Friam

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Classic

List

Threaded

18 messages Options

Douglas Roberts-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

It is nicely described here:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/8a275526/attachment.html

Martin C. Martin-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Aren't the main causes of hunger political rather than supply or
technological? I think we have the technology and resources to feed the
world population many times over. The poorest countries seem to be run
by despots that use food as a weapon. Although, I'm not sure how
tightening supply and creating new markets would help/hurt things.

- Martin

Douglas Roberts wrote:

> It is nicely described here:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the bodies in
the world by all the food in the world, and discover that there is not
enough to go around, political boundaries notwithstanding. I don't know
when that particular point in time will arrive, but I am convinced that in
the absence a large population die-off (as compared to the current
exponential global population growth that we are witnessing), arriving
sooner or later at that point in time is a certainty.

Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one person for a
f*cking tank of gas galls me.

--Doug

On 8/16/06, Martin C. Martin <martin at martincmartin.com> wrote:

>
> Aren't the main causes of hunger political rather than supply or
> technological? I think we have the technology and resources to feed the
> world population many times over. The poorest countries seem to be run
> by despots that use food as a weapon. Although, I'm not sure how
> tightening supply and creating new markets would help/hurt things.
>
> - Martin
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > It is nicely described here:
> >
> >
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> > doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Marcus G. Daniels-3

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Quoting Douglas Roberts <doug at parrot-farm.net>:

> Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one person for a
> f*cking tank of gas galls me.

Ethanol fuel also strikes me as backward. A way to give the gas distributors
something to do, I figure.

Phosphate and/or Lithium battery technology makes more sense to me.

http://www.valence.com/saphion.asp
http://www.hymotion.com

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Malthus sighting reported, airport lounge, talking to Elvis.

1) Food shortages currently have much more to do with barriers to
transportation, including wars and corrupt governments, as well as
breakdowns of markets - inability to trade profitably for various
reasons.

2) Land availability isn't really a problem - efficiency in agriculture,
including
genetically modified plants improves crop yield and sustainability,
while there are still vast areas of land open to cultivation. Water supply
is a more pressing problem, however, as is the oil required to take care
of growing these plants. Where the race is for improving land and desert
reclamation, water desalinization, faster growing crops, ocean-based
crops, etc. I would guess that we'll manage the race on this front,
aside from the oil issue.

3) As a vegetarian, I can complain that all these crops go to feed a cow as
the "middle man" on the way to a steak dinner - as inefficient as
growing crops
for a tank of gas. However, we have to be a little historic - nature was
converting crops and biomatter into oil for millions of years just for our
spoiled little selves to exhaust, so just because we now get to see the
process
accelerated doesn't make it less moral. After all, a number of now extinct
dinosaurs could have used those veggie burgers if they hadn't been
turned into our oil.

4) While I'm not impressed with ethanol as a fuel replacement, it does 2
important
things. First, it focuses us on vastly improving agricultural
efficiency, which means
as a side-effect we're liable to get some cheaper foods where cost of
food really
is a problem (okay, it also exacerbates water problems. Sigh). Secondly,
it's at least
a step towards getting us away from the oil-only paradigm, and hopefully
that means
other steps will follow. This includes moving past the Middle
East-dominated energy
cartel as a political issue, as well as opening up the positive
Pandora's Box of once you
start taking alternative fuels as serious, economically sound options,
versus the ridiculous
naysaying of the 2000 election, then there's less market resistance to
actually deploying
these solutions.

So I guess I feel at this point that any movement is better than none,
and that it's peripheral
to the starvation issue despite seeming closely related.

Cheers,
Bill

Douglas Roberts wrote:

> At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the bodies
> in the world by all the food in the world, and discover that there is
> not enough to go around, political boundaries notwithstanding. I
> don't know when that particular point in time will arrive, but I am
> convinced that in the absence a large population die-off (as compared
> to the current exponential global population growth that we are
> witnessing), arriving sooner or later at that point in time is a
> certainty.
>
> Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one person for
> a f*cking tank of gas galls me.
>
> --Doug
>
> On 8/16/06, *Martin C. Martin* <martin at martincmartin.com
> <mailto:martin at martincmartin.com>> wrote:
>
> Aren't the main causes of hunger political rather than supply or
> technological? I think we have the technology and resources to
> feed the
> world population many times over. The poorest countries seem to
> be run
> by despots that use food as a weapon. Although, I'm not sure how
> tightening supply and creating new markets would help/hurt things.
>
> - Martin
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > It is nicely described here:
> >
> >
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> <mailto:droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>>
> > doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>>
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/e060f151/attachment.html

Douglas Roberts-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Well, perhaps I'm completely wrong, and there is always going to be the
ability to produce plenty of food for our exponentially growing world
population. But I don't believe it. On a related topic, let's hear how
we're going to address this issue:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/wl_nm/environment_water_dc_2

Perhaps, as the new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory has claimed,
wonders will be worked through the implementation of miraculous improvements
in efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of exponentiation, at least when it
comes to the compound interest law. Not, however, when it involves
populations breeding beyond the food supply's ability to sustain.

--Doug

On 8/16/06, Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> wrote:

>
>
> Malthus sighting reported, airport lounge, talking to Elvis.
>
> 1) Food shortages currently have much more to do with barriers to
> transportation, including wars and corrupt governments, as well as
> breakdowns of markets - inability to trade profitably for various
> reasons.
>
> 2) Land availability isn't really a problem - efficiency in agriculture,
> including
> genetically modified plants improves crop yield and sustainability,
> while there are still vast areas of land open to cultivation. Water supply
> is a more pressing problem, however, as is the oil required to take care
> of growing these plants. Where the race is for improving land and desert
> reclamation, water desalinization, faster growing crops, ocean-based
> crops, etc. I would guess that we'll manage the race on this front,
> aside from the oil issue.
>
> 3) As a vegetarian, I can complain that all these crops go to feed a cow
> as
> the "middle man" on the way to a steak dinner - as inefficient as growing
> crops
> for a tank of gas. However, we have to be a little historic - nature was
> converting crops and biomatter into oil for millions of years just for our
> spoiled little selves to exhaust, so just because we now get to see the
> process
> accelerated doesn't make it less moral. After all, a number of now extinct
> dinosaurs could have used those veggie burgers if they hadn't been turned
> into our oil.
>
> 4) While I'm not impressed with ethanol as a fuel replacement, it does 2
> important
> things. First, it focuses us on vastly improving agricultural efficiency,
> which means
> as a side-effect we're liable to get some cheaper foods where cost of food
> really
> is a problem (okay, it also exacerbates water problems. Sigh). Secondly,
> it's at least
> a step towards getting us away from the oil-only paradigm, and hopefully
> that means
> other steps will follow. This includes moving past the Middle
> East-dominated energy
> cartel as a political issue, as well as opening up the positive Pandora's
> Box of once you
> start taking alternative fuels as serious, economically sound options,
> versus the ridiculous
> naysaying of the 2000 election, then there's less market resistance to
> actually deploying
> these solutions.
>
> So I guess I feel at this point that any movement is better than none, and
> that it's peripheral
> to the starvation issue despite seeming closely related.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the bodies in
> the world by all the food in the world, and discover that there is not
> enough to go around, political boundaries notwithstanding. I don't know
> when that particular point in time will arrive, but I am convinced that in
> the absence a large population die-off (as compared to the current
> exponential global population growth that we are witnessing), arriving
> sooner or later at that point in time is a certainty.
>
> Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one person for a
> f*cking tank of gas galls me.
>
> --Doug
>
> On 8/16/06, Martin C. Martin <martin at martincmartin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Aren't the main causes of hunger political rather than supply or
> > technological? I think we have the technology and resources to feed the
> > world population many times over. The poorest countries seem to be run
> > by despots that use food as a weapon. Although, I'm not sure how
> > tightening supply and creating new markets would help/hurt things.
> >
> > - Martin
> >
> > Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > > It is nicely described here:
> > >
> > >
> > http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm
> > >
> > > --Doug
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > > droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> > > doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Well, perhaps I'm completely wrong, and there is always going to be
> the ability to produce plenty of food for our exponentially growing
> world population.
Perhaps not an exponential population growth rate (those spikes and dips
in the 1950's and 1960's probably had a lot to do with Chairman Mao -
"the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million [in 1976],
from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_War> and the Chinese Civil War"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War>
as well as the 1959-1962 deaths from the "Great Leap Forward"
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg>

> But I don't believe it. On a related topic, let's hear how we're
> going to address this issue:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/wl_nm/environment_water_dc_2
>
I did note that water was a greater worry in this area than availability
of land.
Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:

In 1990, when I first read that 10 people could be fed with the
grain that you would feed a cow that would be turned into food for
one person, I was impressed. But I was not moved. The reason: If 10
people would be fed because I gave up meat, I'd give it up. But, I
thought, if I give up meat, it won't have that impact: it probably
won't have any impact on anything at all, except me.

I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
would have been moved.
...John Robbins points out that in the 1980s and 1990s, to conserve
water, most of us went to low-flow showerheads. If you take a daily
seven-minute shower, he says, and you have a 2-gallon-per-minute
low-flow showerhead, you use about 100 gallons of water per week, or
5,200 gallons of water per year. If you had used the old-fashioned
3-gallon-per-minute showerhead, I calculate you would have used
7,644 gallons of water per year. So by going low flow, you saved
almost 2,500 gallons of water per year. Wonderful. But by giving up
one pound of beef that year, you'd save maybe double that.

(I'm not sure I absolutely believe these astronomical water figures, but
I do believe they're high)

> Perhaps, as the new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory has
> claimed, wonders will be worked through the implementation of
> miraculous improvements in efficiency.
Please note that the efficiency gains below are for the most part
without the relatively recent genetically modified grains,
which as one focus includes improved plant usage of water.

>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of exponentiation, at least
> when it comes to the compound interest law. Not, however, when it
> involves populations breeding beyond the food supply's ability to sustain.
>
> --Doug
>
> On 8/16/06, *Bill Eldridge* <dcbill at volny.cz <mailto:dcbill at volny.cz>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Malthus sighting reported, airport lounge, talking to Elvis.
>
> 1) Food shortages currently have much more to do with barriers to
> transportation, including wars and corrupt governments, as well as
> breakdowns of markets - inability to trade profitably for various
> reasons.
>
> 2) Land availability isn't really a problem - efficiency in
> agriculture, including
> genetically modified plants improves crop yield and sustainability,
> while there are still vast areas of land open to cultivation.
> Water supply
> is a more pressing problem, however, as is the oil required to
> take care
> of growing these plants. Where the race is for improving land and
> desert
> reclamation, water desalinization, faster growing crops, ocean-based
> crops, etc. I would guess that we'll manage the race on this front,
> aside from the oil issue.
>
> 3) As a vegetarian, I can complain that all these crops go to feed
> a cow as
> the "middle man" on the way to a steak dinner - as inefficient as
> growing crops
> for a tank of gas. However, we have to be a little historic -
> nature was
> converting crops and biomatter into oil for millions of years just
> for our
> spoiled little selves to exhaust, so just because we now get to
> see the process
> accelerated doesn't make it less moral. After all, a number of now
> extinct
> dinosaurs could have used those veggie burgers if they hadn't been
> turned into our oil.
>
> 4) While I'm not impressed with ethanol as a fuel replacement, it
> does 2 important
> things. First, it focuses us on vastly improving agricultural
> efficiency, which means
> as a side-effect we're liable to get some cheaper foods where cost
> of food really
> is a problem (okay, it also exacerbates water problems. Sigh).
> Secondly, it's at least
> a step towards getting us away from the oil-only paradigm, and
> hopefully that means
> other steps will follow. This includes moving past the Middle
> East-dominated energy
> cartel as a political issue, as well as opening up the positive
> Pandora's Box of once you
> start taking alternative fuels as serious, economically sound
> options, versus the ridiculous
> naysaying of the 2000 election, then there's less market
> resistance to actually deploying
> these solutions.
>
> So I guess I feel at this point that any movement is better than
> none, and that it's peripheral
> to the starvation issue despite seeming closely related.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the
> bodies in the world by all the food in the world, and discover
> that there is not enough to go around, political boundaries
> notwithstanding. I don't know when that particular point in time
> will arrive, but I am convinced that in the absence a large
> population die-off (as compared to the current exponential global
> population growth that we are witnessing), arriving sooner or
> later at that point in time is a certainty.
>
> Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one person
> for a f*cking tank of gas galls me.
>
> --Doug
>
> On 8/16/06, *Martin C. Martin* <martin at martincmartin.com
> <mailto:martin at martincmartin.com>> wrote:
>
> Aren't the main causes of hunger political rather than supply or
> technological? I think we have the technology and resources
> to feed the
> world population many times over. The poorest countries seem
> to be run
> by despots that use food as a weapon. Although, I'm not sure how
> tightening supply and creating new markets would help/hurt things.
>
> - Martin
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > It is nicely described here:
> >
> > http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> <mailto:droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>>
> > doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>>
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/1bdeca43/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 800px-World_population_increase_history.svg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25772 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/1bdeca43/attachment-0001.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-8.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 57943 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/1bdeca43/attachment-0003.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-11.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 51085 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/1bdeca43/attachment-0004.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-12.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42091 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/1bdeca43/attachment-0005.jpg

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Bill Eldridge wrote:
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> Well, perhaps I'm completely wrong, and there is always going to be
>> the ability to produce plenty of food for our exponentially growing
>> world population.
Perhaps not an exponential population growth rate (those spikes and dips
in the 1950's and 1960's probably had a lot to do with Chairman Mao -
"the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million [in 1976],
from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_War> and the Chinese Civil War"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War>
as well as the 1959-1962 deaths from the "Great Leap Forward"

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg>
>
>
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg>
>
>> But I don't believe it. On a related topic, let's hear how we're
>> going to address this issue:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/wl_nm/environment_water_dc_2
>>
I did note that water was a greater worry in this area than availability
of land.
Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:

In 1990, when I first read that 10 people could be fed with the
grain that you would feed a cow that would be turned into food for
one person, I was impressed. But I was not moved. The reason: If 10
people would be fed because I gave up meat, I'd give it up. But, I
thought, if I give up meat, it won't have that impact: it probably
won't have any impact on anything at all, except me.

I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
would have been moved.
...John Robbins points out that in the 1980s and 1990s, to conserve
water, most of us went to low-flow showerheads. If you take a daily
seven-minute shower, he says, and you have a 2-gallon-per-minute
low-flow showerhead, you use about 100 gallons of water per week, or
5,200 gallons of water per year. If you had used the old-fashioned
3-gallon-per-minute showerhead, I calculate you would have used
7,644 gallons of water per year. So by going low flow, you saved
almost 2,500 gallons of water per year. Wonderful. But by giving up
one pound of beef that year, you'd save maybe double that.

(I'm not sure I absolutely believe these astronomical water figures, but
I do believe they're high)
Anyway, back to crop efficiency.
>
>
>> Perhaps, as the new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory has
>> claimed, wonders will be worked through the implementation of
>> miraculous improvements in efficiency.
Please note that the efficiency gains below are for the most part
without the relatively recent genetically modified grains,
which as one focus includes improved plant usage of water.

>
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of exponentiation, at least
>> when it comes to the compound interest law. Not, however, when it
>> involves populations breeding beyond the food supply's ability to
>> sustain.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On 8/16/06, *Bill Eldridge* <dcbill at volny.cz
>> <mailto:dcbill at volny.cz>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Malthus sighting reported, airport lounge, talking to Elvis.
>>
>> ...
>> 2) Land availability isn't really a problem - efficiency in
>> agriculture, including
>> genetically modified plants improves crop yield and sustainability,
>> while there are still vast areas of land open to cultivation.
>> Water supply
>> is a more pressing problem, however, as is the oil required to
>> take care
>> of growing these plants. Where the race is for improving land and
>> desert
>> reclamation, water desalinization, faster growing crops, ocean-based
>> crops, etc. I would guess that we'll manage the race on this front,
>> aside from the oil issue.
>>
>> 3) As a vegetarian, I can complain that all these crops go to
>> feed a cow as
>> the "middle man" on the way to a steak dinner - as inefficient as
>> growing crops
>> for a tank of gas. However, we have to be a little historic -
>> nature was
>> converting crops and biomatter into oil for millions of years
>> just for our
>> spoiled little selves to exhaust, so just because we now get to
>> see the process
>> accelerated doesn't make it less moral. After all, a number of
>> now extinct
>> dinosaurs could have used those veggie burgers if they hadn't
>> been turned into our oil.
>> ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the
>> bodies in the world by all the food in the world, and discover
>> that there is not enough to go around, political boundaries
>> notwithstanding. I don't know when that particular point in time
>> will arrive, but I am convinced that in the absence a large
>> population die-off (as compared to the current exponential global
>> population growth that we are witnessing), arriving sooner or
>> later at that point in time is a certainty.
>>
>> Given that, trading off a full year's worth of food for one
>> person for a f*cking tank of gas galls me.
>>
>> --Doug
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/c8d05d8c/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-13.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6574 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/c8d05d8c/attachment-0004.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-14.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20366 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/c8d05d8c/attachment-0005.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-15.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18205 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/c8d05d8c/attachment-0006.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-16.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15256 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/c8d05d8c/attachment-0007.jpg

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

>> Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>> Well, perhaps I'm completely wrong, and there is always going to be
>>> the ability to produce plenty of food for our exponentially growing
>>> world population.
Perhaps not an exponential population growth rate (those spikes and dips
in the 1950's and 1960's probably had a lot to do with Chairman Mao -
"the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million [in 1976],
from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_War> and the Chinese Civil War"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War>
as well as the 1959-1962 deaths from the "Great Leap Forward"

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg>

>>> But I don't believe it. On a related topic, let's hear how we're
>>> going to address this issue:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/wl_nm/environment_water_dc_2
I did note that water was a greater worry in this area than availability
of land.
Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:

In 1990, when I first read that 10 people could be fed with the
grain that you would feed a cow that would be turned into food for
one person, I was impressed. But I was not moved. The reason: If 10
people would be fed because I gave up meat, I'd give it up. But, I
thought, if I give up meat, it won't have that impact: it probably
won't have any impact on anything at all, except me.

I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
would have been moved.
...John Robbins points out that in the 1980s and 1990s, to conserve
water, most of us went to low-flow showerheads. If you take a daily
seven-minute shower, he says, and you have a 2-gallon-per-minute
low-flow showerhead, you use about 100 gallons of water per week, or
5,200 gallons of water per year. If you had used the old-fashioned
3-gallon-per-minute showerhead, I calculate you would have used
7,644 gallons of water per year. So by going low flow, you saved
almost 2,500 gallons of water per year. Wonderful. But by giving up
one pound of beef that year, you'd save maybe double that.

(I'm not sure I absolutely believe these astronomical water figures, but
I do believe they're high)
Anyway, back to crop efficiency.

>>
>>> Perhaps, as the new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory has
>>> claimed, wonders will be worked through the implementation of
>>> miraculous improvements in efficiency.
Please note that the efficiency gains below are for the most part
without the relatively recent genetically modified grains,
which as one focus includes improved plant usage of water.

>> Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of exponentiation, at least
>> when it comes to the compound interest law. Not, however, when it
>> involves populations breeding beyond the food supply's ability to
>> sustain.--Doug
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/b668185b/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-17.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6574 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/b668185b/attachment-0004.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-18.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20366 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/b668185b/attachment-0005.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-19.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18205 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/b668185b/attachment-0006.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-20.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15256 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/b668185b/attachment-0007.jpg

Douglas Roberts-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

The magnitude of global population growth rate is a matter of perspective.
The companion graph to the one you presented for growth rate is attached,
and also represents a mere 50 year slice of human history. The bigger
picture is in the second attachment. The point being, of course, that it's
silly to make predictions of future available global resources based on a
mere 50 year trend sample.

Regardless, at current global growth rates we can expect the world's
population of 6.5 billion to double to 13 billion by 2067 and to 26 billion
by 2128. What do you think the price of corn flakes will be then?

Those interesting in watching can go here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

--Doug

On 8/16/06, Bill Eldridge <dcbill at volny.cz> wrote:

>
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Well, perhaps I'm completely wrong, and there is always going to be the
> ability to produce plenty of food for our exponentially growing world
> population.
>
> Perhaps not an exponential population growth rate (those spikes and dips
> in the 1950's and 1960's probably had a lot to do with Chairman Mao -
> "the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million [in 1976],
> from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_War>and the Chinese
> Civil War" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War>
> as well as the 1959-1962 deaths from the "Great Leap Forward"
>
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg>
>
> But I don't believe it. On a related topic, let's hear how we're going
> to address this issue:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/wl_nm/environment_water_dc_2
>
> I did note that water was a greater worry in this area than availability
> of land.
> Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
>
> In 1990, when I first read that 10 people could be fed with the grain
> that you would feed a cow that would be turned into food for one person, I
> was impressed. But I was not moved. The reason: If 10 people would be fed
> because I gave up meat, I'd give it up. But, I thought, if I give up meat,
> it won't have that impact: it probably won't have any impact on anything at
> all, except me.
> I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not eat, I
> would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I would have been
> moved.
> ...John Robbins points out that in the 1980s and 1990s, to conserve water,
> most of us went to low-flow showerheads. If you take a daily seven-minute
> shower, he says, and you have a 2-gallon-per-minute low-flow showerhead, you
> use about 100 gallons of water per week, or 5,200 gallons of water per year.
> If you had used the old-fashioned 3-gallon-per-minute showerhead, I
> calculate you would have used 7,644 gallons of water per year. So by going
> low flow, you saved almost 2,500 gallons of water per year. Wonderful. But
> by giving up one pound of beef that year, you'd save maybe double that.
>
> (I'm not sure I absolutely believe these astronomical water figures, but I
> do believe they're high)
> Anyway, back to crop efficiency.
>
>
> Perhaps, as the new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory has
> claimed, wonders will be worked through the implementation of miraculous
> improvements in efficiency.
>
> Please note that the efficiency gains below are for the most part without
> the relatively recent genetically modified grains,
> which as one focus includes improved plant usage of water.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of exponentiation, at least when
> it comes to the compound interest law. Not, however, when it involves
> populations breeding beyond the food supply's ability to sustain.--Doug
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/53906800/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 740px-World_population_history.svg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16526 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/53906800/attachment-0002.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 550px-Population_curve.svg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8379 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060816/53906800/attachment-0003.png

Martin C. Martin-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Bill Eldridge

Bill Eldridge wrote:
>

> Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
>
> I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
> eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
> would have been moved.

Why doesn't a pound of beef cost more than 2500 gallons of water?
Wouldn't ADM (or whoever cares for the cow) have to pay for that much
water? To make a profit, wouldn't they have to charge more than their
costs?

Confused,
Martin

Douglas Roberts-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Most of that alleged 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water per cow is a
pass-through cost, so to speak.

On 8/16/06, Martin C. Martin <martin at martincmartin.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Bill Eldridge wrote:
> >
>
> > Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
> >
> > I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
> > eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
> > would have been moved.
>
> Why doesn't a pound of beef cost more than 2500 gallons of water?
> Wouldn't ADM (or whoever cares for the cow) have to pay for that much
> water? To make a profit, wouldn't they have to charge more than their
> costs?
>
> Confused,
> Martin
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Justin Lyon-2

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Colleagues,

---quote from Doug Roberts
At some point in time it will be possible to divide all the the bodies
in the world by all the food in the world, and discover that there is
not enough to go around, political boundaries notwithstanding. I don't
know when that particular point in time will arrive, but I am convinced
that in the absence a large population die-off (as compared to the
current exponential global population growth that we are witnessing),
arriving sooner or later at that point in time is a certainty.
---end quote

And it may be sooner than any of us really want to admit.

Some of the most fascinating (and disturbing) examples of collapse and
die-off can be found in the work of Jay Forrester (World Dynamics) and
his students in their book, Limits to Growth and their second, follow-up
book 20 years later, called Beyond the Limits. All three used system
dynamics simulations to create their scenarios.

Have you read them? What does this group think the many scenarios those
books highlight as plausible futures (both positive and negative)?

In summary, the next 50-70 years promise to be quite 'interesting' in
the Chinese proverb sort of way.

A friend of mine is a Director of ReneSola - the Chinese solar wafer
manufacture, which listed on AIM on 8 August 2006 (SOLA.L). The Company
raised US$50 million through its placing at a market capitalisation of
US$150 million.

http://www.renesola.com/

One small step forward for non fossil fuels based electricity generation!

-Justin

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Hopefully not passed on directly to the consumer ;-)

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Most of that alleged 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water per cow is a
> pass-through cost, so to speak.

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Martin C. Martin-2

>> Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
>>
>> I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not
>> eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water, I
>> would have been moved.
>>
>
> Why doesn't a pound of beef cost more than 2500 gallons of water?
> Wouldn't ADM (or whoever cares for the cow) have to pay for that much
> water? To make a profit, wouldn't they have to charge more than their
> costs?
>

Or get subsidized to overcome their losses. A few Web stats, no big
effort made to make these all fit together.

UK: Of cattle farmers' total income of ?2088 million in 2003, ?928
million came by way of subsidies from the taxpayer.

*A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concludes
that the federal government spends at least $144 million each year
managing private livestock grazing operations on publicly owned land,
but collects only $21 million in grazing fees---for a net loss of at
least $123 million per year.
*

Livestock Subsidies by year, U.S. Total

*Year*
*Livestock Subsidies*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1995* $63,337,904
*1996* $84,507,627
*1997* $95,932,136
*1998* $8,415,538
*1999* $398,067,655
*2000* $195,705,068
*2001* $434,176,774
*2002* $976,319,902
*2003* $343,713,808
*2004* $27,041,523
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total*
*$2,627,217,935*

Programs included in livestock subsidies

*Program* *Total Payments
1995-2004*
Livestock Compensation Program $1,107,734,541
Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance $983,735,045
Livestock Emergency Assistance Program $165,414,024
Cattle Feed Program - Nonfat Milk $136,704,376
Small Hog Operation $122,136,782
Livestock Indemnity Payments $62,519,442
Livestock Relief $25,288,004
American Indian Livestock Feed Program $18,972,053
Emergency Feed Grain Donation $3,505,281
Livestock Indemnity-contract growers $1,073,848
Livestock Indemnity Prog - Authorization $134,539

1. Most federal public lands grazing occurs on Bureau of Land
Management (92% of BLM lands *1* ) and U.S. Forest Service (69% of
USFS lands *2* ) in the arid intermountain West, from the Sierras
in California and the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington
to the Great Plains (generally the 11 western states).
2. Most public lands grazing is to raise beef.

3. Federal public lands supply only 2% of total livestock feed in the
United States.
*3*
4. In arid environments, droughts are more common than not.
5. An average of 13.7 acres are required to feed one cow and calf for
one month on all Bureau of Land Management rangelands; *4* only 2
acres are required to feed one cow/calf for one year on farmlands
in the East. *5*
6. As much as 79% of the nation's livestock forage is grown east of
the 100th meridian. *6*
7. Only 6% of livestock producers west of the Mississippi River graze
federal grazing allotments. *7*
8. *Approximately 42% of the domestic beef cow inventory is within an
area experiencing a moderate or more intense drought.
*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060817/168e8fb5/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bluepixel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 35 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060817/168e8fb5/attachment.gif

Steve Smith

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Bill Eldridge

I apologize for not tracking the whole discussion, so this may be
redundant.

My understanding is that the amount of fossil fuel (used to make
fertilizer, to cultivate and harvest and process the corn and distill
the ethanol) is a significant fraction of the energy content of the
ethanol (like 60%?).

My understanding is that it is only vaguely "economical" in the context
of existing subsidy structures... that if using photosynthesis to
convert sunlight into internal-combustion fuels is our goal there are a
number of more truly efficient ways to do it, that do not involve corn
as the crop.

I can't even begin to weigh in on the complexities of an implied
obligation to use every square meter of arable land and every drop of
water, etc. to feed every human being that could possibly be born on
this planet. We threw some natural balances way out of whack long
ago... and keep on pushing it every which way.

Shipping calories all over the globe seems like it can only make things
worse. Shipping energy all over the place is not much better... but
that seems to be what we are all about.

- Steve

Steve Smith

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

In reply to this post by Bill Eldridge

>
>>> Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
>>>
>>> I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did
>>> not
>>> eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water,
>>> I
>>> would have been moved.
>>>
>> Why doesn't a pound of beef cost more than 2500 gallons of water?
>> Wouldn't ADM (or whoever cares for the cow) have to pay for that much
>> water? To make a profit, wouldn't they have to charge more than their
>> costs?
>>
>
> Or get subsidized to overcome their losses. A few Web stats, no big
> effort made to make these all fit together.
>

2500-5000 gallons of water? Much of which fell from the sky onto the
grazing pastures and/or field crops that the cows ate perhaps? I'm
not believing that raising cattle on feed lots is a sane way to feed
ourselves, but that doesn't mean these numbers can be taken at face
value. This is not 2500-5000 1 gallon jugs from the grocery, nor from
the same tap that you or I drink and wash from.

On the topic of public grazing lands, a great deal of that grazing is
limited to yearling cattle who are then taken to feed lots for the bulk
of their growth/fattening. I'm not sure of the numbers around
managing these lands but I suspect other uses of the land were made as
well ( a lot of grazing is done where timber and mining and recreation
are also involved).

Maybe this is taken into account, but none of us trust uncontextualized
statistics do we?

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060818/e4269eee/attachment.bin

Bill Eldridge

My biggest complaint about ethanol as automobile fuel

Steve Smith wrote:

>
> Sorry to switch subjects, but from Steve Boyan:
>
> I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I
> did not
> eat, I would save anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of
> water, I
> would have been moved.
>
> Why doesn't a pound of beef cost more than 2500 gallons of water?
> Wouldn't ADM (or whoever cares for the cow) have to pay for
> that much
> water? To make a profit, wouldn't they have to charge more
> than their
> costs?
>
> Or get subsidized to overcome their losses. A few Web stats, no
> big effort made to make these all fit together.
>
> 2500-5000 gallons of water? Much of which fell from the sky onto the
> grazing pastures and/or field crops that the cows ate perhaps? I'm not
> believing that raising cattle on feed lots is a sane way to feed
> ourselves, but that doesn't mean these numbers can be taken at face
> value. This is not 2500-5000 1 gallon jugs from the grocery, nor from
> the same tap that you or I drink and wash from.
>
> On the topic of public grazing lands, a great deal of that grazing is
> limited to yearling cattle who are then taken to feed lots for the
> bulk of their growth/fattening. I'm not sure of the numbers around
> managing these lands but I suspect other uses of the land were made as
> well ( a lot of grazing is done where timber and mining and recreation
> are also involved).
>
> Maybe this is taken into account, but none of us trust
> uncontextualized statistics do we?

I noted that I thought the 2500-5000 gallons/pound sounded exaggerated,
and isn't referenced, but the subsidies information for livestock is
more exact,
while Mike Oliker's info on water price differences between
agricultural/livestock
usage and metro human use caps it off. In short, we subsidize cattle in
a number
of ways, from public lands to cheap water to corn and grain subsidies
for cheap feed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060819/027d89c0/attachment.html