alt.energy.renewable

Fran wrote:
> On Mar 13, 11:58 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Mar 13, 7:17 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 5:35 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>>>> Do look up the spirit of 'commons' before you pass judgment.
>>>>
>>>>>> See above. I have no time to decrypt your obfuscation.
>>>>> Hmm the feeling is mutual. You plainly have a different view of whta
>>>>> constitutes the commons....
>>>> http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm
>>> From this source:
>>> |||
>>> What is the Commons?
>>> The "commons" is any resource which is shared by a group of people.
>>> Such things as the air we breath and the water we drink come from
>>> commons. In many parts of the world; new land for farming and grazing
>>> land for stock, fish from the sea, and wood for fuel and housing are
>>> treated as commons.
>>> |||
>>> Note the absence of any exclusions for areas being policed.

>> Note the absence of an inclusions for areas being policed. See my quote.
>>
>
> You started off saying that 'enforcement' excluded things from the
> commons.

Lie in context. Quit making stuff up.

>>> Indeed,
>>> restraints do apply to human acitivites that contaminate air and
>>> water, and yet your source acknowledges that there are indeed commons.
>> "Fourteenth century Britain was organized as a loosely aligned
>> collection of villages, each with a common pasture for villagers to
>> graze horses, cattle and sheep. Each household attempted to gain wealth
>> by putting as many animals on the commons as it could afford. As the
>> village grew in size and more and more animals were placed on the
>> commons, overgrazing ruined the pasture. No stock could be supported on
>> the commons thereafter. As a consequence of population growth, greed,
>> and the logic of the commons, village after village collapsed."
>>
> No doubt, but it's wrong to make absence of rules the precondition for
> something being in the commons....

You are making rules up to suit your adgenda...

>> Lawless use of the commons. No 'our' law.
>
> If the commons were by definition 'lawless' as you imply...

Read the fucking text.

>>> I see no reason for excluding cyberspace from the notion of the
>>> commons, much as it comes under attack from a variety of quarters.

>> And has no relevance to your use of 'our' in the original post.

As I thought.

>>>>>> And how much fuel, just for your cars, do you use a year?
>>>>> About 4000 litres p.a.

>>>> And that is just your car.

>>> [cars: two of them]

Do you know how to edit??????

>>>> It does not include the rest of the
>>>> infrastructure that is part of your life. But just your car, if the
>>>> whole world used the same per person, that is 560 quads of gasoline/year.

>>> The extrapolation is artificial because I propose not that everyone
>>> use 2000l of fuel each year, but that everyone have the scope to live
>>> at least as well as I do. The two aren't the same, for fairly obvious
>>> reasons.

>> Which are?
>
> see below

...

>>> There are all sorts of ways that could allow me to live as
>>> well as I do on far less energy, but these would be measures that
>>> would be taken at government and corporate level.

>> Huh?

...

>>> Almost all of what I
>>> do is a response to the absence of feasible lower energy alternatives.

>> What 'feasible lower energy alternatives' did you have in mind that
>> really has an impact?
>
> Well, as I suggested in my earlier post, there's a hell of a lot that
> could be done...

And my point, which you completly ignore. It has nothing to do with what
we 'could' do. It is our present condition and that we don't. You don't.

>> Alternatives that all 6 billion on the planet will
>> have access to. Alternatives that can and will be put into place quickly
>> enough even to counter the decline in oil we use now, so, not even
>> counting the whole 6 billion.
>>
> The sooner we begin moving in this direction...

Christ. 30 years after it has become obvious and here we are. When will
you accept that all your wants are meaningless? Did you bother to read
the link about "Limits to Growth"?

> India was enormous reserves of thorium, and could easily develop...

You are talking about a country that is so overwhelmed by a left over of
the bureaucracy experiment left by the Brits... Get your head out of
your ass.... These people are helpless.

>>>>>>> Doubtless. The average East Indian lives in circumstances that I find
>>>>>>> to be well below what is minimally necessary for human welfare....

>>>>>> Ahh, but they live. And you are on a pedestal. You really don't get it,
>>>>>> do you?

>>>>> I get that they are entitled to live better -- as well as I live at
>>>>> least.

>>>> How is that possible? It is a cake and eat it to dream. You don't want
>>>> the carbon going into the air but they should have the same access to
>>>> energy as you do?

>>> The same access to life chances -- not the same as the correlation is
>>> not as strong as you imply.

>> I see. Same, but different...
>
> You're comparing two different things....

Read above. Don't play me your idiot. You are getting very boring.

>>>>>>> I live
>>>>>>> quite a bit above it.

>>>>>> But bitch your head off.
>>>>> Err ... I criticise current arrangements .... is that what you mean?

>>>>>> Do you see the hypocorism?

>>>>> No ... I don't. I call for arrangements that would improve the
>>>>> circumstances of East Indians, if necessary, at the expense of
>>>>> Australians, including me.

>>>> How!? Do you have any idea what the numbers say? You can't just wish
>>>> them your lifestyle if the energy isn't there.

>>> Oh for pity's sake ...
>>> I live in a major city where far too many passenger miles are done in
>>> single occupant vehicles during periods when the occupation of the
>>> roads is so intensive that each vehicle is running at very poor
>>> efficiency. If the city were more consolidated, and a better range of
>>> public transport options was available, then per capita energy
>>> consumption would sharply decline.

>> But it is the reality. I know it is insanity, you seem to get that. But
>> you are part of it, a victim of the system it seems.
>
> It's true that I'm not in charge of making policy....

So use the oil, create global warming, and blame all the others. You are
special.

>>> We pump water miles into suburbia
>>> by the gigalitre, not because people are thirsty or need to wash but
>>> to allow them to water copious European-style lawns and gardens, which
>>> they then use more fuel to mow. Out there in the burbs, people
>>> typically spend at least 10 hours per week just commuting (I do) and
>>> often a lot more.

>> So, why are you living a lie? You have a choice. And not that you and a
>> few will change anything.
>>
> I'm not sure I do have a choice in practice....

But you stand in judgment. What makes you so special?

>>>>>>>> Look at the numbers and put crop fuels into context. Look at the cost of
>>>>>>>> food lately.

>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with biofuels, and much to do with the structures
>>>>>>> through which food is marketed..

>>>>>> Do show your study....
>>>>> Well you could look at the faiulure of the Dohar round for a start ...

>>>> Huh?????http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/14358/ethanol-the-fuel-of-m...
>>> Is sugar protected in the US? yes or no?

>> Explain your question in the context of using crop fuels for food.
>
> Because the main reason that corn is used is the fact that sugar is
> too expensive. And sugar is too expensive in the US because ...
> there's a price support scheme for it to keep out non-US sugar.
>
>>> BTW ... raising livestock for food is a very water- and energy-
>>> inefficient way to produce bioavailable human protein.

>> I had already said as much to Bill, today. Are you reading this thread?
>
> I must have missed that

...

>>>> Now read what I wrote, about what you really get for this. See 'chicken
>>>> little'.http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

...

>>>>>>> I'm not throwing in the towel though. Australia has masses of highly
>>>>>>> insolated land, and masses of sub-potable water. We also have
>>>>>>> something called 'the great artesian basin' sitting underneath most of
>>>>>>> that desert....

>>>>>> I see, to hell with the rest of the world. Australia will survive after
>>>>>> 3 billion die.

>>>>> You left out all of the material connecting my claim with your
>>>>> conclusions: a copy and paste error no doubt, which I'm sure you're
>>>>> anxious to correct.

>>>> Are you talking about:
>>>> "Australia probably has enough land with access to
>>>> water that is marginal in terms of regular cropping but which would
>>>> fit biomass to supply most of East Asia with algae and other biomass-
>>>> derived oil and alcohol fuels."
>> Hmmmm...

Hmmm....

>>>> Join yahoo's oil_from_algae. Talk of oil from algae is not evidence that
>>>> it will amount to anything for a very very long time.

>>> At between 5000 and 15000 US gallons of diesel per acre per year,
>>> that's a fair bit -- and we haven't even counted in the starch to
>>> alcohol.

>> Cite? Cost and feasibility. What strain of algae do you have in mind?
>> What kind of infrastructure for 10,000 gallons/acre? You are talking a
>> million acres of infrastructure, with operations, per quad per year. The
>> world demand 175 quads/year now and will demand another 75 quads in less
>> than 20 years. Throwing a single number out in isolation is meaningless.
>>
> http://www.moraassociates.com/content/publications/0707%20Biodiesel%20from%20algae%20oil.pdf

Nothing here. Quote if you have something in mind.

> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Apparently you have no idea what foofoo is and a study is.

> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf

A what if. No date? None of what I asked for? You don't understand. I
can go on the internet and 'prove' anything. But you will not get the
papers that have 'real' content. Look at my question if you plan to try
this again.

> The last two links do detailed modelling ... the last is the endnote
> listed at "3" in Briggs' discussion.

What part of 'SHOW ME A STUDY', don't you understand?

>>>> Crops will _never_ amount to much. Not for 6 billion people and growing...

>>> So you say. They could contribute quite significantly, and reduce the
>>> debt burden on poor nations for oil.

>> The numbers have been beat to death, at least here on sci.energy. I've
>> yet to see a meaningful number from you.

> Well plough through the above ... by all means ...

Above what? You have posted zilch as far as crop fuels are concerned.
You are getting very boring......

I've been here before with you. All I see is a blow hard better than
most. No substance, just a lot of talk like you know better.....