by GRA (Posted Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:20:55 GMT)
Yes, it's too easy to miss the importance of the message once our buttons start getting pushed.![;)]( "Wink")
As I've said in the past, I'm a retired intelligence analyst. I realize that means absolutely nothing to most people.![;)]( "Wink")
What it means at the very least is that I have a bunch (yes, that's a technical term ![;)]( "Wink")
) of experience in research, data validation, etc. I've been involved in producing low-level information, analysis, reporting, fusion, high-level consolidation, information brokering... The reason I recommended Blume's book is precisely because I've been studying permaculture for a number of years and have been implementing the lessons and have personal experience that confirms it works. With regards to ethanol for fuel, I used to be against it - and have posted as such on this forum. Then came Oreske's 'merchants of doubt' and other books...that led to slogging through the chain of 'facts' on ethanol one by one and tracing them to their sources. What I found was that my opinion on the viability of ethanol was based on fossil fuel industry disinformation.
Blume wrote his book as a companion to a 10-part PBS series contracted by a SF Bay station (KQED). Once it started to air, one of the station's financial supporters said they'd pull their money of the series was allowed to continue. If ethanol is not a viable fuel, why did Chevron push so hard to kill the show and try to kill the book? http://www.permaculture.com/node/277
Andy, KQED is my local PBS affiliate, which I watch regularly. I don't remember the show, and it may well be that Chevron killed it. My take on that was, so what? That's the past, I want to hear about the science and economics, not whether Blume felt he was being being muzzled by the big bad corporation, or his politics. As it happens, big bad oil corporations have been responsible for the commercialization of Lithium batteries (Exxon), dropping the price of solar modules by an order of magnitude (Exxon primarily, then Arco), and they're now involved in biofuel development; see the relevant section of R.F. Since he was able to get the book published, and the Internet has been available for him to disseminate his ideas for quite some time now it's obvious that any attempted muzzling didn't work, so it's irrelevant to me, as (should be) his political beliefs. Let's move on.
Sorry, with my lousy hearing watching videos that aren't closed-captioned doesn't work.
As for permaculture and fuel:
http://charleseisenstein.net/permaculture-and-the-myth-of-scarcity/
http://www.whale.to/a/blume.html
I've yet to find that anything in the book is incorrect or even 'stretched' - on either ethanol or permaculture. And yes - I've been trying to find the holes.
Bottom line - the man's been making ethanol fuel since before his time at NASA in the late 1970s - I think he's got plenty of good reasons to be enthusiastic about the topic.
I will absolutely admit that Blume's not wearing his 'mainstream' glasses when writing. And I think it's important that you and others understand that and try to meet him and others where they are because the information they have to give is very important. Permaculture, for just one example, is focused on restoration. It's not about 'sustainability' as that's nothing more than putting $100 in the bank and withdrawing $100 next year. It's about restoration - and permanent production. That's depositing $100 and not only withdrawing $125 every year, but being able to do that until the sun stops shining. That's a completely different point of view.[/quote]
Let me be clear -I'm not objecting to Blume or anyone else's ability to make biofuels. Quite frankly, the chemistry is over my head, so I can't comment on it. My concern, as I stated, is that while individual hobbyists may be able to do this, what's needed is large-scale, cost-effective industrial production in a hurry, and that can't be done bottom up in the limited time I believe we have. Ever source I've read that really goes into the economics of harvesting, transport, processing etc. says that biofuels are primarily cost-effective for localized use at the moment. Not being able to afford to upgrade rented land or buy it, is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about - this isn't a commercial concern, it's a hobby. Producing large quantities require large resources and capital. So far, we know that cellulosic ethanol hasn't taken off the way the enthusiasts predicted (gas companies didn't have enough to blend to meet the EPA requirements this year, and you can bet if there was money to be made the big agro companies would be making it). In this forum several of us have pointed out the low power density, high costs and small production of Sapphire Energy's algae 'plant', showing that even if it's producing at full volume the quantities will be minimal. In short, it's not yet ready for prime time even assuming everything goes exactly as planned, which is unlikely.
I'll wait until you've read the book, and then we can come back to discuss nukes.
See my comments above.
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
FWIW, I read the book on biofuels that you recommended to me last year (sorry, forget the author and title), along with this one http://www.amazon.com/Biofuel-Delusion- ... 1844076814. Can't say the one you recommended changed my opinion on the scale of biofuels that we could likely sustain or the economics, as I felt the author was far too emotionally engaged with his subject to be objective (his oil company conspiracy rant and praise for the Sandinistas in the forward undoubtedly set my bias filters pretty high to start with). The anti-large-scale biofuel book is much more to my taste as a matter of presentation (i.e. scientific); Mackay's book being my ideal model of presentation for a general audience.
Yes, it's too easy to miss the importance of the message once our buttons start getting pushed.
As I've said in the past, I'm a retired intelligence analyst. I realize that means absolutely nothing to most people.
What it means at the very least is that I have a bunch (yes, that's a technical term ) of experience in research, data validation, etc. I've been involved in producing low-level information, analysis, reporting, fusion, high-level consolidation, information brokering... The reason I recommended Blume's book is precisely because I've been studying permaculture for a number of years and have been implementing the lessons and have personal experience that confirms it works. With regards to ethanol for fuel, I used to be against it - and have posted as such on this forum. Then came Oreske's 'merchants of doubt' and other books...that led to slogging through the chain of 'facts' on ethanol one by one and tracing them to their sources. What I found was that my opinion on the viability of ethanol was based on fossil fuel industry disinformation.Blume wrote his book as a companion to a 10-part PBS series contracted by a SF Bay station (KQED). Once it started to air, one of the station's financial supporters said they'd pull their money of the series was allowed to continue. If ethanol is not a viable fuel, why did Chevron push so hard to kill the show and try to kill the book? http://www.permaculture.com/node/277
Andy, KQED is my local PBS affiliate, which I watch regularly. I don't remember the show, and it may well be that Chevron killed it. My take on that was, so what? That's the past, I want to hear about the science and economics, not whether Blume felt he was being being muzzled by the big bad corporation, or his politics. As it happens, big bad oil corporations have been responsible for the commercialization of Lithium batteries (Exxon), dropping the price of solar modules by an order of magnitude (Exxon primarily, then Arco), and they're now involved in biofuel development; see the relevant section of R.F. Since he was able to get the book published, and the Internet has been available for him to disseminate his ideas for quite some time now it's obvious that any attempted muzzling didn't work, so it's irrelevant to me, as (should be) his political beliefs. Let's move on.
AndyH wrote:
Watch the video:
Sorry, with my lousy hearing watching videos that aren't closed-captioned doesn't work.
As for permaculture and fuel:
http://charleseisenstein.net/permaculture-and-the-myth-of-scarcity/
http://www.whale.to/a/blume.html
Quote:
As far as I know I was one of the only farmers fully utilizing permaculture to produce surplus food for sale in the US as a full time occupation. On approximately two acres— half of which was on a terraced 35 degree slope—I produced enough food to feed more than 300 people (with a peak of 450 people at one point), 49 weeks a year in my fully organic CSA on the edge of Silicon Valley . If I could do it there you can do it anywhere.
I did this for almost nine years until I lost the lease to my rented land. My yields were often 8 times what the USDA claims are possible per square foot. My soil fertility increased dramatically each year so I was not achieving my yields by mining my soil. On the contrary I built my soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch. By the end I was at over 22% organic matter with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) of over 25. CEC is an indirect measure of soil humus or the ability of the soil to hold nutrients available to crops. The higher the number the more nutrients are stored and available. For reference, most Class I commercial agricultural soil is lucky to hit 2% organic matter—the dividing line between a living and dead soil—with a CEC around 5.
At most times I had no more than half of my land under production with the rest in various stages of cover cropping. And I was only producing at a fraction of what would have been possible if I had owned the land and could have justified the investment into an overstory of integrated tree, berry, flower and nut crops along with the various vegetable and fruit crops. The farm produced so much income that I was routinely in the top 15% of organic farms in California (which has over 2000 organic farms) in most years on a fraction of the land that my colleagues were using. I grew over 45 different kinds of crops so my financial success cannot be attributed to growing a few high value crops like Yuppie Chow (salad mix).
I did this for almost nine years until I lost the lease to my rented land. My yields were often 8 times what the USDA claims are possible per square foot. My soil fertility increased dramatically each year so I was not achieving my yields by mining my soil. On the contrary I built my soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch. By the end I was at over 22% organic matter with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) of over 25. CEC is an indirect measure of soil humus or the ability of the soil to hold nutrients available to crops. The higher the number the more nutrients are stored and available. For reference, most Class I commercial agricultural soil is lucky to hit 2% organic matter—the dividing line between a living and dead soil—with a CEC around 5.
At most times I had no more than half of my land under production with the rest in various stages of cover cropping. And I was only producing at a fraction of what would have been possible if I had owned the land and could have justified the investment into an overstory of integrated tree, berry, flower and nut crops along with the various vegetable and fruit crops. The farm produced so much income that I was routinely in the top 15% of organic farms in California (which has over 2000 organic farms) in most years on a fraction of the land that my colleagues were using. I grew over 45 different kinds of crops so my financial success cannot be attributed to growing a few high value crops like Yuppie Chow (salad mix).
I've yet to find that anything in the book is incorrect or even 'stretched' - on either ethanol or permaculture. And yes - I've been trying to find the holes.
Bottom line - the man's been making ethanol fuel since before his time at NASA in the late 1970s - I think he's got plenty of good reasons to be enthusiastic about the topic.
I will absolutely admit that Blume's not wearing his 'mainstream' glasses when writing. And I think it's important that you and others understand that and try to meet him and others where they are because the information they have to give is very important. Permaculture, for just one example, is focused on restoration. It's not about 'sustainability' as that's nothing more than putting $100 in the bank and withdrawing $100 next year. It's about restoration - and permanent production. That's depositing $100 and not only withdrawing $125 every year, but being able to do that until the sun stops shining. That's a completely different point of view.[/quote]
Let me be clear -I'm not objecting to Blume or anyone else's ability to make biofuels. Quite frankly, the chemistry is over my head, so I can't comment on it. My concern, as I stated, is that while individual hobbyists may be able to do this, what's needed is large-scale, cost-effective industrial production in a hurry, and that can't be done bottom up in the limited time I believe we have. Ever source I've read that really goes into the economics of harvesting, transport, processing etc. says that biofuels are primarily cost-effective for localized use at the moment. Not being able to afford to upgrade rented land or buy it, is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about - this isn't a commercial concern, it's a hobby. Producing large quantities require large resources and capital. So far, we know that cellulosic ethanol hasn't taken off the way the enthusiasts predicted (gas companies didn't have enough to blend to meet the EPA requirements this year, and you can bet if there was money to be made the big agro companies would be making it). In this forum several of us have pointed out the low power density, high costs and small production of Sapphire Energy's algae 'plant', showing that even if it's producing at full volume the quantities will be minimal. In short, it's not yet ready for prime time even assuming everything goes exactly as planned, which is unlikely.
AndyH wrote:
As for nuclear - as I've said, I've been pro-nuclear power since I was in high school. My first career plan was the Navy nuclear propulsion program. I am a fan of the way the US Navy uses nuclear propulsion - they're small, standardized, safe, and are maintained to remain safe.
I have two major problems with pushing civilian nuclear power today. The first is that corporations are interested in profit above all else - they must be! And civilian operators have a long history of manipulating regulation, cutting corners, and contaminating the environment. That's strike one. The second problem is one of our climate. We must cut carbon emissions today - not in 2070 when we could get a significant number of reactors on-line. We cannot get enough new generation on-line quickly enough, and then actually refuel them for the 100 or so years we need in order to help our climate problem.
Sure, maybe 4th gen reactors are better, maybe they can 'burn' waste and old bombs, maybe they can be made small, produced by the thousands, and buried in everyone's backyard. But they're still vaporware! We don't have the standardized designs, we don't have the proven reactors, we don't have the fuel processors or supply chain in place to field the things even if they WERE available.
I say again: Keep all of the currently operating SAFE nuclear power plants on-line and run them hard. Take them off-line only when they become unsafe. And keep planting wind and solar arrays - we've got the supply chain (and it's expanding), we've got the necessary tech, and we've installed enough that we're 'going vertical' on the geometric growth curve.
It simply doesn't matter to me if we can store our waste in casks, or in Yucca Mountain, or that a single gen 4 demo nuke is operating in China - none of those capabilities changes the fact that if we are not in a position to install THOUSANDS of these reactors in the next five years then we have no choice but to install the hell out of the zero-carbon sources we DO have available.
I have two major problems with pushing civilian nuclear power today. The first is that corporations are interested in profit above all else - they must be! And civilian operators have a long history of manipulating regulation, cutting corners, and contaminating the environment. That's strike one. The second problem is one of our climate. We must cut carbon emissions today - not in 2070 when we could get a significant number of reactors on-line. We cannot get enough new generation on-line quickly enough, and then actually refuel them for the 100 or so years we need in order to help our climate problem.
Sure, maybe 4th gen reactors are better, maybe they can 'burn' waste and old bombs, maybe they can be made small, produced by the thousands, and buried in everyone's backyard. But they're still vaporware! We don't have the standardized designs, we don't have the proven reactors, we don't have the fuel processors or supply chain in place to field the things even if they WERE available.
I say again: Keep all of the currently operating SAFE nuclear power plants on-line and run them hard. Take them off-line only when they become unsafe. And keep planting wind and solar arrays - we've got the supply chain (and it's expanding), we've got the necessary tech, and we've installed enough that we're 'going vertical' on the geometric growth curve.
It simply doesn't matter to me if we can store our waste in casks, or in Yucca Mountain, or that a single gen 4 demo nuke is operating in China - none of those capabilities changes the fact that if we are not in a position to install THOUSANDS of these reactors in the next five years then we have no choice but to install the hell out of the zero-carbon sources we DO have available.
I'll wait until you've read the book, and then we can come back to discuss nukes.
AndyH wrote:
Back to Blume's book: I absolutely dare you to find something there that is wrong with regards to either ethanol fuel or permaculture. Bring it on! Yes - that's a Double-Dog Dare. ![:lol:]( "Laughing")
See my comments above.