calculate how much oil exists, precisely
Archimedes Plutonium
I have the time to develop these ideas.
One idea is that we believe we know how oil is made. We believe
we know the process and chemistry of how oil is created.
If we do, then we should be able to work backwards and to
give some estimate of how much oil this planet can have.
And to give a precise upper limit and a precise lower limit of
the total amount of petroleum on this planet. And also the
amount of coal.
There are no mysteries as far as we know as to how oil and
coal is created. Knowing the science, thence we should be able
to give precise upper and lower limits. And once given we should
then be able to say to exploration of new oil and coal fields, that the
expectations should be such and such.
If I am going to develop this thread in future postings I would
explore the possibility that we really do not have a full and accurate
understanding of how coal and oil is made.
Can lifeless planets and asteroids have coal and oil? Not according
to our present day understanding. According to the Nebular Dust
Cloud theory, Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Moon and many other
astro bodies of our Solar System will not have any oil and coal.
But according to my theories of Solar System origins, these
lifeless astro bodies can contain huge amounts of oil and coal.
If I get involved with this thread, the main issue I want to
explore is whether we truthfully have a full understanding of the
creation of oil and coal. I believe the science has huge gaps missing.
And because it has huge gaps missing that no precise upper and
lower limits of the amount of coal and oil that planet Earth contains
can be achieved. Being a rather sketchy and gap-laden science.
[#] 3rd_Crusader
and I am quite happy that you have landed on the very ng where Knowledge and
proper Geological Answers are provided ! Indeed sci.geo.geology is the ng
where the best congregate !!!
Well here it is :
Re your question concerning coal ... the genesis of it is in oil leaking to
the surface through commotion of the Lithosphere ... and this is why we find
in highly folded zone. Further the connection is sometimes maintained
through an ombilical and this is the reason of coal-gas explosion ... indeed
when through a quakes the gaz from the original Oil dome is allowed to creep
to the surface ... a mere spark can ignite it . In the past, since I
discovered myself this principle, I tried to have a coal mine evacuated in
Northern Spain following a minor quake ... No one believed me but the result
was 40 deaths !!!
Re the genesis of oil ... it is developped through a process of Alchemistry
_ or atomic re-adjustment _ in the same way that other lighter molecules are
formed from the cracking of heavier atoms ! This is in relation to the Local
Cosmic Density atmosphere in relation to the distance of planet from mother
star !!!
This is a subject I will deal with at lenght in what I call the NEW GEOLOGY
and which is coherent with a view of World based on principles of UNIVERSAL
PRESSURE ... by opposition to the Universal Attraction principle which is a
complete nonsense and only of values to GOGOs and Gogologists at large ...
I am pleased to note that on sci.geo.geology a definitive tendancy has been
noted by my ownself of a arising awareness on that very line of thought !
Bravo !!!
Kindest regards
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Archimedes Plutonium" <plut...@willinet.net> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3C3A98BD...@willinet.net...
Robert Ehrlich
The chemistry of oil pretty much requires an organic source. Some of the
stuff includes fragments of cholesterol and chlorophyll as well as many
other compounds that are produced from once-living material. Gas (methane
especially) on the other hand can be produced inorganically and is found to
be a major atmospheric component on many planets and moons in the outer
solar system. Meteorites and interstellar gas clouds contain carbon
compounds such as acetylene and some amino acids. However it is my
understanding that many of these "organic" compounds lack the "handedness"
observed from biosynthesis.
We have a lot to learn concerning the conversion of kerogen to liquid
hydrocarbon and there is considerable controversey among the 11 or so
organic chemists who care about such things. However an organic origin
for liquid hydrocarbons that we produce today is as close to "fact" as
possible.
happy new year
Bob Ehrlich
Limestone Cowboy
Don Libby
>
>
> The chemistry of oil pretty much requires an organic source. Some of the
> stuff includes fragments of cholesterol and chlorophyll as well as many
> other compounds that are produced from once-living material. Gas (methane
> especially) on the other hand can be produced inorganically and is found to
> be a major atmospheric component on many planets and moons in the outer
> solar system. Meteorites and interstellar gas clouds contain carbon
> compounds such as acetylene and some amino acids. However it is my
> understanding that many of these "organic" compounds lack the "handedness"
> observed from biosynthesis.
What do you make of the "deep hot biosphere" theory: the
biologcials contaminated petroleum after it reached earth
from space?
-dl
Archimedes Plutonium
> Arch:
>
> The chemistry of oil pretty much requires an organic source. Some of the
> stuff includes fragments of cholesterol and chlorophyll as well as many
> other compounds that are produced from once-living material. Gas (methane
> especially) on the other hand can be produced inorganically and is found to
> be a major atmospheric component on many planets and moons in the outer
Thanks for that suggestion. Just last night I heard that German auto
makers were making a hydrogen fuel based auto, claiming that hydrogen
was a fuel of the future.
I wonder if engineering wise it is possible or impossible for humans to
ever tap into the hydrogen contained in Jupiter or the other gas giants.
Some sort of huge straw to suck off the hydrogen of Jupiter?
I wonder even if fusion energy were possible whether the gravitational
field of Jupiter forever prohibits humans from ever tapping into Jupiters
hydrogen supply.
If there was some way of tapping into Jupiter's hydrogen supply, boy,
would that fuel the future with a seemingly endless supply of energy.
My hunch is though, that Jupiter and the gas giants are forever beyond
the reach of human technology. Anyone else have a feel for that issue?
>
> solar system. Meteorites and interstellar gas clouds contain carbon
> compounds such as acetylene and some amino acids. However it is my
> understanding that many of these "organic" compounds lack the "handedness"
> observed from biosynthesis.
I do not accept the Nebular Dust Cloud origin of our Solar System, and
I contend that some of the planets are twice as old as other planets and
come from different systems which have been violently re-arranged.
Mercury for one and the ancient Moon that collided with Earth. And
so, some of these astro bodies at one time had abundant life and abundant
coal and petrol deposits which are still there. So that if geologists go
to Mars and find coal seams and oil, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory
will have a tough time of explaining how such could be the case.
>
>
> We have a lot to learn concerning the conversion of kerogen to liquid
> hydrocarbon and there is considerable controversey among the 11 or so
> organic chemists who care about such things. However an organic origin
> for liquid hydrocarbons that we produce today is as close to "fact" as
> possible.
I wonder if the USA as a nation can gather together some 11 or 12
experts on energy and hydrocarbons and tell the people the truth
behind ethanol and bio-diesel. Just a few days ago I heard Iowa and
Nebraska and other states going ahead on plans to produce more
biodiesel fuel made from corn and other farm crops.
The trouble I have with this is that our farm system is petrol based in
the first place. And that the equation I have is that every 50 units of
oil based farming produces only 1 unit of energy in yield. So that
if a farmer using biodiesel to run his farm equipment would be
like a banker spending a dollar to get 2 pennies in return.
That pre-oil farming ran on the equation that 1 unit of energy of
human or animal muscle yielded 50 units of energy in return. Just
the opposite of our modern day oil-based farming. Oil was cheap
in the 20th century but even then, the US government had to
subsidize about 90% of the agriculture in the USA.
What concerns me is the USA government will subsidize farming
to produce biodiesel which if a logical and rational person were
to look at the entire problem would realize that spending a barrel
of oil in order to produce a gallon of biodiesel is outright
cockamamie. And that as the price of oil continues to head
higher, that the USA subsidy of agriculture becomes more
burdensome and burdensome until the entire house of cards tumbles
down and all the farmers suffer the consequences.
Why would anyone want to spend 50 liters of gasoline to
produce 1 liter of biodiesel when the correct thing to do is to
just use the 50 liters of gasoline for something important.
I contend the number one problem of US agriculture is its
dependency on oil. Oil to drive huge machines. Farmers of the
US are not really farmers any more but rather they are
heavy-equipment caretakers. They spend more time with machines
then they do with land. And until the day returns when all
farming is based on muscle power will the equation of
1 unit of energy spent produces 50 units of energy. Only
then will agriculture be healthy again.
Or, if renewable energy were applied to farming, such as
electricity from wind mill power or hydroelectric power.
Applying muscle and renewable energy to agriculture makes
agriculture healthy and sustainable.
Oil based agriculture will only lead to ruinous heartaches.
>
>
> happy new year
>
> Bob Ehrlich
>
Happy New Year to year, toast to that! Tonight I am drinking
concord grape juice which is good for blood circulation.
Jim Webster
Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
news:3C3C0BBD...@willinet.net...
> Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:30:42 GMT Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> The trouble I have with this is that our farm system is petrol based in
> the first place. And that the equation I have is that every 50 units of
> oil based farming produces only 1 unit of energy in yield. So that
> if a farmer using biodiesel to run his farm equipment would be
> like a banker spending a dollar to get 2 pennies in return.
then get a more accurate equation
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
[#] 3rd_Crusader
You are just warding off the main question i.e. that is the origin of
diversity on this planet ! Right ?
A simple question to you who seem to have all the answers : What is the
origin
of water on this planet ?
I assume that as the official theories affirms it ... the Earth was "created
" on present orbit ... and then water was obtained from meteorites dragged
on target by Earth attraction ? Likewise we should find water on all planets
of the system... since surely that alleged rain of meteorites did home on
the other poor things as well ????
You mention as well " "handedness", could you please be more specific ?
Further Archimede Plutonium wrote :
QUOTE But according to my theories of Solar System origins, these
lifeless astro bodies can contain huge amounts of oil and coal. UNQUOTE
Does anyone knows about Arechimede Theories on sci.physics . Has this
something to do with / or related to Prof Charles Cagle 's theories ?
Reg's
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Robert Ehrlich" <bobeh...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C3B10C4...@attbi.com...
> Arch:
>
> The chemistry of oil pretty much requires an organic source. Some of the
> stuff includes fragments of cholesterol and chlorophyll as well as many
> other compounds that are produced from once-living material. Gas (methane
> especially) on the other hand can be produced inorganically and is found
to
> be a major atmospheric component on many planets and moons in the outer
> solar system. Meteorites and interstellar gas clouds contain carbon
> compounds such as acetylene and some amino acids. However it is my
> understanding that many of these "organic" compounds lack the "handedness"
> observed from biosynthesis.
>
> We have a lot to learn concerning the conversion of kerogen to liquid
> hydrocarbon and there is considerable controversey among the 11 or so
> organic chemists who care about such things. However an organic origin
> for liquid hydrocarbons that we produce today is as close to "fact" as
> possible.
>
> happy new year
>
> Bob Ehrlich
>
Stefan Schloemer
please don´t feed the trolls.
Stefan
--
Dr. Stefan Schloemer
GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam
PB 4.3 Organic Geochemistry and Hydrocarbon Systems
Telegrafenberg
D-14473 Potsdam
tel.: +49 (0)331 288 1789 (office)
fax: +49 (0)331 288 1782 (office)
tel.: +49 (0)30 89 000 709 (home)
Tim Kozusko
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a1he7n$8nf$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C0BBD...@willinet.net...
> > Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:30:42 GMT Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> > The trouble I have with this is that our farm system is petrol based in
> > the first place. And that the equation I have is that every 50 units of
> > oil based farming produces only 1 unit of energy in yield. So that
> > if a farmer using biodiesel to run his farm equipment would be
> > like a banker spending a dollar to get 2 pennies in return.
>
> then get a more accurate equation
I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense all
the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
This is getting OT for the geology newsgroup, but the point is valid - our
(U.S.) energy use is not very efficient.
Jim Webster
Stefan Schloemer <sch...@gfz-potsdam.de> wrote in message
news:3C3C61DF...@gfz-potsdam.de...
> Jim,
> please don´t feed the trolls.
>
> Stefan
what if he's certifiable and I've been given the job over seeing his
therapy?
David Bostwick
>
>Stefan Schloemer <sch...@gfz-potsdam.de> wrote in message
>news:3C3C61DF...@gfz-potsdam.de...
>> Jim,
>> please don´t feed the trolls.
>>
>> Stefan
>
>what if he's certifiable and I've been given the job over seeing his
>therapy?
>
>
Then persuade him to accept private sessions.
[#] 3rd_Crusader
You should be left starving then ?
Aren't the bloke by the way beuuuuulieving in all of those idioties and
indeed all at once !!!
Glaciations; Glacial Paleo Climates, Continental Drift etc I think you got
sufficiently of idioties in your plates to feed you till the end of time !!!
Beware though it may make you sterile ... both intellectually, mentally and
physically as a result !!! Too late ??? Damn it ! One is never careful
enough with Gogology ???
Another victim ! one more to mourn for me !
Reg's
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Stefan Schloemer" <sch...@gfz-potsdam.de> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C3C61DF...@gfz-potsdam.de...
Chuck Robinson
"Tim Kozusko" <timko...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a1i51t$rg6$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
At least we're all eating and there's enough spendable income left over to
buy us computers to play with. If there wasn't we'd probably be working 20
hours a day and wouldn't have time to play anyway. Bless the great diesel
gods.
Chuck
Jeffrey Siegal
> I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
> calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
> thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy.
Feeding grain to cattle is *using* the grain, and the energy used to
produce the grain, not *wasting* it. It might be expensive, but it
isn't waste as that term is usually used.
hanson
> give some estimate of how much oil this planet can have.
> And to give a precise upper limit and a precise lower limit of
> the total amount of petroleum on this planet. And also the
> amount of coal.
>
a while ago for the enviro turds to whine over, in response to :
"Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Go4J5...@bath.ac.uk...
Bravo, and thank you, Barry Cragg.
This is great!
In a quick summation of your detailed Carbon Deposit Numbers, I concur with
your estimate that there are about
3E+07 GT = 3E+22 gr of carbon present on earth,
since my quick and dirty estimate on the back of the envelope shows:
4E+05 GT = 4E+20 gr of total carbon to be present on earth,
with resulting numbers which lay in the same neighborhood as yours.
My estimate, (which anybody with a high school education could do), comes
from the generally accepted facts that photo synthesis liberated O2 from an
originally anoxic environment. Since air is ~ 21% O2 then each O2 must have
buried somewhere its remaining C in some form, expect as CO2.
Your larger estimates may include "unreacted" geological carbon deposits,
hence your total is more likely to reflect reality. Great!
Next, comparing your data about C in air = 775 GT compares favorably with
my quick estimate of 708 GT carbon in air. This closeness provides
confidence that our figures do show a realistic magnitude of carbon present
on earth, considering that both sets were developed independently and from
very different starting assertions.
The discrepancy of our two estimates is absolutely acceptable at this stage
and for this purpose. I will not discuss the whys and the hows.
That's not important. What is worthy of commentary though is:
Because of the alleged 110 ppm CO2 increase over the last 150 years the
greenos make a big deal about it, insisting that it causes global warming.
Yet this 110 ppm CO2 increase represents only 1 atom in 3e18 atoms present
and buried by photo synthesis.
In other words the enviros are making a big deal about that 3 C atoms out
of each million million million atoms of carbon will increase the temp of
the world.
That's like saying 1 person out of 1000 million earth worlds will alter all
these 1'000'000'000 worlds to the point that every one on each one of them
will have to worry.
I may be off by a factor of a million and the green heat scenario is still
unlikely!
So, as neither of these 2 (numerically equivalent) situations is going to
happen, but since green crying continues about it, the obvious reason for
the enviro whining is that will hopefully continue to increase the size of
the green turds' wallets. Repeat: The real reason for their incessant
wincing is obviously not about increasing the earth's temperature, but only
about increasing the cash amount in their wallets. .
Now watch! The green turds will concoct now any in- and conceivable reasons
that, ...etc, etc, etc, and of course etc.
Now watch! The enviro's will now rush forward, loud and anxiety ridden, and
expose that what they REALLY worry about is.. that harm may come to their
feeding trough which is filled with your tax dollars.
I understand that. Hey, anything to turn a buck. Right?. Right!!
I have posted below the detailed steps about my quick estimate, especially
for fanatical green imbeciles, the likes of that cyber character Ian
St.John, who asserts that he knows science, yet maintains that this
question is too complicated for him, (For Ian's green brain, of course,
this is true) and for Parkypooh, the cyber chemistry teacher, who went into
hiding, since he heard the question .
R earth ..........................6.37E+08 ..cm
Area 4pir^2 ..................5.10E+18 ..cm2
Air pressure................. 1000 ..........gr/cm2
Air weight .....................5.10E+21...gr air
21% O2........................ 1.07E+21 ..gr O2
C= 12/32 O2 ................4.02E+20 ..gr C
C in tons ......................4.02E+14 ..tons C
C in Gigatons ...............4.02E+05 ..gigatons C buried by photosynthesis
Barry Cragg's estimate of 775 GT C from air correlates well too:
Air weight............ 5.10E+21 gr air of atmosphere
CO2 in air ...........370............ppm
CO2 in air ...........1.89E+18 gr
C from air ............7.08E+17 gr
C from air ............7.08E+02 GT
I posted my C- estimate years ago, even before:
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:20:54, in sci environment, etc.
It said:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
O2. So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4) .
Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C
in store. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon
be burned. So, your cherished, green dooms day of now or tomorrow will not
arrive till after global warming is over or the next Ice age is gone.
hanson
Jim Webster
David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:a1i6p6$bbp$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
hell we can barely get him to take his medication.
I bow to the will of the collective and shall see if nurse will confiscate
his modem
Rolf Martens
never...@tds.net says...
>
>Robert Ehrlich wrote:
>>
>>
>> The chemistry of oil pretty much requires an organic
>> source.
No, on the contrary. This has really been known since
long. Oil is cosmic in origin, *not* biological, and
clearly enormously plentiful on earth. Only for certain
very malicious political reasons is this still being
denied by all the politicians and all the mass media (in
the USA, here in Sweden, etc).
>> Some of the stuff includes fragments of cholesterol and
>> chlorophyll as well as many other compounds that are
>> produced from once-living material.
Yes, but there's a simple explantion for this.
>What do you make of the "deep hot biosphere" theory: the
>biologcials contaminated petroleum after it reached earth
>from space?
>
>-dl
Precisely, dl. This in fact is the correct theory on the
origins of oil and gas. Even non-experts (such as myself)
can see this, if they get to know about, and can digest,
certain clear facts - some basic knowledge of chemistry
etc perhaps is required.
Now there's practically only one place on the Net - as far
as I know - where you can get these facts: The homepage of
astronomer Thomas Gold, Cornell University, USA. Or does
somebody know of others? Info on this I'd be grateful for.
The address of the site with that "gold stuff" anyway is:
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/
A quote from an article on it, "Natural Gas and Oil", of
January 1997, to briefly explain the existence of various
obviously biological-origin substances in much of that
oil which in itself however very clearly is *not* of
such origin:
"The many molecules of unquestionably biological origin
in petroleum - hopanes, pristine, phytane, steranes,
certain porphyrins - can all be produced by bacteria, and
such microbial life at depth is indeed now seen to be
widespread. The presence of these molecules can no longer
be taken to be indicative of a biological origin of
petroleum, but merely of the widespread presence of a
microflora at depth."
And there are much more on this question (too) at that
homepage.
Rolf M.
(Ex-oil-and-gas shareholder!; they killed that small
company of ours here in Sweden which had Thomas Gold
as one of its board members, in the early 90s; those
most probably enormous amounts of oil and gas which
there clearly are in the Siljan area in this country
still are lying untouched, some 7,000 m down in the
ground!)
Oz
>I bow to the will of the collective and shall see if nurse will confiscate
>his modem
Archie has been about a long time. He seems to have imporved slightly
over this time, rather like a slurry pit.
Some of you may not be aware that he was for a long time a janitor at a
well known US university (whose name escapes me just now) and his real
name is indeed archimedes plutonium, changed by deed poll, although this
was his second change of name.
Generally it's best to killfile him as he *never* takes his medication.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Jim Webster
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kxmkFMAb...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Jim Webster writes
>
> >I bow to the will of the collective and shall see if nurse will
confiscate
> >his modem
>
> Archie has been about a long time. He seems to have imporved slightly
> over this time, rather like a slurry pit.
I find the life is like a slurry pit
it has to be stirred regularly or the rich and thick float to the top
Chuck Robinson
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kxmkFMAb...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Jim Webster writes
> >
> > >I bow to the will of the collective and shall see if nurse will
> confiscate
> > >his modem
> >
> > Archie has been about a long time. He seems to have imporved slightly
> > over this time, rather like a slurry pit.
>
> I find the life is like a slurry pit
>
> it has to be stirred regularly or the rich and thick float to the top
>
Actually if anyone falls in they don't float to the top. Which is exactly
what a troll wants.
Chuck
Chuck Robinson
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3c3c...@nntp.corridor.net...
Oops, I forgot about dairy farmers. They do work 20 hours a day, and they
don't hardly get anytime to play. Oz when exactly do you sleep anyway?
Chuck
>
Tim Davies
very good and does show the possible source that also satisfies the
inclusion of organic material.
I get a kick out of asking the folks, drilling deep gas that sits in
formations above the pc unconformity , where was the source.. why is the
pool filling as fast as your draining and please tell me what was the
source rock on some of the frozen methane moons in our solar system etc.
Deep porosity is real or there would be no diamonds
Tim
Uncle Al
Archie-Poo isn't smart enough to be a janitor. He was a dishwasher:
(What follows was cribbed from Kibo, who was here before all.)
Archie-Poo was a cashier and then demoted to a dishwasher. He started
at Dartmouth's Hanover Inn about 1990 (his previous employer was a
relative of the manager of the Inn so he got a good reference, he's
said) and about 1993 started posting to various sci.* newsgroups. He
maintains he took the job at Dartmouth (paying $7/hour when the
relationship ended in 1999) to get access to Dartmouth's campus
computers, which is odd because he took the job about three years
before he discovered the the campus computers.
He was "Ludwig Plutonium" when he started posting in 1993; previously
he was "Ludwig van Ludvig" and before that "Ludwig Hansen" [adopted
name] and "Ludwig Poehlmann" [birth name]. When he posted about a
run-in with some cops it was clear that the "legal" name changes he
effected weren't effective, because the cops looked him up as "Ludwig
Hansen". He is also struts as "The King Of Science And Logic," a
title he awarded himself.
Archie-Poo's hot topics include (a) he invented spaghetti, (b) Allen
Greenspan controls OPEC's oil price increases, (c) he's trying to
install three wood stoves in his "homestead", and (d) he likes candy
of various kinds. (d) seems to be the one he comes back to the most.
Around 1998 he explained that the fact that he had a craving for
shredded coconut proved his theory that the Universe was a giant
plutonium atom that was making him superintelligent because the center
of his brain also contains a plutonium atom, unlike the rest of us who
have a carbon atom at the center of our brains.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Tim Kozusko
> news:a1i51t$rg6$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> > news:a1he7n$8nf$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C3C0BBD...@willinet.net...
> > > > Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:30:42 GMT Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> > > > The trouble I have with this is that our farm system is petrol based
> in
> > > > the first place. And that the equation I have is that every 50 units
> of
> > > > oil based farming produces only 1 unit of energy in yield. So that
> > > > if a farmer using biodiesel to run his farm equipment would be
> > > > like a banker spending a dollar to get 2 pennies in return.
> > >
> > > then get a more accurate equation
> >
> > I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
> > calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
> > thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense
> all
> > the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
> >
> > This is getting OT for the geology newsgroup, but the point is valid -
our
> > (U.S.) energy use is not very efficient.
> >
> >
> Figures, figures, figures.
Yeah, you're right. There's probably enough fuel for centuries so why worry
about it. Let's just keep on burning the shit like there's no tomorrow.
Tim Kozusko
Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3C3CACC3...@quiotix.com...
Well, yes, if you want to split hairs...
I meant that in more of a thermodynamic context, not wasting like throwing
it away, but wasted in terms of lost energy. But in a very real sense
that's what we're doing with that energy. If you think of it in terms of
spending the energy wisely and efficiently, it is a waste. But energy is
(for the most part) cheap here so no one really thinks of it as a waste. It
doesn't help that steaks taste so good.
Paul F. Dietz
> I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
> calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
> thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense all
> the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
You have that a bit mixed up. Grain production uses more like
1 unit of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 unit of food energy,
IIRC.
Agriculture, overall, is a small component of the total energy
consumption in the US, just a few percent. More energy is expended
cooking food than growing it, for example.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> You have that a bit mixed up. Grain production uses more like
> 1 unit of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 unit of food energy,
> IIRC.
Looking it up, I find even that's an overstatement. One
source states 2.8 units of corn food energy can be produced
on average per unit of primary energy input.
Paul
Tim Kozusko
> My estimate, (which anybody with a high school education could do), comes
> from the generally accepted facts that photo synthesis liberated O2 from
an
> originally anoxic environment. Since air is ~ 21% O2 then each O2 must
have
> buried somewhere its remaining C in some form, expect as CO2.
In eukaryotic photosynthesis, where does the oxygen come from?
snip
Chuck Robinson
You're absolutely right. Think I'll go buy another SUV mañana. aaaand move
back north aaaand buy a larger house too.
By the way, when I was a kid, my father used to burn a mix of dry cow dung
and the lumps found around oil wells (affectionately called "bullshit") in
our furnace. Coal was $10 a ton and we couldn't afford it all of the
time. So you're literally correct we should keep on burning the shit.
Cause we're so stupid we won't find another type of energy. At least you
won't.
Affectionately
Chuck
Jeffrey Siegal
By your definition, every means of sustenance other than the most energy
efficient one (whatever that is -- picking berries? scavenging?), is in
large part "waste." That's not what the term means. We expende energy
in order to turn it into bread, fish, steaks, etc., but that's no more a
waste than the energy we expend to print a book, enjoy a live
performance, heat our homes, etc.
We could certainly *use* less energy to do various things, perhaps by
making other trade-offs, perhaps by merely being more efficient
(reducing real waste). But that margin of available improvement (or
waste) is only a *portion* of the energy used for those things, not all
of it.
Gordon Couger
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C3CE6DB...@interaccess.com...
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Tim Kozusko
hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:wF2%7.16903$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Could you state assumption that in the form of a chemical reaction please?
> Your larger estimates may include "unreacted" geological carbon deposits,
> hence your total is more likely to reflect reality. Great!
>
snip
I'm trying to follow your "argument" here. Am I correct in understanding
that you claim that the O2 that comes from photosynthesis is liberated from
CO2?
That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
> O2. So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4) .
Again, a reaction? The above statement is gibberish.
da bear
electrons thusly...
>
>>
>Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
>emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
>be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
>fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
>stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
>physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
>n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
>is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
>a grand unified theory of stupid.
>--
>Uncle Al
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Easy there, unk, you're frothing again ... :)
da bear
--
--
Some strive just for knowledge, some fire for effect
Some strive for obtusity, some to be direct
I prefer the latter.
Da Bear
Mark Fergerson
>
> I never had the pleasure of encountering posts from your own good self, Sir;
> and I am quite happy that you have landed on the very ng where Knowledge and
> proper Geological Answers are provided ! Indeed sci.geo.geology is the ng
> where the best congregate !!!
<snip> in response to:
> "Archimedes Plutonium" <plut...@willinet.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news: 3C3A98BD...@willinet.net...
<snip>
Takes one to appreciate one.
Mark L. Fergerson
hanson
>
> > That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
> > O2. So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4) .
>
> Again, a reaction? The above statement is gibberish.
>
A reaction?
Certainly.
To any enviro turd this must sound like gibberish.
hanson
Jim Webster
> By the way, when I was a kid, my father used to burn a mix of dry cow
dung
> and the lumps found around oil wells (affectionately called "bullshit") in
> our furnace. Coal was $10 a ton and we couldn't afford it all of the
> time. So you're literally correct we should keep on burning the shit.
> Cause we're so stupid we won't find another type of energy. At least you
> won't.
>
> Affectionately
>
> Chuck
strange as it may seem, burning dung briquettes has just been suggested in
passing as a way of dealing with the UKs suggested nitrate vulnerable
regulations.
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
> calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
> thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense all
> the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
>
> This is getting OT for the geology newsgroup, but the point is valid - our
> (U.S.) energy use is not very efficient.
A Rutgers U. professor in the late 1980s on a NOVA show (I believe)
claimed that the equation was this:
For every 50 units of energy used by petrol-based farming that
a mere 1 unit of energy of food is produced. That equation is a
transport, tractor, chemical fertilizer, herbicide etc.
and
For every 1 unit of muscle energy used (whether human or
work-animal) that 50 units of energy in food is produced.
So, like a modern day banker, in the one case every 1 dollar gets turned
into 2 pennies, and in the other case every 2 pennies gets turned into a
dollar.
I have asked for the US government or a European science lab to
redo the Rutgers equation. To use a farm for the express purpose of
refining that equation. To use tractors run on ethanol. And to have
the farm completely run on ethanol and to see the difference in
how much needed and how much is produced. Perhaps that 50
to 1 is at best say 20 to 1.
Tim seems to think the best is 10 to 1. Perhaps a big farm with a
small fuel saving tractor and not much need for herbicide or pesticide.
And where the transport is negligible and the cost of turning the
harvest into "new ethanol". Perhaps a 10 to 1 is achievable.
But the handwriting is on-the-wall to all farmers. The days of
petrol based agriculture is just a small blip in the history.
And that sometime in the future, all agriculture will be under a
Renewable-Energy-Sustained-Base.
You cannot fight numbers. You can only go for some time in
exchanging a dollar for 2 pennies and then you are broke. The
only reason US farmers can spend 50 units of energy to produce
1 unit of energy in food is because the US government subsidizes
the petrol based agriculture. As oil prices rise and supplies become
tight, then the petrol based farming of the USA will tumble like a
house of cards.
Chuck Robinson
> Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:17:02 -0500 Tim Kozusko wrote:
>
> >
> > I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
> > calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
> > thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense
all
> > the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
> >
> > This is getting OT for the geology newsgroup, but the point is valid -
our
> > (U.S.) energy use is not very efficient.
>
> A Rutgers U. professor in the late 1980s on a NOVA show (I believe)
> claimed that the equation was this:
>
> For every 50 units of energy used by petrol-based farming that
> a mere 1 unit of energy of food is produced. That equation is a
> transport, tractor, chemical fertilizer, herbicide etc.
>
> and
>
> For every 1 unit of muscle energy used (whether human or
> work-animal) that 50 units of energy in food is produced.
>
Careful here, lest they tie you to a plow.
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Chuck Robinson <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
> news:3c3cec51$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
> > By the way, when I was a kid, my father used to burn a mix of dry cow
> dung
> > and the lumps found around oil wells (affectionately called "bullshit")
in
> > our furnace. Coal was $10 a ton and we couldn't afford it all of the
> > time. So you're literally correct we should keep on burning the shit.
> > Cause we're so stupid we won't find another type of energy. At least
you
> > won't.
> >
> > Affectionately
> >
> > Chuck
>
> strange as it may seem, burning dung briquettes has just been suggested in
> passing as a way of dealing with the UKs suggested nitrate vulnerable
> regulations.
>
have used cow chips when I wanted a quick fire to make coffee or make some
soup. I don't think the BTU content would pay the hauling.
Gordon
Oz
>You have that a bit mixed up. Grain production uses more like
>1 unit of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 unit of food energy,
>IIRC.
=========================== Old sci.ag post by Oz
Gordon Couger writes
>Gross Heat of Combustion
>methane 1007.262 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °F
>ammonia 1483.8 BTU/ft3
>propane 2516.198 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °
I suddenly realised we could extract some useful figures from this.
Pity about the archaic units though.
I won;t bother to look anything up as torsten et al will know these by
heart and not from a 30 year old memory, and he loves correcting me.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above is all measured at
STP.
1 gm mol is (iirc) 22.4 litres, and ft^3 is 28L and a BTU is 1kJ
So
Density Energy
Mol wt g/L /gm
CH4 36kJ/L 16 .71 50kJ
NH3 53kJ/L 17 .76 70kJ
So ammonia has about 1.4 times the energy of the methane it was made
from. I'm not sure about urea as it typically sells for less than
ammonium nitrate but has a much higher nitrogen ratio so may be made in
a somewhat different process with higher yields per unit energy.
Anyway ammonia is made by an old, and presumably highly developed
technology so I would be quite surprised if the total net energy cost
ended up far from 100MJ/kg of N.
So some useful figures:
Product Gross energy MJ/kg
N 100
diesel 44
Straw 18
Maize 19 Largely carbohydrate
Rape seed 30 44% oil
I can't speak for the US systems, but I can speak for the UK ones.
Here we are talking for wheat of
grain yield of 7.5 TDM/Ha
straw yield of 5.0 TDM/Ha
total of 12.5 TDM/Ha
Total energy 225 GJ/Ha
We apply typically (for this yield)
180 kgN 18 GJ/Ha
75 kgP2O5 Torsten has the figs
100 kgK2O Torsten has the figs
10 kg Pesticides? 5 GJ/Ha (equivalent to 280kg straw)
50 kg diesel 2 GJ/Ha (bit of a guess)
Total 25 GJ/Ha
So unless I have made a drastic error (always possible) we spend 25 GJ
to obtain 225 GJ which is a gain of 9:1.
Even if you allow some leeway and reduce yields by 20% (net production
thus 180 GJ/Ha) and stick in some minor energy costs I have omitted or
forgotten (say take it to 50 GJ/Ha) you still have a very comfortable
3.6:1 energy gain.
Note that many growers regularly exceed 9T/Ha of grain.
I could do rape as well, but I think the results will be more or less in
line.
OK, so now let's see your figures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oz
>Oops, I forgot about dairy farmers. They do work 20 hours a day, and they
>don't hardly get anytime to play. Oz when exactly do you sleep anyway?
Oh, I don't milk them. 30 years ago when we took over I offered to
relief milk a couple of days a month and was told:
"I'm not having you milking MY cows".
After a microsecond's thought, I regretfully concurred.
[#] 3rd_Crusader
You know my main interest is now the NEW GEOLOGY and I cann't stand the
boycott to which I am actually subjected from you alleged scientific blokes
_ I should have said sci000ntific blokes _ . You know turning in derision
all of my findings weakening all of your horrid Gogological
beuuuuuuuuuuliefs !!!
As it is I am not going to retreat into the bush and you will hear me ...
you will consider the hard facts I bring forward and YOU WILL THROW THAT
HORRID SUPERSTITION YOU CALL GOGOLOGY TO THE DOGS !!!!
Do you have brain mate, as I highly suspect you to have ? Do you have
decency and honnesty ? What about the others ????
THEN YOU WILL LEARN THE NEW GEOLOGY BASED ON A UNIVERSAL PRESSURE PRINCIPLE
!!! I have no interest in all of this except to be what I am deep inside
i.e. a true and devoted observer of the Earth i.e. what you should be all A
TRUE GEOLOGIST !!!!!!!!!
Hey by the way, I am open to give private tuition ... why don't you come
accross and I will open your eyes ! The invitation has already been extended
to my friends Joe Rat and Reety ... I hope they will turn round the corner
one these days !!!
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Der Coach" <DerC...@FanaticLegionsHQ.Mil> a écrit dans le message de news:
ZGVyY29hY2g=.f517463756233fdd2562e77678cae9ff@1010633257.cotse.net...
> [#] 3rd_Crusader wrote:
>
> > to Robert Erhlich ,
> >
> > You are just warding off the main question i.e. that is the origin of
> > diversity on this planet ! Right ?
> > A simple question to you who seem to have all the answers : What is
> the
> > origin
> > of water on this planet ?
> > I assume that as the official theories affirms it ... the Earth was
> "created
> > " on present orbit ... and then water was obtained from meteorites
> dragged
> > on target by Earth attraction ? Likewise we should find water on all
> planets
> > of the system... since surely that alleged rain of meteorites did
> home on
> > the other poor things as well ????
> >
> > You mention as well " "handedness", could you please be more specific
> ?
> >
> >
> > Further Archimede Plutonium wrote :
> > QUOTE But according to my theories of Solar System origins, these
> > lifeless astro bodies can contain huge amounts of oil and coal.
> UNQUOTE
> > Does anyone knows about Arechimede Theories on sci.physics . Has this
> > something to do with / or related to Prof Charles Cagle 's theories ?
> >
> > Reg's
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Paul Turcaud
> > Hydro & Mining Prospector
> > Pioneer Of Australian Mining
> > Web Sites:
> > The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
> > http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
> > Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
> > http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
> >
> > ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
>
> JP.
> You should really learn to stop spamming newsgroups...
> Poeple that post to more that 2, or 3 groups at a time are usually
> considered " Spammers.".....
> I realise that you are angry, but JP, alienating yourself is only going
> to hurt your cause.
> Don't, as the Yanks would say, " cut off your nose, despite your face."
> You are getting a reputation as a mad man that crossposts wildly to any
> and every group under the sun.
> If you want people to take you seriously, then you should stop cross
> posting so darn much.
> Just a bit of helpful feed back...
>
> Der Coach
> CICFL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Shill
> to Robert Erhlich ,
>
> You are just warding off the main question i.e. that is the origin of
> diversity on this planet ! Right ?
> A simple question to you who seem to have all the answers : What is the
> origin
> of water on this planet ?
> I assume that as the official theories affirms it ... the Earth was "created
> " on present orbit ... and then water was obtained from meteorites dragged
> on target by Earth attraction ? Likewise we should find water on all planets
> of the system... since surely that alleged rain of meteorites did home on
> the other poor things as well ????
My understanding would be that the differentiation of heavier elements
would result in the outgassing of the lighter elements during the
early formation of the Earth. A primary atmosphere was formed mainly
of H and HE but was lost when the Earth was hit by a large
planetesimal and the moon was formed. During the suggested period of
meteorite bombardment and the high temperatures and pressures caused
by the impactors the degassing continued and the volatile componants
formed a second atmosphere of the proto-earth (as suggested by Lange
and Ahrens 1982 papers)rather like Venus's. However I would be
interested to hear you theory if you have a different one. As for
finding water on the other planets, well I imagine a lot of them would
have the potential if they had similar conditions for it to form as
the Earth has, I would think there is a good possibility of finding
water on say one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons.
~ David
[#] 3rd_Crusader
facts and further brings back as premises all the present idiotic
Gogological Theories in which he does indeed beuuuuuulieve !!!
By the way you cannot make estimate of present oil potential since it is a
constant outflow and it is indeed in the making ! i.e. while we remain on
present orbit or present Local Cosmic Density Atmosphere !!!! Indeed
depending on Local Energy gradient of a planet as it drifts away from mother
Star different alchemical tranmutational processus are at work of which _ as
mining prospector indeed _ I see the prood in all the rock formations I
observe !
Kind regards
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Tim Davies" <dav...@shaw.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C3CD041...@shaw.ca...
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:aad%7.31$Jw5....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
I'm guessing that's why my father mixed them with the lumpy crude. They did
burn quite a while and there was less ashes.
Chuck
> Gordon
>
>
Tim Kozusko
> Cause we're so stupid we won't find another type of energy. At least you
> won't.
That was my point. It's called sarcasm.
Tim Kozusko
I never said it was all of it. Energy used inefficiently is energy wasted.
Perhaps squandered would make you feel better? It's not the big deal now
that it surely will be in the future.
Torsten Brinch
<di...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Tim Kozusko wrote:
>
>> I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
>> calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to cattle,
>> thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add to that expense all
>> the extra fossil fuel associated with producing cattle.
>You have that a bit mixed up. Grain production uses more like
>1 unit of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 unit of food energy,
>IIRC.
Grain production to the farm gate would generally have a
better ratio than that, 2-3 to 1. In some cases it could be
as high as 5-6 to 1, say in a rotation with clover or
with legume grains.
Meat production to the farm gate would of course not be able
to reach such ratios. Beef and heavy lamb would not get much
past break even, and pig and poultry are about 0.25-0.5 to 1.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Tim Kozusko
Paul F. Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C3CE6DB...@interaccess.com...
What was your source? Mine was a book called Grasslands. I've been looking
for as many estimations of this value as I can find, and there aren't nearly
as many as one might expect.
Tim Kozusko
The books is called Grasslands, and I can't recall the author's name, but
I'll be happy to look it up.
Tim Kozusko
Just the sort of answer I expected. Dodge the question and call names. I
challenge you again to proved an equation so I can see your assumptions.
Where does the oxygen come from that is evolved in photosynthesis? Here's a
chance for you to demonstrate that you know something.
RP Henry
In your calculations, it appears that water is free. This is not always
the case, especially in US agriculture.
Also, you are removing both the grain and the straw from the field. Is
the chemical fertilizer treatment you specify sufficient to prevent
long-term depletion of the soil?
Jeffrey Siegal
You made a claim that 90% of the energy used to produce grain which is
then fed to cattle is wasted. For that to be true, there would have to
be a way of producing cattle which uses only 10% as much energy overall
without increasing the use of other resources. Perhaps there is, I
don't know. But I doubt it.
> Energy used inefficiently is energy wasted.
No it isn't. Only that portion of the energy used which is lost to the
inefficiency is wasted, not all of it.
> Perhaps squandered would make you feel better?
The term squandered is more accurate, and is obviously subjective, which
is precisely the point.
Tim Kozusko
That's a commonly used figure for the energy wasted to entropy going from
one trophic level to the next, which was the context. Wasted is a perfectly
good term. The meaning of the word "wasted" seems a stupid thing to argue
about when the subject is inefficiency of energy use.
Jim Webster
RP Henry <richard...@saic.com> wrote in message
news:3C3DBEAF...@saic.com...
> Oz wrote
> In your calculations, it appears that water is free. This is not always
> the case, especially in US agriculture.
in my part of the UK we get 5 feet of rain a year. One of the fascinating
things about usenet is reading comments by people like Gordon for whom water
is a scarce resource. For us water is free, it is getting rid of it that
costs the money.
>
> Also, you are removing both the grain and the straw from the field. Is
> the chemical fertilizer treatment you specify sufficient to prevent
> long-term depletion of the soil?
Depends on what you mean by long term depletion. Not being silly but in
agriculture "Long term" means rather longer than in some other industries.
Certainly the situation would be improved in people took care of their
sewage so that it was fit to be recycled back onto the land rather than
tipping it into the sea.
Chuck Robinson
For your information it's called "Grass fed beef" but then not all like the
taste.
These arguements many are citing have been discussed over and over. Try
looking in the archives.
Chuck
Tim Kozusko
Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:1tar3u8gi93jr77rs...@4ax.com...
Do these figures take into account transporting the produce to market, or
just on-site production? Thanks
TK
Archimedes Plutonium
Tim Kozusko wrote:
(big snips)
> Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3D4F87...@willinet.net...
>
> >
> > A Rutgers U. professor in the late 1980s on a NOVA show (I believe)
> > claimed that the equation was this:
> >
> > For every 50 units of energy used by petrol-based farming that
> > a mere 1 unit of energy of food is produced. That equation is a
> > transport, tractor, chemical fertilizer, herbicide etc.
> >
> > and
> >
> > For every 1 unit of muscle energy used (whether human or
> > work-animal) that 50 units of energy in food is produced.
>
>
> >
> > Tim seems to think the best is 10 to 1. Perhaps a big farm with a
> > small fuel saving tractor and not much need for herbicide or pesticide.
> > And where the transport is negligible and the cost of turning the
> > harvest into "new ethanol". Perhaps a 10 to 1 is achievable.
>
> The books is called Grasslands, and I can't recall the author's name, but
> I'll be happy to look it up.
>
Yes, Tim, please look it up and relay it here on the Internet. I wish
I had jotted-down the name of the Rutgers professor with his
50 to 1 equation.
Anyway what needs to be done is an accurate science experiment
to show the waste and inefficiency of petrol-based farming compared
to muscle-based-farming.
And another issue, is that over in sci.agriculture is a band of fruitcakes
who have attempted to hoodwink that entire newsgroup into believing
that the ratio is 2 to 1 in favor of ethanol. That for every 1 gallon of
gasoline spent in modern agriculture yields 2 gallons of ethanol. Some
real lousy people doing the world a disfavor by fanning their pseudo-
science. Some of those characters are financed by the ethanol companies.
And it seems as though it is going to get far worse before it gets better
in that the news said that Western state senators were drafting bills
to make ethanol and biodiesel fuels more common and to subsidize
them.
Somehow, all scientists, true ones that is, must really laugh when
they hear that US Senators debating in Congress about ethanol and
biodiesel. Will these Senators be listening to those that claim 1 gallon
of gasoline can yield 2 gallons of ethanol? Or, will those Senators
hear true scientists tell them that for every 1 gallon of ethanol or
biodiesel that is produced spends on average 50 gallons of actual
diesel. So, the question remains-- why even farm for biodiesel --
why not use the 50 virgin gallons of diesel instead of turning it
into 1 gallon of biodiesel.
Subsidies have a horrible way of perverting the truth, and worse
yet, on the day of reckoning, give much suffering and pain.
Before any of those Farm Senators legislates anything on ethanol
or biodiesel, what they really should do is fund a science research
project telling everyone clearly what the equation truly is:
Is the equation as the Rutgers professor of 1986 said it was that
50 units of petrol energy yields 1 unit of farm food energy
or is it what Tim's Grassland book says that 10 units of petrol
energy yields 1 unit of ethanol
or is it what I estimated some years ago-- that the *maximum
best yield* between petrol based agriculture is that 3
units of petrol energy yields 1 unit of agriculture energy. But
that 1 unit of human muscle energy yields 50 units of
agriculture energy.
Farm Senators seem to know how to subsidize, and why are these
senators not asking for the Science Truth of the problem? Perhaps
they do not want the truth. Perhaps the Senators of the USA are
the ones who are the most opposed to revealing the truth about the
problem and that they encourage Internet liars to fan the idea that
1 gallon of gasoline can produce 2 gallons of ethanol.
Tim Kozusko
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> RP Henry <richard...@saic.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3DBEAF...@saic.com...
> > Oz wrote
>
> > In your calculations, it appears that water is free. This is not always
> > the case, especially in US agriculture.
>
> in my part of the UK we get 5 feet of rain a year. One of the fascinating
> things about usenet is reading comments by people like Gordon for whom
water
> is a scarce resource. For us water is free, it is getting rid of it that
> costs the money.
Damn, I had no idea any part of the UK got that much rain. I'm most
familiar with Essex which, if I recall correctly, gets something like 25
inches per year. What part of the UK are you in? I live in Florida and we
get a fair amount of rain, but not quite 5 feet, normally.
snip
Torsten Brinch
<timko...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:1tar3u8gi93jr77rs...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 18:33:52 -0600, "Paul F. Dietz"
>> <di...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Tim Kozusko wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've seen the figure as 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
>> >> calorie of grain energy, which we turn around and feed 60% of to
>> >> cattle, thereby wasting something like 90% of that energy. Add
>> >> to that expense all the extra fossil fuel associated with
>> >> producing cattle.
>> >You have that a bit mixed up. Grain production uses more like
>> >1 unit of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 unit of food energy,
>> >IIRC.
>> Grain production to the farm gate would generally have a
>> better ratio than that, 2-3 to 1. In some cases it could be
>> as high as 5-6 to 1, say in a rotation with clover or
>> with legume grains.
>>
>> Meat production to the farm gate would of course not be able
>> to reach such ratios. Beef and heavy lamb would not get much
>> past break even, and pig and poultry are about 0.25-0.5 to 1.
>Do these figures take into account transporting the produce to market, or
>just on-site production? Thanks
The figures were not meant to take that into account, but
I don't think adding in the energy costs of transporting
the produce from farm gate to market would change those
ratios significantly.
[caveat: 'to the farm gate' is relatively well defined,
whereas 'to market' is less so. In the extreme event the
marketing for the grain and meat produce could be
construed as occurring when the end food products land
on my table, and at that stage, I think, much more
fossil fuel energy has been spent to transport and
transform matter, than there is metabolizable energy
in the food.]
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Gordon Couger
wells were cleaned out or worked over. They would burn very well and very
hot.
Gordon
hanson
> > > > hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > > > That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
> > > > O2. So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4) .
> > >
[Tim ]
> > > Again, a reaction? The above statement is gibberish.
> > >
[hanson]
> > A reaction?
> > Certainly.
> > To any enviro turd this must sound like gibberish.
> > hanson
[Tim ]
> Just the sort of answer I expected.
You did? Wow. So, you admit to being a green turd. Congratulations.
> Where does the oxygen come from that is evolved in photosynthesis?
It's trivial. Not worth to talk about. Everybody knows that except
apparently green turds. To boot, green turds would not comprehend it
anyway, no matter what is said. So, forget it.
> Here's a chance for you to demonstrate that you know something.
Chance? wow! Ok, here's wish fulfillment for you on "something":
......... the enviro turds are always working hard on a new set of enviro
taxes, permit fees and user surcharges for NEW POTENTIAL dangers
and NEW IMAGINARY hazards, new tax moneys from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics do draw their welfare checks.
--- That's how the environmentalists fuck the general public, by
making you pay more, so that they can live. ......off your back!
*****
environmentalism is nothing ------
----- but sanitation driven to pathological extremes.
*****
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit. --- Industry has not
suffered, of course. It simply passed the enviro costs along to the
consumer, YOU. That's how the environmentalists fuck the general
public, by making YOU PAY more, so that they can live. ..off YOUR
back. --- Worse, why do most of you non green, hard working stiffs
not speak up and protest when YOUR RAISES AND YOUR BONUSES
do get dished out to environmentalists, instead.
Its YOUR MONEY, YOU worked so hard for, that’s enjoyed by them.
Jim Webster
> > in my part of the UK we get 5 feet of rain a year. One of the
fascinating
> > things about usenet is reading comments by people like Gordon for whom
> water
> > is a scarce resource. For us water is free, it is getting rid of it
that
> > costs the money.
>
> Damn, I had no idea any part of the UK got that much rain. I'm most
> familiar with Essex which, if I recall correctly, gets something like 25
> inches per year. What part of the UK are you in? I live in Florida and
we
> get a fair amount of rain, but not quite 5 feet, normally.
>
We are in South Cumbria where last year we had 5 foot of rain, more normal
is over 4 foot. Wettest place is Seatoller which has 176 inches of rain.
Essex is almost semi arid (or at least in my estimation but I could be
biased :-))) , the west of England is a lot wetter, the joys of atlantic
weather. Fortunately these places are not far from the sea but with a
reasonable fall so all that rain runs off pretty quickly
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> snip
>
>
B
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a1he7n$8nf$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C0BBD...@willinet.net...
> > Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:30:42 GMT Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> > The trouble I have with this is that our farm system is petrol based in
> > the first place. And that the equation I have is that every 50 units of
> > oil based farming produces only 1 unit of energy in yield. So that
> > if a farmer using biodiesel to run his farm equipment would be
> > like a banker spending a dollar to get 2 pennies in return.
>
> then get a more accurate equation
Tim Kozusko
it comes to photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
hanson
> Ok, you've convinced me that you don't know what you're talking about
> when it comes to photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
Tim, you don’t really think that I'd take you serious, you, who DEMANDS
answers, admits to being a green turd, talks to aliens, calls himself a
moron and screws it all up, to boot.
From: Tim Kozusko (timko...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Harlow's brain work
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research, alt.alien.visitors,
alt.paranormal.crop-circles
Date: 2002-01-10 06:41:01 PST
Tim Kozusko writes...
> I'm a moron - I hit reply instead of reply to group
> aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Now it's all screwed up...........
[hanson]
...........maybe you should measure a crop-circle
and then demand from the aliens to tell you
about PS/CC..........wohahhh..hahaha.....
hahahah...hahah.....hohhhhhhohho..hahahah....
uuhhhhhaaahhahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
wohahhh..hahaha.....hahaha.......hahah.....
hohhhhhhohho..hahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
hahaha....hahahah...hahah.....hohhhhhhohho..
hahahaaaa........whoahhhhhhhh........hohohoh.......
uuhhhhhaaahhahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
hanson
Jim Webster
B <B....@bbb.com> wrote in message
news:CEp%7.65280$Sj1.26...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> he can run his diesel engine quite nicely on soybean oil.
in Europe oil seed rape or Canola is considered the potential fuel of the
future. Is there any real advantages of Soya over OSR
[#] 3rd_Crusader
.... but you know I set mysefl to kill the present Horrid Gogological whore
and it seems it won't be easy as I was thinking !!! the brainswashing is
deeper than expected !!!
Kind regards
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Leader Of The " New Geology "
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Der Coach" <DerC...@FanaticLegionsHQ.Mil> a écrit dans le message de news:
ZGVyY29hY2g=.f517463756233fdd2562e77678cae9ff@1010633257.cotse.net...
> [#] 3rd_Crusader wrote:
>
> > to Robert Erhlich ,
> >
> > You are just warding off the main question i.e. that is the origin of
> > diversity on this planet ! Right ?
> > A simple question to you who seem to have all the answers : What is
> the
> > origin
> > of water on this planet ?
> > I assume that as the official theories affirms it ... the Earth was
> "created
> > " on present orbit ... and then water was obtained from meteorites
> dragged
> > on target by Earth attraction ? Likewise we should find water on all
> planets
> > of the system... since surely that alleged rain of meteorites did
> home on
> > the other poor things as well ????
> >
> > You mention as well " "handedness", could you please be more specific
> ?
> >
> >
> > Further Archimede Plutonium wrote :
> > QUOTE But according to my theories of Solar System origins, these
> > lifeless astro bodies can contain huge amounts of oil and coal.
> UNQUOTE
> > Does anyone knows about Arechimede Theories on sci.physics . Has this
> > something to do with / or related to Prof Charles Cagle 's theories ?
> >
> > Reg's
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Paul Turcaud
> > Hydro & Mining Prospector
> > Pioneer Of Australian Mining
> > Web Sites:
> > The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
> > http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
> > Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
> > http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
> >
> > ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
>
> JP.
> You should really learn to stop spamming newsgroups...
> Poeple that post to more that 2, or 3 groups at a time are usually
> considered " Spammers.".....
> I realise that you are angry, but JP, alienating yourself is only going
> to hurt your cause.
> Don't, as the Yanks would say, " cut off your nose, despite your face."
> You are getting a reputation as a mad man that crossposts wildly to any
> and every group under the sun.
> If you want people to take you seriously, then you should stop cross
> posting so darn much.
> Just a bit of helpful feed back...
>
> Der Coach
> CICFL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oz
>That's a commonly used figure for the energy wasted to entropy going from
>one trophic level to the next, which was the context. Wasted is a perfectly
>good term. The meaning of the word "wasted" seems a stupid thing to argue
>about when the subject is inefficiency of energy use.
Solution:
remove all humans from the planet as they are very inefficient.
They take a HUGE amount of energy to produce very little useful work.
Oz
>In your calculations, it appears that water is free. This is not always
>the case, especially in US agriculture.
In the UK we have something called 'rain. It is free.
>Also, you are removing both the grain and the straw from the field.
Indeed. Add a couple of percent for this if you feel picky.
>Is
>the chemical fertilizer treatment you specify sufficient to prevent
>long-term depletion of the soil?
Yes.
Jeffrey Siegal
>>You made a claim that 90% of the energy used to produce grain which is
>>then fed to cattle is wasted. For that to be true, there would have to
>>be a way of producing cattle which uses only 10% as much energy overall
>>without increasing the use of other resources. Perhaps there is, I
>>don't know. But I doubt it.
>
> For your information it's called "Grass fed beef" but then not all like the
> taste.
In which case it isn't the same product, is it? It isn't greater
efficiency to say you can make a *different* product using less energy,
just a different product (i.e., comparing apples to oranges).
Tim Kozusko
> "Tim Kozusko" <timko...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:a1lisj$4s0$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Ok, you've convinced me that you don't know what you're talking about
> > when it comes to photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
>
admits to being a green turd, talks to aliens, calls himself a
> moron and screws it all up, to boot.
And you make these claims based on what - an overactive imagination?
A "green turd", funny; I'll remember that one next time I'm out duck
hunting. You have no clue about my politics. My voter registration card
has an R on it and I've been a member of the NRA. Now then, don't you look
quite the idiot.
Talks to aliens???? I have an interest in the history and folklore of
England. If you had actually read anything I posted there you'd know I said
that nothing but humans are responsible for the funny little things that
happen on the Salisbury Plain.
You seem to be good at knowing very little about a subject and behaving as
if you know it all. When/if you grow up you should try politics.
I claim that the "method" you used to come up with some number for how long
oil will last is incorrect. The stoichiometry is ambiguous from your
numbers, and you have made assumptions you don't even seem to be aware of.
Probably you have just copied someone else's work out of context, and you
don't understand chemistry well enough to know what you're posting.
In any event, the only way you seem willing to defend your ideas is by
attacking the people who call you on your bullshit. The smell in your
little part of this thread is getting a bit much. There are other people
here who seem to want to understand the energy budget for agriculture; some
of their posts have been instructive. As for you - you're an idiot, and our
little part of this thread is terminated.
Tim Kozusko
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Hwb8VHCt...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
Actually, as life forms go we are efficient. "Higher" life forms have
maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms maximized
their rates of energy use.
Tim Kozusko
If you need some more quotes to pull in out of context for your reply, I
also occasionally post on alt music pink-floyd and roger-waters,
sci.geo.oceanography, sci.bio.ecology, and uk.music.guitar. Knock your
little bad self out.
hanson
>
[hanson]
> [Tim Kozusko] admits to being a green turd, talks to aliens, calls
> > himself a moron and screws it all up, to boot.
offering his unsolicited CV and a futile order for termination:
[Tim Kozusko]
> [Tim Kozusko's] My voter registration card has an R on it
> and I've been a member of the NRA.
>As for you [hanson] - you're an idiot, and our
> little part of this thread is terminated.
[hanson]
Sorry, that it got to you, riled you up and got you up a tree.
Sorry, but Tim, it's really self-inflicted, isn't it?
You shouldn’t do things like that to yourself.
Why do you admit to the world that you got emotional,
gun toting and talking of termination....over an…. idiot?
That is so unkosher, uncool and really a shame, isn’t it......
wohahhh..hahaha.....hahahah...hahah.....
hanson
> PS
> Knock your little bad self out.
[hanson]
> [Tim Kozusko] admits to being a green turd, talks to aliens, calls
> > himself a moron and screws it all up, to boot.
..... and then for some reason Tim wants to salvage this impression by
offering his unsolicited CV and a futile order for termination:
[Tim Kozusko]
> [Tim Kozusko's] My voter registration card has an R on it
> and I've been a member of the NRA.
>As for you [hanson] - you're an idiot, and our
> little part of this thread is terminated.
[hanson]
Sorry, that it got to you, riled you up and got you up a tree.
Sorry, but Tim, it's really self-inflicted, isn't it?
You shouldn’t do things like that to yourself.
Why do you admit to the world that you got emotional,
gun toting and talking of termination....over an…. idiot?
That is so unkosher, uncool and really a shame, isn’t it......
wohahhh..hahaha.....hahahah...hahah.....
Tim Kozusko
> Why do you ...
snip
And why do you continue to only discuss me, in response to my claims that
your little formula for how much oil is left might be wrong? Is your
position so weak that you can't handle the scrutiny? Obviously so, because
you continue to hide behind false accusations made about ME, rather than
respond to my claims about your errors. The coward's way.
hanson
> And why do you continue to only discuss me
Discuss?........neeeeh.....
I am playing with you, having fun on your account
because you get bent outa shape, so easily.
You remind me of the bumper sticker which was around:
"Hire the handicapped. They are fun to watch"
I know that this is not nice.
But your are so funny.
It's so much fun to fuck with people who think that they are important.
So, keep answering, Timmy. I like to keep laughing.. about you.
Robert Ehrlich
As long as Archie asks sober questions, we should reply in like fashion. If he,
or anyone, asks an off the wall question or starts invoking off the wall
"science" then we can and should either not reply or insult him as the case may
be. One of the functions of this forum should be to serve to public and I think
that any decent question deserves a decent reply.
da bear wrote:
> In article <3C3CD786...@hate.spam.net>, Uncl...@hate.spam.net rattled
> electrons thusly...
> >
> >>
> >Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
> >emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
> >be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
> >fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
> >stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
> >physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
> >n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
> >is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
> >a grand unified theory of stupid.
> >--
> >Uncle Al
> >http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> >"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
> Easy there, unk, you're frothing again ... :)
>
> da bear
> --
> --
> Some strive just for knowledge, some fire for effect
> Some strive for obtusity, some to be direct
> I prefer the latter.
> Da Bear
Tim Kozusko
Robert Ehrlich <bobeh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C3F36F8...@attbi.com...
> Hey guys:
>
> As long as Archie asks sober questions, we should reply in like fashion.
If he,
> or anyone, asks an off the wall question or starts invoking off the wall
> "science" then we can and should either not reply or insult him as the
case may
> be. One of the functions of this forum should be to serve to public and I
think
> that any decent question deserves a decent reply.
I agree. I don't think he's right - completely, but it is important to try
to understand how efficient various uses of energy are. A lot of the
unpleasantness we currently find ourselves in is, to some degree, a result
of our addiction to fossil fuels. I happen to like my lifestyle and have no
desire to give it up completely. So I am trying to understand where cuts in
use can be made, just in case we ever get a government that is serious about
conservation.
I find it more than a little troubling that our ideas of energy in to energy
out ratios for grain production vary so much. I understand that this isn't
an easy number to get hold of, but a range from 9:1 to 1:50 suggests a
problem somewhere. At least one of us is wrong. And surely the amount of
oil left in the ground is even more difficult to measure. I suspect we
won't really know how much is left until we're nearly out. Hopefully I'll
be wrong about that.
Jim Webster
> I find it more than a little troubling that our ideas of energy in to
energy
> out ratios for grain production vary so much. I understand that this
isn't
> an easy number to get hold of, but a range from 9:1 to 1:50 suggests a
> problem somewhere. At least one of us is wrong. And surely the amount of
> oil left in the ground is even more difficult to measure. I suspect we
> won't really know how much is left until we're nearly out. Hopefully I'll
> be wrong about that.
one problem with the 1:50 figure is that no one seems to have a source for
it. Oz showed some simple calculations which might need correction but they
are unlikely to be massively wrong, or if they are, someone should point out
the mistakes.
it isn't rocket science and most farmers will be able to give you their
annual usage and annual output which will give a ball park figure and act as
a check to some of the more extravagant estimates (which could be wrong in
either direction)
Axel Berger
>but not quite 5 feet, normally.
Not familiar with parts of English anatomy, I had to do a quick reality
check - after all not everthing posted on UseNet is true. Here in my
village on the first eastern rise from the Rhine valley we get about
1000 mm, so 5', about 50 % more, is not excessive for really wet parts.
Jeffrey Siegal
The wet side of the peak on Kaua`i, Hawai`i gets over 11 meters. The
"dry" side gets under a meter.
Oz
>Actually, as life forms go we are efficie
>nt. "Higher" life forms have
>maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms maximized
>their rates of energy use.
Garbage.
We 'waste' most of our food just to keep warm. Feed a mammal and it
needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine.
Gordon Couger
> Tim Kozusko writes
> >Actually, as life forms go we are efficie
> >nt. "Higher" life forms have
> >maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms
maximized
> >their rates of energy use.
>
> Garbage.
>
> We 'waste' most of our food just to keep warm. Feed a mammal and it
> needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine.
>
with mules.
Gordon
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
at least mules only need feeding and rough housing. Humans want clothing,
heating and entertainment, all of which can have a very high energy input. I
never hear of a mule that wanted to go back and join the family for
thanksgiving
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Gordon
>
>
Chuck Robinson
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> news:N1P%7.554$kb6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:C+Bd2tAE...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > > Tim Kozusko writes
> > > >Actually, as life forms go we are efficie
> > > >nt. "Higher" life forms have
> > > >maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms
> > maximized
> > > >their rates of energy use.
> > >
> > > Garbage.
> > >
> > > We 'waste' most of our food just to keep warm. Feed a mammal and it
> > > needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine.
> > >
> > You only need to feed a tractor when you use it. Sure beats trying to
farm
> > with mules.
> >
>
> at least mules only need feeding and rough housing. Humans want clothing,
> heating and entertainment, all of which can have a very high energy input.
I
> never hear of a mule that wanted to go back and join the family for
> thanksgiving
>
Like said earlier "At least we're all eating and there's enough spendable
income left over to
buy us computers to play with. If there wasn't we'd probably be working 20
hours a day and wouldn't have time to play anyway. Bless the great diesel
gods."
Chuck
No Matter how good you are, you can always be replaced.
Gordon Couger
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3c3f...@nntp.corridor.net...
>
> Like said earlier "At least we're all eating and there's enough spendable
> income left over to
> buy us computers to play with. If there wasn't we'd probably be working
20
> hours a day and wouldn't have time to play anyway. Bless the great diesel
> gods."
>
hour weeks.
Gordon
Torsten Brinch
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:57:38 +0000, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>wheat <..>
>
>grain yield of 7.5 TDM/Ha
>straw yield of 5.0 TDM/Ha
>total of 12.5 TDM/Ha
>Total energy 225 GJ/Ha
>
>We apply typically (for this yield)
>
>180 kgN 18 GJ/Ha
>75 kgP2O5 Torsten has the figs
>100 kgK2O Torsten has the figs
>10 kg Pesticides? 5 GJ/Ha (equivalent to 280kg straw)
>50 kg diesel 2 GJ/Ha (bit of a guess)
>Total 25 GJ/Ha
With the given amounts of P and K, add about 1 GJ/ha for each
>So unless I have made a drastic error (always possible) we spend 25 GJ
>to obtain 225 GJ which is a gain of 9:1.
>Even if you allow some leeway and reduce yields by 20% (net production
>thus 180 GJ/Ha) and stick in some minor energy costs I have omitted or
>forgotten (say take it to 50 GJ/Ha) you still have a very comfortable
>3.6:1 energy gain.
>
>Note that many growers regularly exceed 9T/Ha of grain.
>
>I could do rape as well, but I think the results will be more or less in
>line.
Here are some estimates of energy inputs and outputs
for growing and processing oil seed rape
to bio diesel in the UK.
(rounded figures, unit GJ/ha unless other indicated)
sources:
ETSU = ETSU study 1999,
ARC = ETSU findings corrected with higher yields, ARC data
LEV = data compiled by Levington Agriculture)
-- ETSU ARC LEV
Seed yield (t/ha) 3.2 3.6 4.1
INPUTS
Agriculture 4.3 4.3 4.9
Fertilisers 12.8 12.8 7.2
Pesticides 0.6 0.6 0.3
Seeds 0.2 0.2 0.04
Storage and packaging 0.3 0.3 0.3
Transport of seeds and crop 0.8 0.9 1.1
Processing 16.1 18.1 17.3
Total 35.0 37.2 31.1
OUTPUTS
Bio fuel 45.8 51.5 54.3
Cake 3.7 4.2 1.3
Total excl straw 49.5 55.7 55.7
Output:input excl straw 1.4:1 1.5:1 1.8:1
Straw 38.4 43.2 60.0
Total incl straw 87.9 98.9 86.8
Output:input incl straw 2.5:1 2.6:1 2.7:1
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> I worked a lot of those 20 hour days making money for bankers working 30
> hour weeks.
>
I was always told that bankers were like electric guitars.
if you couldn't make them scream you weren't playing them right
Oz
>[sci.geo.geology and sci.chem stripped from distribution]
>
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:57:38 +0000, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>wheat <..>
>>
>>grain yield of 7.5 TDM/Ha
>>straw yield of 5.0 TDM/Ha
>>total of 12.5 TDM/Ha
>>Total energy 225 GJ/Ha
>>
>>We apply typically (for this yield)
>>
>>180 kgN 18 GJ/Ha
>>75 kgP2O5 Torsten has the figs
>>100 kgK2O Torsten has the figs
>>10 kg Pesticides? 5 GJ/Ha (equivalent to 280kg straw)
>>50 kg diesel 2 GJ/Ha (bit of a guess)
>>Total 25 GJ/Ha
>
>With the given amounts of P and K, add about 1 GJ/ha for each
>
>>So unless I have made a drastic error (always possible) we spend 25 GJ
>>to obtain 225 GJ which is a gain of 9:1.
>
>>Even if you allow some leeway and reduce yields by 20% (net production
>>thus 180 GJ/Ha) and stick in some minor energy costs I have omitted or
>>forgotten (say take it to 50 GJ/Ha) you still have a very comfortable
>>3.6:1 energy gain.
Comfortably within my leeway margin to put it mildly.
>>
>>Note that many growers regularly exceed 9T/Ha of grain.
>>
>>I could do rape as well, but I think the results will be more or less in
>>line.
>
>Here are some estimates of energy inputs and outputs
>for growing and processing oil seed rape
>to bio diesel in the UK.
>(rounded figures, unit GJ/ha unless other indicated)
>
>sources:
>ETSU = ETSU study 1999,
>ARC = ETSU findings corrected with higher yields, ARC data
>LEV = data compiled by Levington Agriculture)
>
ETSU = ETSU study 1999,
ARC = ETSU findings corrected with higher yields, ARC data
LEV = data compiled by Levington Agriculture)
-- ETSU ARC LEV
Seed yield (t/ha) 3.2 3.6 4.1
INPUTS
Agriculture 4.3 4.3 4.9
Fertilisers 12.8 12.8 7.2
Pesticides 0.6 0.6 0.3
Seeds 0.2 0.2 0.04
Storage and packaging 0.3 0.3 0.3
Transport of seeds and crop 0.8 0.9 1.1
Processing 16.1 18.1 17.3
[Please give the breakdown for 'processing', which seems utterly out of
line]
Total 35.0 37.2 31.1
OUTPUTS
Bio fuel 45.8 51.5 54.3
Cake 3.7 4.2 1.3
[Cake is 60% of output, so these do not look at all right]
Total excl straw 49.5 55.7 55.7
Output: input excl straw 1.4:1 1.5:1 1.8:1
Straw 38.4 43.2 60.0
[Straw burns beautifully: my neighbour prefers it to straw in his big
bale boiler.]
Total incl straw 87.9 98.9 86.8
Output: input incl straw 2.5:1 2.6:1 2.7:1
There are oddities in these figures, particularly 'processing' and
'cake'. Please give details.
Tim Kozusko
> Tim Kozusko writes
> >Actually, as life forms go we are efficie
> >nt. "Higher" life forms have
> >maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms
maximized
> >their rates of energy use.
>
> Garbage.
>
> We 'waste' most of our food just to keep warm. Feed a mammal and it
> needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine.
Context pal, context. If you read it again you'll see I said compared to
less highly derived organisms that maximized rate instead of efficiency. My
statement was that of inefficient life we are the more efficient.
Cold blooded vs. warm blooded is irrelevant as both mammals and reptiles use
the same ATP process to power themselves. The sentence "Feed a mammal and
it needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine"
doesn't even make sense.
Tim Kozusko
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> news:tnU%7.29$dM6....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > I worked a lot of those 20 hour days making money for bankers working 30
> > hour weeks.
> >
>
> I was always told that bankers were like electric guitars.
>
> if you couldn't make them scream you weren't playing them right
Excellent!
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
From what is available to me I can only see that the LEV 17.3 GJ/ha
for processing has been calculated using 428 MJ/tbiodiesel for rape
seed crushing and 11.0 GJ/tbiodiesel for further processing
into fatty acid methyl esters. You would have to track back to the
sources for these data for a further breakdown.
The 428 MJ/t figure is from ECOTEC Research Ltd (1999) Financial and
Environmental Impact of Bio diesel as an Alternative to Fossil Diesel
in the UK. Report prepared for British Association for Bio Fuels and
Oils.
The 11.0 GJ/t figure is from Gover et al (1996) Alternative Road
Transport Fuels - A Preliminary Life Cycle Study for the UK.
Vol. 2. ETSU, London, HMSO.
Cake has been given energy credit only for its energy equivalent
as used as fertilizer, and for N only for the 50 % estimated to be
utilized the first year. A content of 6% N, 2.7% P2O5 and 1.9% K2O
has been estimated in the cake, energy equivalents 38 GJ/tN, 3 GJ/t
P2O5, 5 GJ/tK2O has been used.
The calculation is assuming set aside land being used for production,
meaning the cake cannot be used for feed, which is why feed energy
equivalent has not been used.
As you can see, the Levington study is employing very conservative
estimates of the energy credits for byproducts. Another indication
of this is that the energy value of the byproduct glycerol from the
transesterification process (5.7 GJ/ha) has not been included.
IOW, the LEV study indicates that oil seed rape (OSR) can be used
to produce a surplus of fossil fuel substitute -- without energy
credits given to OSR straw at all, and while using quite
conservative estimates for energy credits to byproducts
from processing.
(This, contrary the other part of the LEV study --
bio ethanol production from wheat -- which does -not- come out
with an energy surplus for fossil fuel substitution, unless
energy credits are given to straw and byproducts)
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>
>From what is available to me I can only see that the LEV 17.3 GJ/ha
>for processing has been calculated using 428 MJ/tbiodiesel for rape
>seed crushing
Crushing rape is easier than rolling barley (I am told). So lessee, at
2TPH this works out at about 900 MJ/Hr or a motor of 250kW.
To roll barley at 2TPH requires a 7.5kW motor.
So, frankly, I seriously doubt these figures.
>and 11.0 GJ/tbiodiesel for further processing
>into fatty acid methyl esters. You would have to track back to the
>sources for these data for a further breakdown.
Again this seems unlikely. The truly vast amount of heat this process
would produce would run a very large powerstation on the waste heat.
>The 428 MJ/t figure is from ECOTEC Research Ltd (1999) Financial and
>Environmental Impact of Bio diesel as an Alternative to Fossil Diesel
>in the UK. Report prepared for British Association for Bio Fuels and
>Oils.
Someone has slipped up, I am pretty sure. Possibly by a whole decimal
place.
>The 11.0 GJ/t figure is from Gover et al (1996) Alternative Road
>Transport Fuels - A Preliminary Life Cycle Study for the UK.
>Vol. 2. ETSU, London, HMSO.
Maybe. Let's see their working.
>Cake has been given energy credit only for its energy equivalent
>as used as fertilizer,
Oh come off it!
It's a top quality animal feed and contains energy equivalent to about
75% of the same weight of starch.
>and for N only for the 50 % estimated to be
>utilized the first year. A content of 6% N, 2.7% P2O5 and 1.9% K2O
>has been estimated in the cake, energy equivalents 38 GJ/tN, 3 GJ/t
>P2O5, 5 GJ/tK2O has been used.
What a con trick!
So who is trying to make the figures come out "right"!
>The calculation is assuming set aside land being used for production,
>meaning the cake cannot be used for feed, which is why feed energy
>equivalent has not been used.
That's a different calculation, not to do with energy balance but
politics. In any case given very large quantities of easily fermentable
product at hugely less than it's energy value, I'm sure other industrial
processes would find it an excellent feedstock. Heck, you could ferment
it to ethanol (say) and still sell off the NPK at the end.
>(This, contrary the other part of the LEV study --
>bio ethanol production from wheat -- which does -not- come out
>with an energy surplus for fossil fuel substitution, unless
>energy credits are given to straw and byproducts)
I have some doubts about this too. In my experience given adequate scale
and a reliable feedstock, industrial processes can be made very
efficient indeed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if starch could be
converted directly to ethanol without a fermentation and distillation
stage if it became worthwhile.
Oz
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:C+Bd2tAE...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> Tim Kozusko writes
>> >Actually, as life forms go we are efficie
>> >nt. "Higher" life forms have
>> >maximized efficiency of energy use while many "lower" life forms
>maximized
>> >their rates of energy use.
>>
>> Garbage.
>>
>> We 'waste' most of our food just to keep warm. Feed a mammal and it
>> needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine.
>
>Context pal, context. If you read it again you'll see I said compared to
>less highly derived organisms that maximized rate instead of efficiency. My
>statement was that of inefficient life we are the more efficient.
Hardly. Most people move very little, consume huge amounts of energy per
organism, and produce little useful work.
>Cold blooded vs. warm blooded is irrelevant as both mammals and reptiles use
>the same ATP process to power themselves.
Except mammals also use it to waste energy in order to keep warm.
In fact it's how they use most of it.
>The sentence "Feed a mammal and
>it needs to eat every day, feed a reptile and once a month or so is fine"
>doesn't even make sense.
It should if you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Tim Kozusko
>
> It should if you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Go to a beginning biology text and look up oxidative phosphorylation. Then
you might know what you are talking about, or at least what I was.
>
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
That's obvious.
Oz
>snip
>>
>>Oz:
>> It should if you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
>
>Go to a beginning biology text and look up oxidative phosphorylation. Then
>you might know what you are talking about, or at least what I was.
I note you carefully snipped you cockup.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Torsten Brinch writes
>>
>>From what is available to me I can only see that the LEV 17.3 GJ/ha
>>for processing has been calculated using 428 MJ/tbiodiesel for rape
>>seed crushing
>Crushing rape is easier than rolling barley (I am told). So lessee, at
>2TPH this works out at about 900 MJ/Hr or a motor of 250kW.
>To roll barley at 2TPH requires a 7.5kW motor.
>So, frankly, I seriously doubt these figures.
An alternative would be to doubt your own understanding
of the scope of the process you are talking about. Man, you
did not even stop long enough to read the unit for the figure
428 :-)
>>and 11.0 GJ/tbiodiesel for further processing
>>into fatty acid methyl esters. You would have to track back to the
>>sources for these data for a further breakdown.
>Again this seems unlikely. The truly vast amount of heat this process
>would produce would run a very large powerstation on the waste heat.
Again, an alternative would be to doubt your understanding
of the process you are talking about. Actually there are -very-
strong indications here, that you don't.
Here, from another source, the energy costs of only the first
part of the process, extracting crude rape seed oil from seed:
3.4 GJ/tcrudeoil (breakdown 0.4 GJ electricity, 2.8 GJ steam
production, 0.16 GJ hexane)
<..>
>>Cake has been given energy credit only for its energy equivalent
>>as used as fertilizer,
>Oh come off it!
>It's a top quality animal feed and contains energy equivalent to about
>75% of the same weight of starch.
As I said, the estimate is for rape seed grown on set aside land,
from which cake cannot be sold as feed, and it is meant to be a
conservative estimate.
<..>
>>the other part of the LEV study --
>>bio ethanol production from wheat -- does -not- come out
>>with an energy surplus for fossil fuel substitution, unless
>>energy credits are given to straw and byproducts)
>I have some doubts about this too. In my experience given adequate scale
>and a reliable feedstock, industrial processes can be made very
>efficient indeed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if starch could be
>converted directly to ethanol without a fermentation and distillation
>stage if it became worthwhile.
The LEV findings for wheat are much in tune with what other
researchers looking into ethanol production from corn
have found:
see
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
"We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers
are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern
ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields,
and energy credits are allocated to coproducts."
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch