The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 20:46:30 MST Print View

"Why not debate the Warmista face to face or publication to publication and let the scientific community determine whose ideas have more validity?"

Because it makes far more sense to publish and debate all the graphs, data , and proofs in the Chaff section of an ultralight and somewhat fringe backpacking site.

Obviously, Tom. Sheesh.

___________________________________________________________

A discussion on permaculture trends, ideas, and practices would be great...

Edited by xnomanx on 12/15/2010 20:50:09 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 23:05:05 MST Print View

Hi Tom

> and let the scientific community determine whose ideas have more validity?
Are you hoping to get a Consensus?

Cheers
Mark Twain

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 01:47:41 MST Print View

"HAHAHA! I ask you for the figures on the amount of power available from pumped storage and the identified potential."

Rog

Don't be obtuse: you said that wind energy couldn't be stored, I pointed out that even in Australia we used hydro for standby power. Perhaps I should have been clearer that we aren't currently using hydro for storing wind energy but the point is that there's been plenty of proposals to do just that - and hydro is used in Australia for generating electricity when peak loads require it. And if you want figures on the SMA power I can easily dig them out - but that's not the point.

"I asked you to get real about the possible contribution of wind power to the Australian energy budget, and you avoid, avoid, avoid, addressing the substantive issue."

Rog, they are putting in huge amounts of wind power in Victoria: if you check the link below you will note that if the current built/being approved wind farms will generate about 30% of Victoria's power requirements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Victoria

In relation to the possible contribution, as the Wikipedia article below points out, Australia (especially Victoria) has excellent wind resources:

"Australia has excellent wind resources by world standards[6]. The southern coastline lies in the roaring forties and hundreds of sites have average wind speeds above 8 or even 9 m/s at 50 m above ground (the hub height of a modern wind generator). The southwest of Western Australia, southern South Australia, western Victoria, northern Tasmania and elevated areas of New South Wales and Queensland have good wind resources. Several states engaged in systematic wind speed monitoring in the 1980s and 1990s, the results of which are publicly available.[7] Australian wind farms produce on average capacity factors of 30–35%, making wind an attractive option"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Australia

And we also have excellent solar resources, even in Victoria. So, yeah, wind and solar are valid options in Australia. But in the poor old UK you'll have probems with solar, though there is of course plenty of wind.

Edited by Arapiles on 12/16/2010 01:49:38 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/16/2010 01:59:54 MST Print View

Tom says:
Perhaps this would be an opportune time to connect the dots: 1) Ph goes down; 2) Phytoplankton populations diminish; 3) Atmospheric O2 level decreases-one likely cause = diminished populations of photsynthesizing phytoplankton.


1)A 0.1Ph change in 300 years must be associated with natural variation, since atmospheric levels didn't rise to any great extent until the 1950's. The projected further drop in ocean Ph relies on the hypothesis that higher atmospheric co2 causes higher temperature, and that temperature will go on rising because of human emissions.

But changes in atmospheric co2 levels lag behind rises in temperature at all timescales. And the Earth has been recovering from the little ice age since 1700 to around now, where we seem to be at the top of the curve. If as I expect, ocean heat content continues to decline as it has since 2003, the increase in atmospheric co2 will slow down, not speed up. The degree to which that happens will give us a better idea of how much of the increase in atmospheric co2 is due to human emissions, and how much is due to oceanic release, since co2 is less soluble in warmer water. The current estimate is that roughly half the atmospheric increase is due to human emission, but this relies on a calculation of isotope ratios which are questionable, because they assume a static biosphere. As you will see from the links I provided to DW, this is not the case.

2) The reduction in the phytoplankton population has several causes more immediate and direct than a tiny change in average oceanic Ph over 300 years. Less volcanism to supply nutrients, possibly oil sheen films on the surface, more intense U.V. from the sun over the later C20th, reduced cloud cover from 1980-1998, although it has been discovered those clever little plankton release cloud condensation nuclei to generate their own local environment to partly mitigate this.

3) The reduction in atmospheric oxygen is on the order of a few parts per million, in an atmosphere which contains over 210,000 parts per million oxygen. You haven't provided links to papers on oxygen changes, and the one I found is limited to two sites high in the European alps.

4) We have only been able to measure global phytoplankton population for less than half an oceanic cycle. Extrapolating vague fears on the basis of such limited data is unwise and calls for economy endangering action unwarranted at this stage.

Tom says:
I'm almost certain that if you sallied forth, engaged the accursed Warmista in a contest of ideas, and proved to one and all the correctness of your stance on climate change, the funds would come pouring in.


Nice quip, but my point is that if you are going to call for action on the basis of a possible worst case scenario, logically, you should cover all the bases. As you know, the consensus will not provide funding for studies which go against the consensus hypothesis. The coming together of the politicians holding the public purse, the granting bodies advising them on where to put the money, and their influence on the direction of research all add up to a narrowed focus which excludes non-conforming research proposals. This is to the detriment of science, which has allowed itself to become politicised. This is bad news.

"This is classic climate cooling denial."

Which seems to reflect the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists, or am I misinformed here?


Unfortunately you are correct. They'll find out the error of their ways pretty soon though, Nature is a great teacher.

Craig says (quoting Tom):
"Why not debate the Warmista face to face or publication to publication and let the scientific community determine whose ideas have more validity?"

Because it makes far more sense to publish and debate all the graphs, data , and proofs in the Chaff section of an ultralight and somewhat fringe backpacking site.

Obviously, Tom. Sheesh.


Well some seemed to be of the opinion that we backpackers shouldn't be cooking on twig fires because they emit co2 and denude the forest. That had to be answered. I've shown that the increased co2 due to the warmer sun and reduced cloud level has led to there being three billion tonnes more twigs to burn. One of the positive benefits of global warming. ;-)

http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Nemani_Primary_Productivity_Science_2003.pdf (Free download)

One of the authors is Charles Keeling, the man who measures the atmospheric co2 level on the side of Mauna Loa volcano on Hawaii. It was published in 2003.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Global Cooling - a retrospective on 12/16/2010 02:15:18 MST Print View

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

-PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports-
-Newsweek, April 28, 1975-

Plus ca change.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 02:20:16 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 02:27:28 MST Print View

Arapiles says:
Rog

Don't be obtuse: you said that wind energy couldn't be stored


No I didn't. This is what I said:

"Wind power requires a huge input of energy, copper (more dirty mining) and co2 releasing concrete production for infrastructure beyond what the windmills will ever produce in electricity. Not that the electricity they produce enables us to reduce fossil fuel standby capacity because of the unreliability of the wind and the lack of energy storage options. These are the cold hard facts."

Stop twisting my words and come up with the figures for the estimated potential for wind energy storage in Australia as I asked you to.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 02:27:57 MST Print View

"Miguel, It is an important debate, and when people deliberately avoid the substantive issues and attempt to distract with irrelevances, you can be sure I'll point it out. Lawyer speak is all very well for befuddling pollys and parrots, but with engineers, reality talks and b*llsh*t walks"

Rog

Miguel says stop slagging people and you respond by making snarky comments about lawyers, clearly aimed at me. The suggestion that lawyers talk in ways that "befuddle" just shows how little you know about the law or lawyers.

And frankly, engineers are not a higher species with a firmer grip on "reality" - one of the first legal jobs I did was in relation to a bunch of engineers who'd designed and built a greenfields port that crumbled when the first ship docked against it.

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 02:47:53 MST Print View

Would you both just look at each other for moment? Take a deep breath, hold back from writing anything, and forget for a moment the words on the screen. Take a serious moment and remember why you both are on these forums and, in general, what kind of people we have here. Most of them think the same way and love the same things. I'm sure both you Rog, and you D.W. love being in the outdoors, love the feel of the wind, love a good quaff of cold water, love the way the pack feels against the back, and go out there again and again because it makes both of you feel alive. Of course you are both professionals, too, one a lawyer, one an engineer. Good. And there are plenty of stupid jokes to pass around the campfire that ridicule either profession, or mine, too, a university professor (though I dare you to find a lot of jokes about my side profession as an illustrator!). Both of you and many others here have oodles of differing and complimentary outlooks on all this, and all of it is legitimate and valuable input into this dialogue. It isn't just a debate for engineers or lawyers or corporate businessmen or climate scientists... it's a dialogue that concerns all of us and all of us have a stake in it and something to offer in terms of how to handle it or how to view it. So this head-butting is pointless. Can't you see it?

Man, I think we all need a good night out camping in a howling blizzard to pass the hot water around and simply appreciate a simple cup of tea or coffee and how good that sleeping bag feels once you crawl inside (I'm worried even THIS is going to cause a bunch of squawking!)

Edited by butuki on 12/16/2010 02:59:03 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 04:52:47 MST Print View

Arapiles knows as well as I do that all the windmills in Australia won't make much of a difference to the amount of coal which has to be burned to keep the standby capacity available. This is because the wind doesn't blow 2/3 to 3/4 of the time and there are not enough locations where it is feasible to build pumped storage schemes to make much of a difference to the standby capacity windpower can generate.

This is the cold hard fact those spending the taxation revenue so freely won't admit or discuss, but instead regurgitate impressive sounding figures which sound convincing to the non-technical public. Arapiles is a fine exemplar of the style.

All the irrelevances about how much green startup money farmers can get for allowing wind turbines to be built on their land, and the huge subsidy out of the taxpayers pocket they and the Snowy Mountain Authority get for the paltry amount of energy storage they supply, is just so much lipstick on the pig. It might make the pig more attractive to Arapiles, but I can see it's still a pig.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 06:07:51 MST.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 05:57:08 MST Print View

"Arapiles knows as well as I do that all the windmills in Australia won't make much of a difference to the amount of coal which has to be burned to keep the standby capacity available. This is because the wind doesn't blow 2/3 to 3/4 of the time and there are not enough locations where it is feasible to build pumped storage schemes to make much of a difference to the standby capacity windpower can generate."

Umm, no - the intention is that renewables (including wind) will replace some of our coal fired power stations. We seem to have been side-tracked into a discussion of pumped storage but the point is that the power will be generated by the wind-farms and when it is generated it goes into the grid. No need to store it.

"This is the cold hard fact those spending the taxation revenue so freely won't admit or discuss. Arapiles is a fine exemplar of the style."

The wind farms are privately funded - not through taxpayer funds.

"All the irrelevances about how much green startup money farmers can get for allowing wind turbines to be built on their land, and the huge subsidy out of the taxpayers pocket they and the Snowy Mountain Authority get, is just so much lipstick on the pig. It might make the pig more attractive to Arapiles, but I can see it's still a pig."

Landowners don't get "green start-up money" - they are paid leases by the SPVs used to operate the wind schemes. I'm also pretty sure that the SMA doesn't get any taxpayer subsidies, and they aren't in any case involved in windmills or renewables. In case you didn't understand what I wrote about the SMA, they were very profitably selling hydro power using spot rates in our deregulated power market. The UK has a similar deregulated energy market.

Not sure about the pig bit - are you referring to methane use?

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 06:07:23 MST Print View

""Wind power requires a huge input of energy, copper (more dirty mining) and co2 releasing concrete production for infrastructure beyond what the windmills will ever produce in electricity. Not that the electricity they produce enables us to reduce fossil fuel standby capacity because of the unreliability of the wind and the lack of energy storage options. These are the cold hard facts."

Stop twisting my words and come up with the figures for the estimated potential for wind energy storage in Australia as I asked you to."

"Wind power requires a huge input of energy, copper (more dirty mining) and co2 releasing concrete production for infrastructure"

It's no bigger than any large infrastucture project. Re copper, given that to be financially viable wind farms need to be near existing transmission lines, it's unlikely to be a factor.

"beyond what the windmills will ever produce in electricity."

Do you have any evidence for that claim? So, all those windfarms in Europe are actually creating a net loss of energy?

"Not that the electricity they produce enables us to reduce fossil fuel standby capacity because of the unreliability of the wind and the lack of energy storage options. These are the cold hard facts."

Are you concerned about standby capacity or actual use? As I said at the start, windfarms are built where the wind is reliable. Why would anyone not do that? How stupid do you think the people behind these schemes are?

If you want figures check the Wikipedia articles I provided links to.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 06:34:13 MST Print View

The ability to miss the point is strong in some. I don't believe you are too stupid to understand it, so I think you are the one who is being deliberately obtuse.

On your own figures from wikipedia, the wind blows 30-35% of the time at the most favourable locations in Australia. That means that for around 2/3rds of the time, you have to have other capacity available to take up the slack. Since you don't know when the wind is going to die, this spare capacity has to be kept running, burning coal even when the windmills are putting power onto the grid, because you can't just fire up coal driven steam turbines at a moment's notice.

Because the opportunities to store wind energy are very limited, due to the lack of sites suitable for pumped storage facilities, wind power is just green flim flam on the surface of the power generation industry. I know it, Roger C knows it, I think you know it but won't admit or discuss it. Instead you use misdirection, irrelevant puffery, and false argument to blow a smokescreen around the issue. A classic lawyers trick.

Get real.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
wind power subsidy on 12/16/2010 06:41:42 MST Print View

"The wind farms are privately funded - not through taxpayer funds."

All done indirectly through higher domestic fuel bills which include 'green energy levy', paid to the wind energy industry in the form of high per-unit prices for the electricity they generate. You know this.

Trying to discuss anything with you is like wading through treacle. Raise your game please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8205123/500-on-electricity-bills-to-pay-for-green-energy.html

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 09:52:17 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: So how far will you go? on 12/16/2010 08:07:51 MST Print View

Tom,
this one is of interest to me, and should be to you as well.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L10605, 3 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2006GL026305

Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity

Hugo A. Loáiciga

Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

The impacts of increases in atmospheric CO2 since the midst of the 18th century on average seawater salinity and acidity are evaluated. Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow, it is calculated that the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61‰ from its current 35‰. It is also calculated –using an equilibrium model of aqueous carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere- that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv (representative of 18th-century conditions) to 380 ppmv (representative of current conditions) raises the average seawater acidity approximately 0.09 pH units across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30°C). A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Those figures are quite a lot different to the ones in the studies you linked to.

Also, this!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/can-seashells-save-the-world-813915.html


"Our widely held assumption that the acidification of the oceans causes a decrease in calcification in all coccolithophores needs to be reappraised," says Dr Iglesias-Rodriguez. "Our data reveal that these microscopic organisms have been responding to climate change by increasing the size of the cells and their calcium carbonate plates."

Previous experiments with coccolithophores suggested that as acidity levels increased, calcification would decrease. However, Dr Iglesias-Rodriguez believes this may have been due to the way the experiments were carried out. The scientists simply added acid to the water to mimic the increase in acidity due to dissolved carbon dioxide. Her method was to simulate the more natural process by bubbling the gas through the water until it dissolved. "This work contradicts previous findings and shows, for the first time, that calcification by phytoplankton could double by the end of this century," she says. "This is important because the majority of ocean calcification is carried out by coccolithophores such as Emiliania huxleyi and the amount of calcium carbonate produced at the ocean surface is known to have a direct influence on levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Dr Iglesias-Rodriguez and her colleagues point out that the last time the earth experienced large increases in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 55 million years ago during a period known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. It was also a time when coccolithophores were abundant.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 09:13:06 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: wind power on 12/16/2010 12:38:58 MST Print View

Wind is just one of many technologies for producing power, but even within this one technology Rog seems to prefer to see the problems rather than to look towards possible solutions. Fortunately many people are focusing on solutions, some of which may become key players in the future, some may not. Wind energy can be stored. At the moment it is in early stages of development, and expensive, but time will tell. Prices may come down, or the price may seem more reasonable as the price of fossil fuels continues to increase. The energy can be stored in a variety of batteries, some more efficient than others and more efficient ones being developed all the time. It can be stored as compressed air. It can be raised as weights (gravity) to be lowered later when needed (not just water, but concrete, soil, etc...). It can be converted to hydrogen and burned off as needed (Ooops, there's more CO2...). It can be stored in large arrays of capacitors, or as thermal energy. And I'm sure there are other ideas in the pipeline. Again, just think outside the square. This should be especially within the domain of engineers!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: wind power on 12/16/2010 13:29:24 MST Print View

Great ideas that may be applicable at the small scale for those lucky enough to have the right situation Lynn.

Honest assessments of city scale energy production are another matter.

I want clean energy to work as much as anyone else, but we *have to* get real about the situation. Deluding ourselves as to the real state of affairs is not an option.

Gravitational potential energy is horrendously inefficent in terms of the masses and frictions involved. I have photographs from a pump storage project I visited in the El Chorro gorge in Spain. It is a huge scheme for the actual amount of energy it produces. I'll post the pics sometime and link them. It is better than nothing, but it is not a national scale solution.

Engineers are wracking their brains to improve the situation. Big batteries are not viable for large scale either. the materials used are very hard on the environment too, both in their production and disposal.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 13:38:21 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: wind power on 12/16/2010 13:50:44 MST Print View

"Honest assessments of city scale energy production are another matter."

Maybe. Time will tell. One thing that permaculture emphasizes is that large cities are not practical, long term, sustainable options. Then again, neither is 7 billion people...and as I've mentioned before, wind power is only one of many options. Diversity is the key to any long term solution.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 14:18:54 MST Print View

Hi Rog T

> I know it, Roger C knows it, I think you know it but won't admit or discuss it.
> Instead you use misdirection, irrelevant puffery, and false argument to blow a
> smokescreen around the issue. A classic lawyers trick.

I would prefer that you don't use my name here while abusing someone else.

Cheers

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Dreams and their application on 12/16/2010 14:48:43 MST Print View

From past experience and learning, we project from the present into the future. To a large part our projection about sustainability are based on observations of nature. For example, nature works well when the one entities waste becomes the nourishment for another entity ie a tree dies and falls etc.

With bioengineering and nanotechnology there could be infinite food and energy. If we humans can manage to keep from wiping out ourselves before the next huge change (paradigm shifts related to Newton and quantum and digitalizing and networking) then we might survive. But it will be in ways that we can not comprehend today.

Think a thousand years ago to now, or even a hundred. A couple of decades even.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/16/2010 15:09:21 MST Print View

Apologies to Roger C

And to Arapiles too. I get passionate and aerated about this stuff.

Wise words George, I am always hopeful for the future for all humankind. Especially those stuck in cities. It ain't their fault.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/16/2010 15:11:41 MST.