL_ benefits when evaluating a current technology.
For instance? People who advocate for the wholesale removal of dams which
provide hydroelectric power in the west.
> If
>a technology can produce more energy than it takes to produce the
>technology, then we have a net gain in efficiency and we have a technology
>that is worth further consideration.
>
Agreed. But the point is still there. If you have to mine or mill iron to
produce the magnets needed to generate this power, in addition to the other
processes need to create the generators and the infrastructure to transmit the
power to customers, etc, you are going to have an impact.
Jeff Strickland
That was clearly not your intent, and I read wrong.
In any energy policy, or any other policy for that matter, we have to look
at a broad range of alternatives, then analize each for benefits and costs,
then select one that has the lowest cost and highest benefit. Perhaps the
costs are not very pretty, but they should be better than the alternatives.
Perhaps we should adopt some technologies for a decade or two while we work
to harvest even better options, then phase int he better option as the
technologies in use get retired.
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aETd9.39234$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
Bio-Geo-Recon
mining, processing, fabricating, distributing, and maintaining a system to
see if it provides a net energy gain. While I have not independently
verified it, I have read that at present efficiencies even solar cells (PV)
consume more energy than they produce in their lifetime. Thus, they are
good solutions for space craft, or powering a remote site that isn't wired
into the grid, but would not be a universal solution for weaning society
from fossil fuels because they are (claimed) energy sinks and not sources.
Clyde Spencer
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aETd9.39234$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <unfv2jc...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland says...
<snip>
Tim Worstall
> One should do a complete analysis of the energy costs involved in
> mining, processing, fabricating, distributing, and maintaining a system to
> see if it provides a net energy gain. While I have not independently
> verified it, I have read that at present efficiencies even solar cells (PV)
> consume more energy than they produce in their lifetime.
This was true some years ago.
Currently PV systems ( not including any back up power sources, but
including the structure, installation etc as well as the cells
themselves ) payback their energy in 4 years or so. So they are no
longer energy sinks, given their 25 year estimated life.
( Have a look for BP Solar....Solarix I think they are now ).
It was also recently pointed out to me that the cells are made with
silicon rejected as insufficiently pure by the semiconductor industry.
As a major part of the energy cost in cell manufacture is the energy
required to zone refine this silicon, it would seem churlish to
include that energy in the overall budget. Even if we didn´t make
cells, the silicon would still be refined and then rejected.
So the payback time, if calculated only on the marginal energy of
production, would seem to be less than 4 years.
Another interesting number on the site. 20 cents to $1 per KwHour is
what BP thinks is the real cost of solar energy via PV. With UK
wholesale electricity at 2 pence ( 3 cents ) per KwHour ( and that is
below nuclear costs ) there still seems to be some way to go before
solar is truly competetive.
Tim Worstall
Jeff Strickland
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.02090...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for the update (for me anyway) on the ovewrview of the costs
associated with materials needed to produce PV cells. Given the fact that
even BP's (British Petroleum, I assume) own estimation of between $0.20 and
$1.00 per KwHour for electricity produced in this manner, it seems that we
are still a long way off before we will see PV as a viable primary power
source. Even if we drive up the cost of our current method of producing
electricity to the point that PV becomes cost effective, the relative power
that PV can provide is still low. That is, PV works well for recharging a
battery that can then be connected to a low-demand consumer, but PV does not
work so well for high-demand consumption scenarios. I guess that my
definition of low- and high-demand is that a light might be considered
low-demand, whereas manufacturing equipment would be high-demand.
My estimation is that we will see PV power for freeway signs and callboxes
(we already have it for call boxes in many locations) and other such
applications where battery power can be used as the promary power. Signs are
only lit at night, so the PV systems can recharge the battery during the day
so it will be ready for duty after the sun goes down. We might reasonably
apply PV systems to home lighting systems also. This would reduce the demand
on the power grid at night, but wouldn't do much for power demands during
the day. I see that applications such as cooking and most manufacturing
could not be served by PV because there is simply not enough power
available.
Lansdale
news:<C_6e9.11698$LI2.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > One should do a complete analysis of the energy costs involved in
> > mining, processing, fabricating, distributing, and maintaining a system
to
> > see if it provides a net energy gain. While I have not independently
> > verified it, I have read that at present efficiencies even solar cells
(PV)
> > consume more energy than they produce in their lifetime.
>
>
> This was true some years ago.
> Currently PV systems ( not including any back up power sources, but
> including the structure, installation etc as well as the cells
> themselves ) payback their energy in 4 years or so. So they are no
> longer energy sinks, given their 25 year estimated life.
It is very misleading to imply that solar's only cost is energy to
manufacture just the solar panels.
There is the reliability cost (batteries) there is the technical cost (the
BP scientists must be paid for their inventions) there are the conversion
(to A/C or the costs of changing to all new types -12 v appliences) costs,
there is the real estate cost - far higher near cities where most of the
world lives, there is the extra construction and maintenabce cost (what
happens in 22 years and the voltage dosen't seem as high - worry for 3
years - or do they just break in exactly 25 years - and how do you remove
and dispose of solar cells - recycle?) , distribution costs, and there are
energy costs for all of these too.
Then will solar power be used to power autos, and in manufacturing proceses?
Or will solar energy only replace a small part of 1/4 of our energy needs.
Doing little more than making a few people (at the oil company BP) rich and
encourageing a lot of people today to waste oil assuming solar will bail us
out.
Lansdale
> In article <1KOd9.4743$nK.1...@wagner.videotron.net>, Hello says...
> >
> >A Pollution Free Energy System
> >
>
> ..comprised of magnets. Now, how do you suppose that these magnetic power
> generators will be created/manufactured/built without having an
environmental
> impact?
>
> Moral of this story? There is no such thing as a non-impactive energy
source.
>
Hey. We agree. Let's just leave it at that because I know your idea of what
this means is different than mine.
Andrew Langer
Interestingly, one of the only times I was ever really intrigued by something
Scott Nudds has said was when he expounded on a way to buttress the reliability
of solar power - to use it to pump water into a holding tank during the day,
which would then be used to generate electicity at night.
It was a little Rube Goldberg-ish, but intriguing nevertheless.
Pity he hasn't said anything nearly as interesting lately.
Andrew Taylor
Andrew Langer <Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
>Interestingly, one of the only times I was ever really intrigued by something
>Scott Nudds has said was when he expounded on a way to buttress the reliability
>of solar power - to use it to pump water into a holding tank during the day,
>which would then be used to generate electicity at night.
>It was a little Rube Goldberg-ish, but intriguing nevertheless.
Hundreds of such facilities around the world are already used to assist
in matching electricity demand and generation - do a search on Google for
"pumped storage". Some have been operating for 50+ years.
Andrew Taylor
TruthAndReason
> It is very misleading to imply that solar's only cost is energy to
> manufacture just the solar panels.
>
> There is the reliability cost (batteries) there is the technical cost
> (the BP scientists must be paid for their inventions) there are the
> conversion (to A/C or the costs of changing to all new types -12 v
> appliences)
Sorry, there need be no battery costs. Simply pump the power into the grid
and displace generation by other means.
The battery becomes the fuel that was not burned to produce the power that
was generated via solar.
Think Lansdale... Think.
Mark Hammonds
For those interested, the above link contains most of the web sites
which cover this topic in detail
Mark Hammonds
BP Solar http://www.bpsolar.com
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in message news:<825e2890.02090...@posting.google.com>...
Tim Worstall
> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> news:825e2890.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Bio-Geo-Recon" <b...@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:<C_6e9.11698$LI2.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > One should do a complete analysis of the energy costs involved in
> > > mining, processing, fabricating, distributing, and maintaining a system
> to
> > > see if it provides a net energy gain. While I have not independently
> > > verified it, I have read that at present efficiencies even solar cells
> (PV)
> > > consume more energy than they produce in their lifetime.
> >
> >
> > This was true some years ago.
> > Currently PV systems ( not including any back up power sources, but
> > including the structure, installation etc as well as the cells
> > themselves ) payback their energy in 4 years or so. So they are no
> > longer energy sinks, given their 25 year estimated life.
>
> It is very misleading to imply that solar's only cost is energy to
> manufacture just the solar panels.
Agreed to much of the below. But all of these things apply to any
energy system. The original question was whether PV was an energy sink
or not. It isn´t. Not about all costs, just the energy budget.
Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall
There´s a plant in Wales ( can´t remember the name,sorry ) that does
something like this. I can´t even remember whether its a nuclear plant
or what. But at preiods of low energy demand they use the power to
pump water up into a resevoir. When demand is high, back down again it
comes through the turbines.
Don´t know how efficient it is, but the water companies were very
rpoud of it 15 years ago.
Tim Worstall
Don Libby
>
>
> Thereæ„€ a plant in Wales ( canæ„’ remember the name,sorry ) that does
> something like this. I canæ„’ even remember whether its a nuclear plant
> or what. But at preiods of low energy demand they use the power to
> pump water up into a resevoir. When demand is high, back down again it
> comes through the turbines.
> rpoud of it 15 years ago.
Pumped hydroelectric is a big deal in Switzerland. There is a
truly huge 1600 MW pumped-hydro plant in Luddington, Michigan.
Efficiency comes from load-levelling at thermal plants, which are
more efficient if run under constant load. The night/day
difference in electricity price makes it a wonderful money pump
too.
There are several pumped hydro-electric facilities under
construction in the USA now. The first was a 20 MW plant built
in Connecticut in the 1920's & 1930's to even out variations in
river flow. Environmentalists in upper New York State put up a
terrible stink to stop a big pumped hyrdro plant on the Hudson
River in the 1960's.
-dl
Bio-Geo-Recon
I looked at the site. The first two Siemens studies were not available.
However, I did look at the "Environmental Aspects of PV Power Systems"
conference paper. It is encouraging that the calculated payback times are
so short. However, I noted that the energy required for mining,
benificiation, and transportation apparently is not included in the EPBT
equation. It is not explicitly stated if the energy required for refining
is included, although the comparison of "off-grade silicon" energy costs
implies that it is.
If there were a massive conversion to PV systems then there wouldn't be
a sufficient supply of semiconductor industry off-grade silicon to meet
needs and one would have to dedicate additional electricity to refining and
manufacturing. Hence, the 16 year EPBT would be more realistic as an
estimate of the energy pay back time, which seems close to what I understand
is a typical lifetime for them.
If the carbon-emitting power plants were decommissioned early, somehow
the energy costs of that should be taken into account in the big picture of
energy requirements. Also, if the carbon-emitting plants were
decommissioned in favor of small, local sources it would seem to me to be
problematic if the existing grid would continue to operate effectively.
Lastly, if there were massive desertions from the grid and people were
to be independent from it, then the energy costs of retrofitting everything
needs to be taken into account as the cost of operating under PV.
Alternatively, the cost of manufacturing inverters and batteries needs to be
factored into the PV energy costs. Also, lead mining and refining has many
environmental problems that would be severely exacerbated by ramping up
battery production significantly.
So, I'm encouraged by the strides made in improving the efficiency of PV
cells, but I don't think that we are home free yet.
Clyde Spencer
"Mark Hammonds" <ham...@bp.com> wrote in message
news:90ed2f0c.02090...@posting.google.com...
Lansdale
> In article <unfv2jc...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland says...
> >
> >Just a moment there, Andy. While there might be some impact due to the
> >manufacturing process, the continued and ongoing use of this as an energy
> >source is certainly a step in the right direction, if it works.
> >
>
> I am inclined to agree, Jeff. My point was simple: every method of
producing
> energy has a downside, and there are no impact-free processes.
Andy, we agree on this 100%.
If anyone writes as much propoganda as the oil company gang, it's the
alternate-energy people.
So what is your conclusion?
Since there is no alternate energy solution there must be no problem?
Andrew Langer
>
>
>"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:aETd9.39234$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <unfv2jc...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland says...
>> >
>> >Just a moment there, Andy. While there might be some impact due to the
>> >manufacturing process, the continued and ongoing use of this as an energy
>> >source is certainly a step in the right direction, if it works.
>> >
>>
>> I am inclined to agree, Jeff. My point was simple: every method of
>producing
>> energy has a downside, and there are no impact-free processes.
>
>Andy, we agree on this 100%.
>
>If anyone writes as much propoganda as the oil company gang, it's the
>alternate-energy people.
>
>So what is your conclusion?
>
I thought I made that clear when I said that my point was a simple one: every
method of producing energy has a downside, and there are no impact-free
processes.
Did you miss that? I thought you agreed with me 100% on that point.
>Since there is no alternate energy solution there must be no problem?
>
I never said there was no alternate energy solution, John, nor that there was a
problem. What I said was that there is no energy system which is impact free,
that there are benefits and detriments to every last one of them.
Obviously, if I said that _EVERY_ method of producing energy has a downside, I
recognize that there are problems with each and every one of them.
The answer is to engage in empirical analysis, and do the comparisons - benefits
versus detriments - to come up with a solution.
Lansdale
I always thought a solution was for a problem.
But to be fair, I will assume you are just shifting the argument to gain
the benefit of presumption.
Alternate energy investors define the problem like this:
Using energy the way we do today will lead to some global catastrophe
tomorrow,
therefore it is imperative to do something. They then proceed with their
latest get rich quick scheme.
You as a representative of the traditional (far wealthier) energy investors
want a different definition:
How to get most energy for the least cost.
The alternate energy people exaggerate the side effects of burning fossil
fuels (the current method) you minimize them.
Neither of you considers seeking methods of economically reducing energy
use. There's no money in that.
One thing the alternate energy people inadvertantly do is define a future
low-energy use paradyne. Every time they propose a solar house or hydrogen
car notice the small quantity of super effecient appliances and small
vehicles that are supposed to use the energy. All we really have to do is
use that much less energy but get it from current sources.
When you complain about alternate energy, you do it as an energy salesman.
Monte
> "Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > Lansdale
> says...
> > >"Andrew Langer" wrote ...
Excuse me for cutting in....
It is obvious that there is a problem and I think that it is naive to
look for 'solutions'. People should look at this issue from the point
of view of 'situation improvement' or 'problem management' rather than
problem resolution.
> >
>
> I always thought a solution was for a problem.
Another reason why we should look at the issue from the POV of
*improvement*.
> But to be fair, I will assume you are just shifting the argument to gain
> the benefit of presumption.
>
> Alternate energy investors define the problem like this:
> Using energy the way we do today will lead to some global catastrophe
> tomorrow,
> therefore it is imperative to do something. They then proceed with their
> latest get rich quick scheme.
>
> You as a representative of the traditional (far wealthier) energy investors
> want a different definition:
> How to get most energy for the least cost.
>
> The alternate energy people exaggerate the side effects of burning fossil
> fuels (the current method) you minimize them.
>
> Neither of you considers seeking methods of economically reducing energy
> use. There's no money in that.
>
> One thing the alternate energy people inadvertantly do is define a future
> low-energy use paradyne. Every time they propose a solar house or hydrogen
> car notice the small quantity of super effecient appliances and small
> vehicles that are supposed to use the energy. All we really have to do is
> use that much less energy but get it from current sources.
More or less. But I can't really imagine a circumstance where the use
of fossil fuels in even small quantities can be environmentally
sustainable.
The paradigm that we should use is 'How to get the best living
standard with the least amount of energy consumption. We need to
change from a society where consumption and economic activity is a
surrogate for measuring living standards. The wealthiest person is
usually the one who has been most successful at externalising costs.
Resourcefulness and equity should probably be our yard-stick - as well
as social and health indicators.
This approach will help us improve many economic, social and
environmental issues - including some of the issues that have been
highlighted (albeit from a different perspective) in the media almost
every day since 11 Sept 01.
Monte
Lansdale
"Monte" <u...@email.com> wrote in message
news:8dff4c0.02091...@posting.google.com...
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the way we do it now favors people who
get things while making others pay the cost? ( ie while getting value from
burning energy one causes cost to others thru pollution/global warming,
etc.)
> Resourcefulness and equity should probably be our yard-stick - as well
> as social and health indicators.
>
Not sure what you mean again. How would you define/measure resourcefulness
and equity?
> This approach will help us improve many economic, social and
> environmental issues - including some of the issues that have been
> highlighted (albeit from a different perspective) in the media almost
> every day since 11 Sept 01.
What issues? Do you mean we would use less oil thus reducing a source of
terrorist financing, corruption in Washington (oil diplomacy) and anger
about America's contribution to global warming?
Enable economic development thus reducung tension?
>
> Monte
Andrew Langer
And as I made it very clear in the statement above, John, I said that there was
a "problem" with just about every source of energy.
Now, do you find this reading comprehension inability to be a problem in your
daily life?
>But to be fair, I will assume you are just shifting the argument to gain
>the benefit of presumption.
>
Who is shifting the argument, Mr. Lansdale? As you will recall, "Hello"
originally started this thread with a post on a so-called "pollution-free"
energy system. My entire "argument" has been directed at that premise - nothing
more, nothing less.
It is, in fact, you who are trying to shift this discussion elsewhere.
>Alternate energy investors define the problem like this:
>Using energy the way we do today will lead to some global catastrophe
>tomorrow,
>therefore it is imperative to do something.
Any economist worth his salt would tell you that the real issue is the source of
that energy and how that source is processed into creating that energy. That it
isn't the use, the demand, but the supply.
> They then proceed with their latest get rich quick scheme.
>
So are we not to trust those who offer alternative ideas on the transformation
of raw material into power? Can we trust large corporations, say, if they offer
consumers an engine which seemingly uses less fuel to deliver a greater amount
of power?
>You as a representative of the traditional (far wealthier) energy investors
>want a different definition:
>How to get most energy for the least cost.
>
Poorer nations/people/investors don't want to get the most energy for the least
cost?
Are you telling me that there are people out there who want to get less energy
for greater cost?
>The alternate energy people exaggerate the side effects of burning fossil
>fuels (the current method) you minimize them.
>
I do?
>Neither of you considers seeking methods of economically reducing energy
>use. There's no money in that.
>
No way of doing it either that isn't entirely inefficient, personally invasive,
and totally burdensome.
It would take a great feat of social engineering that would be incredibly
intrusive to individuals.
>One thing the alternate energy people inadvertantly do is define a future
>low-energy use paradyne. Every time they propose a solar house or hydrogen
>car notice the small quantity of super effecient appliances and small
>vehicles that are supposed to use the energy. All we really have to do is
>use that much less energy but get it from current sources.
>
Of course, every time we create more efficient energy production, and more
efficient energy usage, we wind up using more-energy, not less. So, again, what
you're talking about is reducing demand through changing personal behaviors.
That's a terribly inefficient process, as well as terribly intrusive.
>When you complain about alternate energy, you do it as an energy salesman.
>
No, I do so as a consumer, and as someone who recognizes the necessity of cheap
energy as an engine for the betterment of humanity.
Monte
[...]
> "Monte" wrote ...
> > The paradigm that we should use is 'How to get the best living
> > standard with the least amount of energy consumption. We need to
> > change from a society where consumption and economic activity is a
> > surrogate for measuring living standards. The wealthiest person is
> > usually the one who has been most successful at externalising costs.
>
> Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the way we do it now favors people who
> get things while making others pay the cost? ( ie while getting value from
> burning energy one causes cost to others thru pollution/global warming,
> etc.)
Exactly. For example farmers recieve an income from food and
consumers get cheap groceries which are effectively subsidised by
people downstream from the farm who must suffer water quality problems
from pesticides, nutrients and sediment in their water. The tab for
the water pollution is picked up by users downstream. Travelers use
airports whilst neighbours of airports (often on low incomes) suffer
noise and air pollution. It is often poor people who pay these
externalised costs.
>
> > Resourcefulness and equity should probably be our yard-stick - as well
> > as social and health indicators.
> >
>
> Not sure what you mean again. How would you define/measure resourcefulness
> and equity?
That is the problem - it is difficult to measure. But just because we
can't measure it using existing tools doesn't mean it isn't valuable.
The concept was explained to me like this....At the moment we impress
people by having NEW things. In a better world we would impress
people with resourcefulness. An old jumper that had been patched up
and used for 20 years would be a status symbol, rather than a brand
new sportscoat. Throwing stuff away should be considered a social
faux pas. Its hard to imagine - and maybe I'm exageratting a little.
But I do think that excess consumption is at the core of many
environmental problems.
>
> > This approach will help us improve many economic, social and
> > environmental issues - including some of the issues that have been
> > highlighted (albeit from a different perspective) in the media almost
> > every day since 11 Sept 01.
>
> What issues? Do you mean we would use less oil thus reducing a source of
> terrorist financing, corruption in Washington (oil diplomacy) and anger
> about America's contribution to global warming?
>
> Enable economic development thus reducung tension?
Not quite. Focussing on economic development is the problem. The
issues I'm talking about are breakdown in human value systems, crime,
poverty, lack of clean water, lack of opportunity to participate in
wider society....Stuff like that. We need a more equitable society
where people don't consider themselves to be 'have-nots'. A
resourceful society will by necessity be based on stronger community
values. Regionalism will be more important than nationalism.
Although I'm not one of these anti-globalisation nuts, I can see that
international trade is probably a cause of povert rather than a
panacea. There simply aren't enough checks and balances to make sure
that the bounty from exploiting resources is distributed fairly.
Its radical stuff and probably getting o/t...and I can't really
believe I'm typing this. I'm just a conservative 1st world
suburbanite like most people who read these groups...but it seems
obvious to me that my high consumption of food, fibres, fuel, water,
soil, nutrients, carbon, etc, etc, etc is causing environmental and
social problems at home and abroad.
Monte.
Gordon Couger
> [...]
> > "Monte" wrote ...
> > > The paradigm that we should use is 'How to get the best living
> > > standard with the least amount of energy consumption. We need to
> > > change from a society where consumption and economic activity is a
> > > surrogate for measuring living standards. The wealthiest person is
> > > usually the one who has been most successful at externalising costs.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the way we do it now favors people
who
> > get things while making others pay the cost? ( ie while getting value
from
> > burning energy one causes cost to others thru pollution/global warming,
> > etc.)
>
> Exactly. For example farmers recieve an income from food and
> consumers get cheap groceries which are effectively subsidised by
> people downstream from the farm who must suffer water quality problems
> from pesticides, nutrients and sediment in their water. The tab for
> the water pollution is picked up by users downstream. Travelers use
> airports whilst neighbours of airports (often on low incomes) suffer
> noise and air pollution. It is often poor people who pay these
> externalised costs.
>
the use of fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. Low prices accelerated the use
of Round Up ready crops because it saves about $10 and acre so over 80% of
the US soy bean crop is using less tillage with a substantial amount being
raised with no tillage. This greatly reduces the erosion and therefore a lot
less soil is going downstream and the nutrients and pesticides that it would
normally carry with it are staying put. In addition Round Up has a great
deal less impact on the environment than the herbicides it is replacing.
Technology using GPS to map yields, soil fertility and remote spectrometry
on a square meter basis has shown to allow nitrogen and other fertilzer to
be reduced by half in some cases without affecting yields by selectively
applying fertilzer where it is needed. The same technology works on
herbicides as well.
Cheap food and pollution are not hand maidens if you let technology keep up.
Technology may be the cause of many of our problem but it is the only answer
to them as well.
Gordon
Monte
> "Monte" wrote ...
> > [...] For example farmers recieve an income from food and
> > consumers get cheap groceries which are effectively subsidised by
> > people downstream from the farm who must suffer water quality problems
> > from pesticides, nutrients and sediment in their water. The tab for
> >
> Cheap food forces the farmers to minimize inputs that have in fact reduced
> the use of fertilizer, pesticides and fuel.
Perhaps - but I'm not so sure. IME, the first thing that goes when
farmer's are operating at the limit of what is economically viable are
things like soil conservation, fencing and pasture management.
Basically farmer's flog the soil to get a higher return at the expense
of long-term profitability and farm sustainability. It is ridiculous
that the cost of a litre of milk or a kilo of carrots costs about the
same as a litre of bottled water...That situation is not
sustainable...
> Low prices accelerated the use
> of Round Up ready crops because it saves about $10 and acre so over 80% of
> the US soy bean crop is using less tillage with a substantial amount being
> raised with no tillage. This greatly reduces the erosion and therefore a lot
> less soil is going downstream and the nutrients and pesticides that it would
> normally carry with it are staying put. In addition Round Up has a great
> deal less impact on the environment than the herbicides it is replacing.
Yes. Farmer's can cope with lower prices by either reducing inputs or
increasing outputs. The balance is found in doing this without mining
or polluting natural resources such as soil, nutrients, water,
biodiversity, etc, etc...Sometimes they succeed..Often they fail...
> Technology using GPS to map yields, soil fertility and remote spectrometry
> on a square meter basis has shown to allow nitrogen and other fertilzer to
> be reduced by half in some cases without affecting yields by selectively
> applying fertilzer where it is needed. The same technology works on
> herbicides as well.
Yes...but farmers need to be able to invest in the technology. To do
that they need to get a fair return for their effort. Also, if the
development of new technology is based on price alone, then there will
never be investment in factors that don't affect price....such as
water pollution and nature conservation...
>
> Cheap food and pollution are not hand maidens if you let technology keep up.
I agree. But not just technology. The economic system we live in
forces us to rely on technology...in a better world we might rely more
on growing fruit and veg in our gardens to get cheap food, rather than
rely on broadacre monoculture technology...
>
> Technology may be the cause of many of our problem but it is the only answer
> to them as well.
Agree 100%.
Monte
> Lansdale says...
[...]
> >You as a representative of the traditional (far wealthier) energy investors
> >want a different definition:
> >How to get most energy for the least cost.
> >
>
> Poorer nations/people/investors don't want to get the most energy for the least
> cost?
>
> Are you telling me that there are people out there who want to get less energy
> for greater cost?
If we argue that "every method of producing energy has a downside, and
there are no impact-free processes" then people SHOULD want less
energy at greater cost. Society needs an incentive to lower energy
demand. People in poor countries want higher living standards - not
more energy. You can improve living standards and reduce energy
consumption....especially in the 1st world which currently wastes
energy on an unprecedented scale....
>
> >The alternate energy people exaggerate the side effects of burning fossil
> >fuels (the current method) you minimize them.
> >
>
> I do?
>
> >Neither of you considers seeking methods of economically reducing energy
> >use. There's no money in that.
> >
>
> No way of doing it either that isn't entirely inefficient, personally invasive,
> and totally burdensome.
I strongly disagree. I even more strongly disagree when you consider
the externalised costs. We pay a very high price for wasting
energy... There is little more personally invasive than living and
breathing next-door to an eight-lane freeway, a power station or a
coal mine. There is not much more burdonsome than sitting in
peak-hour traffic and working in a dreary office to pay for
electricity, fuel and taxes that must be collected to pay some of the
externalised costs. And there is nothing efficient about using 10
calories of energy to generate 1 calory of food.... Reducing energy
use should be a high priority.
> It would take a great feat of social engineering that would be incredibly
> intrusive to individuals.
Perhaps. But some basic economic incentives to reduce energy use
would be a good start.
> Of course, every time we create more efficient energy production, and more
> efficient energy usage, we wind up using more-energy, not less. So, again, what
> you're talking about is reducing demand through changing personal behaviors.
>
> That's a terribly inefficient process, as well as terribly intrusive.
That is the equivalent of tackling the problem at the source. In the
long term it IS the most efficient process. I guess global warming,
rising sea-levels...maybe even asthma attacks and cancer are slightly
more intrusive than efforts to reduce energy waste...
>
> >When you complain about alternate energy, you do it as an energy salesman.
> >
>
> No, I do so as a consumer, and as someone who recognizes the necessity of cheap
> energy as an engine for the betterment of humanity.
If "every method of producing energy has a downside, and there are no
impact-free processes" wouldn't humanity be better off if science
allowed us to achieve the same result with less energy use? Perhaps
the 3rd world needs a little bit more energy and we need far less?
Monte
Monte
> > to them as well.
>
> Agree 100%.
Correction.....Agree 50%
Social and economic re-structuring could probably account for the
other 50% of our problems.
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>Cheap food forces the farmers to minimize inputs that have in fact reduced
>the use of fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. Low prices accelerated the use
>of Round Up ready crops because it saves about $10 and acre so over 80% of
>the US soy bean crop is using less tillage with a substantial amount being
>raised with no tillage. This greatly reduces the erosion and therefore a lot
>less soil is going downstream and the nutrients and pesticides that it would
>normally carry with it are staying put.
The US no-till area was at almost 90% of the present figure before
the use of Roundup Ready crops got widespread.
Specifically, 29 % of soybean area was no-till in 1997 - that is,
before the use of RR soybean became a significant factor.
By 2000, after the use of RR soybean had proliferated dramatically
in USA, the proportion of soybean in no till had actually decreased
to 27 %.
>In addition Round Up has a great
>deal less impact on the environment than the herbicides it is replacing.
In soybean, for example, Roundup has been replacing imazethapyr. How
has that lessened the impact on the environment??
Monte
Not to mention the risks associated with Roundup-ready crops and GM
crops in general. As with energy, pesticide use has a down-side and
there is no impact-free way of using pesticides. But I guess we've
gotta eat....
Monte