Subject: Re: Southern Dependency
From: CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A. Whitworth)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:10:10 +0000 (GMT)
In article ,
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>CSD4AW - or some other robot includes
>
> The question should be, not why is X or Y country
> prosperous, but why the hell certain
fantastically-endowed
> states such as Zaire are stuck deep in grinding
poverty. The
> answers to such questions can only be sought in the
> mechanisms of dependency that attach South to North.
>
>If that is where you only seek answers, you will never find
the truth.
>The Zaire politicians will continue to loot not only their
own people
>but any loans or gifts that come their way. Fools in the
North will
>praise the self-righteous speeches of their leaders in the
UN.
Fools is a good word.
Zaire's national debt stands at about $5bn.
Mobutu's personal fortune is, surprise surprise, about $5bn.
The guy is a crook, pure and simple, yet he is allowed to
maintain his thievery by those who support and condone his
kleptomania in the North. Why? Because Zaire has rich
mineral, hydroelectric and other wealth. With Mobutu there,
stability reigned, and the wealth kept flowing into the
North. Screw the 20 million Zaireans living in one of the
lowest standards of living on Earth.
Witness the chaos about to engulf Zaire now that Mobutu could
be dying.
This is not "dependency", but it is an _example_ of a
dependent relationship.
>
>The success of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea
are now
>taken for granted.
Very well.... these were the factors involved in the rise of
the East Asian Tigers....
1) Proximity to Japan
2) Massive support from the US in the name of anti-Communism:
from about 1950-65 the US gave more aid to South Korea than
it gave to the whole of Africa
3) Massive government intervention in the economy, to the
extent of controlling all banking, directing the operations
of corporations, and enormous tariffs on imported goods: free
trade, this was not
4) A land reform, sponsored and imposed by the US, to remove
the power of the rural elite
5) Authoritarian, non-democratic regimes (or, in the case of
Hong Kong, a colonial government) that had no need to worry
about re-election, labour rights, union rights, that sort of
thing.
Such conditions will not happen again in the foreseeable
future, particularly no. 3, and possibly nos. 2 and 4 as
well.
The "new" Asian tigers - Malaysia and Thailand being
pre-eminent - are themselves benefitting from the proximity
of the "old" ones, just as the "old" ones benefitted from the
proximity to Japan. Proximity means that the developed
country will invest in its "locality", that the region itself
is perceived as dynamic, and that foreign investment is
attracted there.
>You still have to account for Chile's increased
>prosperity since the end of the Allende regime.
Chile may have become "prosperous" but this does NOT
legitimate the abuses of the Pinochet regime. In terms of the
support that that regime was given by the US, both terms 2
and 5 above are satisfied. And Chile is a long way from
"developed" country status.
>More embarrassments
>for the colonial dependency theory are coming along in
Thailand,
>Malaysia and even Indonesia.
See above.
Dependency theory is not a black-and-white theory. In no way
is it impossible for countries to "rise". In fact, if you
were to actually read any of the dependency theorists - Amin
and Wallerstein are good places to start - you would discover
that the "core" NEEDS a "semi-periphery" to maintain its
dominance over the "periphery".
Anyway, dependency theory, like everything in economics, is
only a theory. It can be disproved. But the rise of some
countries does not mean that there are not billions and
billions of people living in poverty and misery while some in
their countries get richer and the North counts the profits.
Dependent relationships occur everywhere and always have done
- within villages in feudal times, Latin America's
relationship to Spain and Portugal in the Middle Ages, blacks
to whites in South Africa, etc etc. I hope the cycle of
dependency CAN be broken. But that will take sacrifices in
the Northern states..... which is why, alas, I don't think
it's going to happen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Big dogs....big dogs.... LAND-ing on
my face"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: Internship Announcement: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
From: "David E. Guggenheim"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 17:15:28 -0500
INTERNSHIP ANNOUNCEMENT
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Winter-Spring 1996-97 Intern Positions
Overview
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is a 5,000 member not-for-profit
conservation organization founded in Naples, Florida, in 1964. The
mission of The Conservancy is to conserve the biodiversity,
environmental quality, and natural resources of Southwest Florida's
native ecosystems for present and future generations. The purpose of
this position is to direct and provide the organization's research and
public policy by promoting the mission through local environmental
protection, land acquisition, conservation stewardship, and ecological
research activities.
NATURE DISCOVERY CENTER (MUSEUM) INTERNSHIP - Naples Nature Center
Description: Introduce the south Florida subtropical ecosystem to
visitors. Position involves exhibit planning, interpretive program
delivery, specimen collection, animal diet preparation, and working
closely with volunteers. Also requires maintaining and interpreting live
reptile, sea turtle, and aquatic exhibits. Assist Nature Center
management. Uniform required.
Available: Six to Nine month internships available on a rotating basis
Qualifications: Applicant must be at least a Junior in college,
energetic, and enjoy working with public and animals. Interpretive
skills and experience with animal and aquariums recommended. Must
possess a valid driver’s license. Museum studies experience a plus. The
Conservancy is a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace. Failure to pass
drug test will result in immediate termination. The Conservancy is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
uniform allotment, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays,
mileage reimbursement (does not include travel to/from Naples), and
Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102. Please list relevant courses.
WILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER INTERNSHIP - Naples Nature Center
Description: Assist in care and treatment of injured, sick, or orphaned
Florida wildlife, together with cleaning and maintenance of their
facilities. Position includes a wide range of rehabilitation activities,
including animal rescue, emergency first aid, daily feedings, cage
cleaning, animal handling, pre-release training, public relations, and
special projects. Uniform required.
Available: January 1997 (2 positions)
Qualifications: Applicant must be at least a Junior in college, with
skills and/or experience with wildlife. Sincere interest and commitment
required. Preference given to those with prior rehabilitation
experience. The Conservancy is a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace.
Failure to pass drug test will result in immediate termination. The
Conservancy is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
uniform allotment, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays,
mileage reimbursement (does not include travel to/from Naples), and
Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102.
NATURALIST INTERNSHIP - Naples Nature Center
Description: Educate visitors about south Florida's unique subtropical
ecosystem. Position is outdoors, caring for and maintaining three
terrestrial trails and one aquatic trail highlighting native vegetation.
Provides outdoor interpretation, signage, guided trail walks, and other
environmental programs to visitors of diverse ages and backgrounds. Also
manages the canoe/kayak livery.
Available: Six to Nine month internship available on a rotating basis
Qualifications: Applicant must be at least a Junior in college,
energetic, enjoy working outdoors and with the public. Interpreter
experience and paddling experience highly recommended. Must possess a
valid driver’s license. Botanical coursework a plus. The Conservancy is
a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace. Failure to pass drug test will
result in immediate termination. The Conservancy is an Equal Opportunity
Employer.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
uniform allotment, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays,
mileage reimbursement (does not include travel to/from Naples), and
Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102.
NATURALIST INTERNSHIP - Briggs Nature Center
Description: Develop, assist, and/or lead adult wilderness excursions,
including interpretive canoe trips, bike rides, and nature hikes. Lead
guided pontoon boat tours on estuarine ecology. Assist in development
and implementation of requested school programs, ages K-5. Aid in
supervising Nature Center, selling books, caring for display animals,
interpreting south Florida's natural history to visitors, assisting with
aquaria, facility maintenance, and cleaning responsibilities. Uniform
required.
Available: November 1996 - May 1997: 3 positions
Qualifications: Should have experience in both environmental education
and biological sciences or related fields. Seek applicants that are
quick learners, able to work independently, and able to work with all
age groups (pre-k through adult). Canoeing and computer skills are
helpful. Reliable vehicle and valid driver’s license a must. The
Conservancy is a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace. Failure to pass
drug test will result in immediate termination. The Conservancy is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
uniform allotment, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays,
mileage reimbursement (does not include travel to/from Naples), and
Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTERNSHIP - Naples Nature Center
Description: The Conservancy's Environmental Protection Division
assists the Florida Division of State Lands in purchasing conservation
land as part of several willing-seller programs, conducts research in
water resource management and the biology of endangered and threatened
species, and coordinates responses and commentary on environmental
policy issues. Primary responsibilities include: processing deeds and
making sure they are legally correct, data entry (dBase III Plus), and
coordinating project with state land acquisition agents. Secondary
duties include assisting EP researchers in field and laboratory work.
Casual office attire required.
Available: One six-month position is available beginning March 1997
Qualifications: B.S. or B.A. in one of the environmental or biological
sciences. The Conservancy is a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace.
Failure to pass drug test will result in immediate termination. The
Conservancy is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Must possess a valid
drivers license.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays, mileage reimbursement
(does not include travel to/from Naples), and Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102.
EDUCATION NATURALIST INTERNSHIP - Naples Nature Center
Description: Design monthly preschool nature programs to be taught on
and off-site. Provide field trips for elementary aged children focusing
on south Florida ecology and environmental science. Plan day-long and
occasional week-long children's events. Assist full-time staff in
developing new programs including ecotourism and community education for
all ages. Care for animals used in educational programs. Participate in
Conservancy special events. Uniform Required.
Available: June 1997-August 1997 (3 positions)
Qualifications: Applicant must be at least a Junior in college,
enthusiastic about teaching and learning, with flexibility, creativity
and self-motivation. Biology/ecology background helpful, elementary
teaching experience a near must. Computer literacy a definite plus. The
Conservancy is a DRUG FREE and SMOKE FREE workplace. Failure to pass
drug test will result in immediate termination. The Conservancy is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.
Benefits: All interns are required to live in Conservancy housing. The
value of this housing $265/month will be subtracted from your paycheck:
$411.67/semi-monthly, minus $132.50 (semi-monthly value of housing),
uniform allotment, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, paid holidays,
mileage reimbursement (does not include travel to/from Naples), and
Conservancy membership.
Application Information: Send cover letter with SELF ADDRESSED &
STAMPED envelope to: Sharon Truluck, Human Resources Manager, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Dept. ISE, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples
FL 34102.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 22:58:05 GMT
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
:
: hey moron now back up yuor assine position with peer reviewed work, or
: go done forever as just another loud mouth parrot spewing shit.
Since you never responded to the following post (I didn't follow up to
alt.save.the.earth), I'll give you another chance to prove yourself
something other than "another loud mouth parrot spewing shit"
tooie
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
: What you are really refering to is how the rich elitist are exerting
: control over you by refusing to allow diversitified sources of wind
: power to come on line. They only are willing to consider centralize
: system in order to further their position.
So, the "rich elitist" are prohibiting you, or anyone else, from
purchasing your own wind turbine? The "rich elitist" would also spurn a
technology that could make them more money (to roll in naked no doubt!)
than current sources? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that
they're not out to get me :-)
: minimullay polluting as a description of nuclear energy is the best
: damn oxymoron, I've heard yet reading this news group. First you list
: how harmful it is to process material for photovotics but ignore it
: totally with nkes. Secondly I doubt if nukes really have a positive
: energy payback, considering the enormous cost in mining.processing,
: refueling,containment. Now add to that the cost of decomissioning as
: well as isolating the waste for centuries. It is very likely that
: nuclear would never have been developed if it wasn't for the military
: applications.
From, Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors, Nero, pp 29, "The net energy is the
output energy less the energy required to construct the plant and to
build and operate the associated fuel cycle facilities. After about two
years of operation, the plant has produced enough energy to have paid
back it's own investment and start up a new plant."
: The cost of isolating the waste could be reduced, by reprocessing
: the spent fuel removing the long term isotopes and including them in
: the fuel. This would reduce the reactor efficiency by appprox 5 to
: 10%. Now instead of isolating the waste for 100k years one only needs
: 30 to 40K years.
Your efficiency statement doesn't make sense since the purpose of
reporcessing is to recover the U and Pu from the spent fuel. Actually,
the high level waste from reprocessing (assuming the Purex process and no
further treatment, i.e. "burning" any leftover actinides) would reach the
equivalent hazard level of natural uranium ore in 3-5K years.
: >Sure... if we divert most of our GDP into it.
:
: well thats what we did for the damn nukes
Now *I* know you're being facetious, but some readers may not.
: Its not that hard. In fact it would be competitive today if it wasn't
: for the massive corp welfare going to the oil and nuclear companies.
Why don't you check the DOE home page and take a look at funding levels
for nuclear R&D; vs. conservation and renewables, you might learn something.
: >Well, nuclear is far future than solar is today, that's for sure. And
: >it could be made a lot cheaper by:
: > -standardizing the systems
: > -going to highly stable (dynamically stable) reactors
: > -greatly reducing the paperwork, delays and government meddling with
: > the operation of the reactors.
: > -admitting the obvious: we can bury nuclear waste with adequate
: > safety today
:
: the above is nothing but pure bullshit. It ignores all problems with
: safety and enviromental posioning. Lets see if you have the balls to
: remove the corp welfare limiting the damage a nuke is responsable
: for. Hell lets remove all the damn corp welfare supporting them and
: they would closse tomorrow.
I notice you conviently leave out your supporting facts for the above
statements. I'm sure you were just too *lazy* to properly support your
point view. Looks like someone needs to review the Price-Anderson Act,
there, I even gave you the name of the legislation. I take it the *you*
are all for removing tax credits, DOE funding, etc. for your obviously
superior sources of power since they don't need any of those crutches to
compete with nuclear power. First we better get rid of those "rich
elitists" (probably the Freemasons!) who keep solar off the map, right?
tooie
Subject: Use Less Stuff Report
From: tomgray@igc.org
Date: 04 Nov 1996 11:41:36
From: Tom Gray
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:08:05 -0500
From: Bob Lilienfeld
Subject: ULS-Report: Nov-Dec 96 ULS Report
A joyful, safe and efficient holiday season to all, and Happy ULS Day!
Bob
======================================================================
The ULS Report
Helping people conserve resources and reduce waste by Using Less Stuff
November-December 1996 Volume 3, Number 6
======================================================================
Thursday, November 21st is...
***THE SECOND ANNUAL ULS DAY***
It's that time of year again, when the wrapping paper flows like
water and mail carriers start to whine. While it's virtually
impossible to look specifically at the Christmas season, annual
trash from gift wrap and shopping bags totals about 4 million tons.
Third class mail adds another 4.4 million tons to mail bags and,
ultimately, to garbage bags. These items combined account for a
bit over 4% of the total solid waste generated yearly in the
United States.
Educating people about the need to fight waste and conserve
resources is what ULS Day is all about. To get the message out
and help people learn to reduce and reuse as well as to recycle,
88 organizations have signed on as ULS Day 1996 sponsors and
participants:
ULS DAY 1996 PARTICIPANTS
National
*Center for Marine Conservation
*Families, 4H and Nutrition Unit; Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
*Foodchain
*Good Advice Press
*Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
*National Park Service, Southeast Region
*National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education
*National Waste Prevention Coalition
*Second Harvest
*U.S. Department of Agriculture
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
State/Regional
*Alabama Department of Environmental Management, P2 Unit,
Office of Education and Outreach
*Association of Ohio Recyclers
*Belmont University
*Brookfield Zoo (IL)
*California Integrated Waste Management Board
*Central Michigan University
*Clean Tennessee Program
*Corporate Environmental Management Program,
The University of Michigan
*Elmendorf Air Force Base
*Florida Department of Environmental Protection
*Illinois Recycling Association
*Indiana Institute on Recycling
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Keep Mississippi Beautiful
*Keep Nebraska Beautiful
*Keep Texas Beautiful
*Kids for Clean Water
*League of Women Voters of Texas
*Middlebury College
*Minnesota Waste Wise
*New Jersey EcoComplex
*North Carolina Department of the Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
*Northern Illinois University Student Association Recycling
*Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
*Project Wild/Utah Department of Natural Resources
*Rochester Institute of Technology
*Shavers Creek Environmental Center, Penn State University
*University of Arizona/BARA/The Garbage Project
*University Museum, University of Arkansas
*Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
County/Local
*Anoka County (MN)
*Beatrice Clean City Inc. (NE)
*Bluestem Solid Waste Agency (IA)
*Butler County Recycling & Litter Prevention (OH)
*Cass County Solid Waste Management
Department (IN)
*Central Oklahoma Metropolitan Environmental
Association (COMEA)
*City of Alameda Recycling Program (CA)
*City of Edmonds (OR)
*City of Escondido (CA)
*City of Chadran (NE)
*City of Woodland (CA)
*Clean Greenville (TX)
*Detroit Institute of Arts (MI)
*DuPage County (IL)
*DuPage County Solid Waste Education Center (IL)
*Honolulu City and County Recycling Office (HI)
*Huron County Recycling (OH)
*Keep Chicago Beautiful (IL)
*Keep Cincinnati Beautiful (OH)
*Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful (WI)
*King County Solid Waste Division (WA)
*Lake County Solid Waste District (OH)
*Lane County (OR)
*Lincoln/Lancaster Clean Community System (NE)
*McMinn Clean Community Commission (TN)
*Mecklenburg County Waste Management Division (NC)
*Monroe County Department of Environmental Services (NY)
*Montgomery Clean City Commission (AL)
*Montgomery County (MD)
*Orange Community Recycling (NC)
*Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (FL)
*Recycle Ann Arbor (MI)
*Recycle Livingston (MI)
*Santa Clara County Home Composting Education Program (CA)
*Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia (GA)
*Skagit County Public Works (WA)
*Snohomish County Public Works, Solid Waste Management
Division (WA)
*Summit/Akron Waste Management Authority (OH)
*SunShares (NC)
*Town of East Hampton (NY)
*Town of Hempstead (NY)
*Town of Huntington (NY)
*Town of Shelter Island NY)
*Town of Southampton (NY)
*Town of Southold (NY)
*Valcore Recycling (CA)
*Westchester County Department of Environmental
Facilities (NY)
*Winneshieck County (IA)
**DON'T LET THE HOLIDAYS GO TO YOUR WASTE**
We kick off the holidays with Thanksgiving dinner, which produces
more edible food waste than any other meal of the year. The season
ends with the fall of the ball in Times Square -- and with the 42
tons of confetti and other garbage left behind for the New York
Department of Sanitation. Here's what you can do to help reduce the
trash in your town:
Make a List and Check It Twice
* Holiday cards bought in one year would fill a
football field 10 stories high! If each of us sent
out one fewer card, that huge mound
would be reduced by a full story, saving
over 50,000 cubic yards of paper.
* Local postmasters tell us that up to 20% of all
mail is incorrectly addressed or otherwise
undeliverable. Save time, money and resources
by updating and paring down your list.
Food for Thought
* Over 100 pounds of food are wasted per person
each year. Take smaller portions. You can
always go back for more!
* Plan meals wisely and buy based on the
number of guests you expect.
* Save energy by cooking multiple items in the
same oven. (Check to make sure that they
should cook at about the same temperature.)
* Buy fresh foods carefully, not just because they
are cheap or on sale. Research shows that
cheaper foods are wasted at a higher rate
than more expensive items.
* Give extra food to guests in plastic containers.
Donate what's left to local food banks.
Home for the Holidays
* Having a party? Turn down the heat before
guests arrive. Their extra body heat will help
warm the room.
* Going to a formal occasion? Consider renting,
rather than buying, a gown or tux.
* Turn your fireplace into a furnace by using a
heat exchanger. Glass doors will further improve
efficiency, as will a flue that's open just enough
to provide a draft without creating indoor smoke.
* 50 million Christmas trees are purchased each
year in the U.S. Consider a potted tree that
can be planted in the yard, or an artificial one.
* Buy outdoor light strands that are wired in
parallel. If one bulb burns out, the rest stay lit.
Also, make sure you re-box lights after the season,
or use old newspaper as a spool and wind the
strands around it. Either way, lights won't get
tangled, so you won't end up buying more.
* Make your own wreaths out of natural materials
such as branches, dried flowers, herbs, red and
green chilies, etc. They make great gifts, too.
Gift Giving Guidelines
* Use the comics instead of gift wrap -- If we each
wrap only 3 gifts in reused paper, we'd save
enough paper to cover 45,000 football fields!
* Shop early, while you have time to make careful
choices. Last minute spending often leads to panic
buying, which leads to unwanted gifts.
* Give gifts of yourself -- offer to baby-sit, wash
the car, do the dishes, run errands, etc.
* Don't know what to give? Make charitable
donations. Consider gift certificates, so people
can choose for themselves.
* Plan trips in advance and consolidate, especially
when going to the post office. Mail everything
at once and save time, aggravation and energy.
* Shop at antique stores, holiday bazaars and
thrift shops. Someone's trash may be someone
else's treasure.
* Consolidate purchases into one bag. Better yet,
bring along a few from home and reuse them.
* Reuse packaging cartons and shippings materials.
Old newspaper makes for excellent packing, too.
Shred some at work and bring it home, if you can.
* Save fancier bags and use them as gift wrap.
* Paper grocery bags can be used to wrap small
to medium sized packages for mailing.
Save Your Energy
* A turnback thermometer, which automatically
turns the heat down at night and up in the
morning, can reduce energy costs by up to 12%.
* Shop from home -- electronically or through
catalogs.
* Walk to local parties, or carpool if you have
to drive.
* Run appliances such as the dishwasher,
washing machine or dryer only when full.
* Let meats defrost to room temperature. They'll
cook faster, save energy, and taste better, too.
Spreading Holiday Cheer
* Donate unwanted gifts to charity.
* Reduce the number of cards you send by
sending e-mail or calling those casual
business acquaintances.
* Try sending holiday postcards, which will
save on paper, envelopes and postage.
* Donate those cosmetic "free gifts with
purchase" to a women's shelter.
Creating Memories
* Remember to bring your camera to capture
holiday memories. Disposable cameras may
be convenient, but they can also be wasteful.
* Buy "faster" film such as 400 or 800. This
will reduce the use of the flash and save
energy.
* Buy larger size rolls of film. Versus three rolls
of 12, one roll of 36 reduces waste by 67% and
saves you about $4.
* Use rechargeable batteries.
* Reuse video tapes instead of buying new ones.
* Give family photos as gifts. A picture costs little
to take, but the joy it can bring may be priceless.
Have a Happy, Healthy and Resource-full Holiday Season!
**REDUCTION ROUNDUP**
Reuse, not Refuse -- The Detroit Institute of Arts is hosting
an exihibit entitled Re(f)use: Good Everyday Design. The show
features 100 common products that celebrate the success of
recycling and the power of design. Items include chairs made
from old newsprint, necklaces from used inner tubes, stationery
from obsolete maps, carpeting from soda bottles, and benches
from milk jugs. Call Marci Rivers (313-833-9769) for details.
The Green Team -- The Alliance for Environmental Innovation
(AEI) and S.C. Johnson & Son are teaming up to develop a range
of new approaches that will improve the environmental efficacy
of S.C. Johnson's products and packaging. The company makes a
variety of household products including Raid, Pledge and
Johnson's Wax. AEI is a project of the Environmental Defense
Fund and Pew Charitable Trusts. Call 617-723-2996 for
more info.
Coal Goal -- Recognizing that coal accounts for 95% of its
growing power needs, China has announced plans to develop
cleaner-burning fuels that can bring emissions down to
near-international standards.
Hanging it Up -- Sears is starting two reuse and recycling
programs designed to save money and landfill space. The
programs will reuse or recycle plastic hangers and garment
bag film. Hangers and bags will be sent to a central
processing facility for immediate reuse or recycling back
into similar items.
**Special Thanks...**
We would like to acknowledge the following groups for providing
ULS Day holiday tip information:
*The Garbage Project
*NYC Dept. of Sanitation
*The Con Edison Conservation Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ULS Report is a bi-monthly publication of Partners for
Environmental Progress.
Address e-mail correspondence to ULS@cygnus-group.com.
Snail mail address: P.O. Box 130116 Ann Arbor MI 48113
Phone: 313-668-1690
Fax: 313-930-0506
Editor: Robert Lilienfeld
Technical Advisor: Dr. William Rathje
Editorial Advisor: Tony Kingsbury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We encourage you to reuse and recycle our information. Since
The ULS Report, Use Less Stuff, Reduction Roundup and the ULS logo
are trademarks of Partners for Environmental Progress, please contact us
prior to reprinting.
Copyright 1996 Partners for Environmental Progress
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: "sdef!"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:47:38 +0000
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
> In article <55ipll$cg7@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) writes:
> I am not a climatologist and I admittedly have not heavily researched either
> ozone depletion or global warming. However, given the extreme amount of
> ideological bias on both sides, I don't really trust anyone in this field
> to be objective. The war doesn't seem to be between those that believe that
> ozone depletion/global warming is happening and those who don't. The war
> seems to be between those that *want* it to be happening (in order to push
> an ideological agenda), and those who don't *want* it to be happening (in order
> to push a different ideological agenda). Reality has no place in this debate.
>
> I don't see much science here. Just a propaganda war.
Yes, this is true. From my side of this, I have no hidden agenda though, I openly
state that I want a different society than western civilisation, or industrial
civilisation if you like. I have many good reasons for this, but western mentality
is obsessed with science and will listen to nothing else. If you read the number of
times people ask for scientific evidence of this or that in these newsgroups you
will have to agree. I have to argue using evidence that scientists produce.
Other knowledge is scoffed at, the wisdom of tribal people is denigrated and
reviled. To argue with a football hooligan you must use your fists, boots and head,
or you will lose. To argue with the civilisation that is the problem on this planet
you must use science. This is a shame because science is a noble and effective form
of study, but it is sadly abused when it is asked to answer questions it cannot.
The answer to the questions of wether or not we should do this or stop doing that is
not within the realm of science, all science can do is give us information on which
we make moral judgements.Those who make the moral judgements, and then impose them
on others, use science as an excuse.
So when I say that we are well on course for destruction, this is an opinion only,
and I use what I can find to back that up. Science cannot make predictions like
this, it is people who express opinions, some of whom are scientists. The vast
majority of scientists who specialise in the study of climate (only an example this
- but it is the name of the thread) are of the opinion that serious and devastating
changes are on the way, and that they are caused by human activity. This is their
opinion. I share it, not just through their discoveries but through what I myself
have experienced in my life. I use their evidence because it has more credibility
with people in this society. Not to advance a hidden agenda but to support my
thesis. This draws on many sources other than science.
Andy
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions(3)
From: "sdef!"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:47:47 +0000
If anyone doesn't have web access I can email some text files from these.
State of the Environment Norway website (loads about ozone depletion)is at
http://www.grida.no/soeno95/
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/boards/phytoplankton_board/2.html
is another useful page
Australian Antarctic Division (for info on krill and ozone and other stuff) is:
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> I do have a list of questions on both if anyone who is scientific and
> objective wants to answer.
> On global warming:
>
> 1) Do we have enough fossil fuels to create enough CO2 to cause any significant
> climatological change? (BTW, we will "run out" when they are too expensive
> to use practically as fuels.. not when there is absolutely no more left.)
I hope not, but I read somewhere that we have 200 years worth of extractable
coal left. New oil keeps being found, and as you said previously the figures are
used to advance agendas so neither lot is worth trusting.
> 2) Don't the oceans absorb CO2? Has this been factored into climatological
> models?
Now, plankton are believed to be 10 to 100 times more abundant in the polar and
sub-polar
regions than in the temperate and equatorial oceans. Accordingly, most of the
world's biomass is living
under the polar ozone holes, and is now being exposed to unprecedented levels of
UV radiation.
in the essay I quoted in a previous mailing on this thread, Bruce Torrie said
"Phytoplankton are tiny plants which float in the water column. Zooplankton a
tiny animals which graze on the phytoplankton. These two organisms are critical
to the oceanic food supply. In the Antarctic spring, as the ice recedes,
tremendous blooms of plankton feed off carbon dioxide absorbed from the air by
the oceans. By this process, vast amounts of CO2, an effective "greenhouse" gas,
are removed by planktonic plants, thus helping to keep CO2 levels down in the
atmosphere."
These creatures are 10 to 100 times more abundant in the polar and sub polar
regions, and are dramatically affected by the unprecedented levels of UV
radiation.
And according to the state of the environment Norway website (OK perhaps biased
but take a look, their research is excellent)
"Ozone-layer depletion seems likely to increase the rate of greenhouse warming,
by reducing the effectiveness of the carbon dioxide sink in the oceans.
Phytoplankton in the oceans assimilates large amounts of atmospheric carbon
dioxide. Increased UV radiation will reduce phytoplankton activity
significantly. This means that large amounts of carbon dioxide will remain in
the atmosphere. A 10 percent decrease in carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans
would leave about the same amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as is
produced by fossil fuel burning."
> 3) Doesn't increased concentration of CO2 merely trigger an increase in plant
> growth, such as photoplankton in the ocean? Has this been factored into
> climatological models?
But everything is connected to everything else, more plant growth creates higher
oxygen levels which causes more forest fires, which tends to balance itself out
within the counless other interrelated variables. And as above, any
phytoplankton increase is being negated or reversed by ozone depletion.
Andy.
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions(ozone bit)
From: "sdef!"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:47:55 +0000
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> I do have a list of questions on both if anyone who is scientific and
> objective wants to answer.
I have a degree in a fairly irrelevant subject (biochemistry) and can be
objective.
> On ozone depletion:
>
> I understand how the reaction works in theory-- CFC and Bromides are carried
> into the upper atmosphere by wind currents, and there they break up freeing
> Cl2 and Br2, which act as free-agent catalysts to break up O3 into O2. I have
> two questions:
>
> 1) What about chlorine from other sources such as volcanoes? What makes manmade
> chlorine different? If wind currents can carry big heavy CFC molecules up
> to the stratosphere, then they can certainly carry natural sources of chlorine
> up there. Also, how do the volumes compare.. manmade vs. natural?
Our emissions are in addition to those already occuring naturally, I will try to
find out what the ratios are, this is very relevant. Hopefully someone else will
first...
I think what is happening is that the ozone layer is at a certain level which is
relatively stable, subject to fluctuation in creation and destruction. These
fluctuations depend on fluctuations in natural emissions and in and in the natural
reversion of the destruction. If natural emmissions were lower, the ozone layer
might be thicker and we may then have evolved to be even less uv tolerant. It
seems no coincidence to me that the types of uv that are most lethal are the ones
that are most filtered. If emmissions increase and there is no corresponding
increase in natural reversion it stands to reason that there will be a thinner
ozone layer. I don't think we will ever get proof, it's just a matter of how much
evidence is enough for action
As Kant said in 1724: "It is often necessary to take a decision on the basis of
knowledge sufficient for action, but insufficient to satisfy the intellect."
> 2) How extensively have other alternatives been explored? Is there any data
> on solar radiation vs. ozone thickness? What about the possibility of there
> being a natural ozone cycle?
Yes, but it is pretty much sure that the chemicals we release do haav the effect,
so they will increase the depletion regardless of any natural cycle. Also this
brings up the possibility that the depletion could be even worse than we think.
What if we are on an up part of the cycle?
> 3) If chlorine causes O3 to be broken up into O2, which allows more solar
> radiation through, wouldn't this just lead to the production of more (the
> same amount as what was lost) O3? Solar radiation causes the formation of O3,
> so wouldn't the increased solar radiation cause an amount of O3 to be generated
> that would replace what was lost?
But chlorine doesn't cause an increase in the amount of sunlight arriving at the
atmosphere, it just causes the ozone layer to let more through. As there is less
03 present, a leeser quantity may be destroyed, but proportionally it would be the
same, assuming the same amount of sunlight reaches the atmosphere.
Andy
If anyone doesn't have web access I can email some text files from these.
State of the Environment Norway website (loads about ozone depletion)is at
http://www.grida.no/soeno95/
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/boards/phytoplankton_board/2.html
is another useful page
Australian Antarctic Division (for info on krill and ozone and other stuff) is:
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions(2)
From: "sdef!"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:48:10 +0000
If anyone doesn't have web access I can email some text files from these.
State of the Environment Norway website (loads about ozone depletion)is at
http://www.grida.no/soeno95/
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/boards/phytoplankton_board/2.html
is another useful page
Australian Antarctic Division (for info on krill and ozone and other stuff)
is:
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(just in case you decided this was another long boring post from savage and
not to read it, i put these at the top, they are useful.)
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> I do have a list of questions on both if anyone who is scientific and
> objective wants to answer.
>
> On ozone depletion:
This article by Bruce Torrie helped me get an understanding of what is
happening, I attach it in good faith, in the hope that others will benefit
from reading it. It is off our website. It is not rabid propaganda, but well
reseached and written with genuine concern.
Krill & the Circle of Life
by Bruce Torrie
This year (1995), reports circulated that 10-15 % of the estimated 3.3
million grey kangaroos in Australia have been "blinded by a mysterious
virus." Researchers suggest that this epidemic may be due to increased
levels of ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) turning off the kangaroos immune
system, leaving them prone to previously harmless viruses. In the spring of
this year Associated Press reported that penguin chicks were "starving to
death near one of Australia's bases in the Antarctic..... the penguins can't
find enough krill: small shrimp like crustaceans they depend on for their
food."
Last December, the Antarctic region saw the most profound depletion of
atmospheric ozone ever: a hole with a 75% depletion stretching over an area
larger than the entire North American continent. The thickness of ozone and
the area affected under the hole fluctuated and moved with the weather,
exposing a vast area of ocean to hitherto unprecedented levels of UVB.
Prior to human production and release of ozone depleting substances, the
layer that protects life on Earth from harmful radiation was thickest at the
poles. Scientists now think that this may be the reason for the great
abundance of life present in the polar and sub polar oceans. New research
shows that nano and pico plankton, extremely tiny organisms, are much more
abundant than previously estimated. Now, plankton are believed to be 10 to
100 times more abundant in the polar and sub-polar regions than in the
temperate and equatorial oceans. Accordingly, most of the world's biomass is
living under the polar ozone holes, and is now being exposed to
unprecedented levels of UV radiation.
This situation may accelerate global warming by affecting the complex
oceanic food chain. Phytoplankton are tiny plants which float in the water
column. Zooplankton are tiny animals which graze on the phytoplankton. These
two organisms are critical to the oceanic food supply. In the Antarctic
spring, as the ice recedes, tremendous blooms of plankton feed off carbon
dioxide absorbed from the air by the oceans. By this process, vast amounts
of CO2, an effective "greenhouse" gas, are removed by planktonic plants,
thus helping to keep CO2 levels down in the atmosphere.
Recently published research indicates that plankton communities are
dramatically affected by UVB, and some vital types of small plankton are the
main food source for krill: the small shrimp-like plankton known as
copepods, which often make up 70-90%of zooplancton.
The krill are vulnerable in several ways. According to David Lean, a senior
research scientist with Environment Canada, "The little tiny ones were
obliterated when exposed to UVB... in Antarctica the baby krill can only eat
cells less than 20 micrometers in size. The baby krill give rise to big
krill, and they are pivotal in the world Antarctic food chain. Without krill
you don`t have whales; without krill you don't have seals. It is absolutely
central to the whole Antarctic food chain."
Krill and other zooplankton are also disappearing from some areas of the
temperate oceans. Reports show an 80% drop in the population of zooplanction
off the coast of southern California.
So, we come full circle. UVB destroys small phytoplankton in the Antarctic
,contributing to global warming and a collapse in the polar and sub-polar
oceanic food supply. Global warming causes a collapse of the zooplankton in
the temperate and equatorial oceans, further contributing to the collapse of
the oceanic food chain.
Reports of starving penguins and seals circulate, but provoke no popular
concern or outrage. Meanwhile, the popular and scientific media offer little
analysis or call for action.
In Berlin this Spring, at the World Climate Summit, the governments of the
world blocked any progress on CO2 emission reductions.
Penguins are washing up on the beaches, and kangaroos are being shot as they
blindly search for water. All these things - the oceans, the air we breathe,
the food we eat and the sky above are interrelated. John Muir wrote almost a
century ago that perhaps the universe would be incomplete without `Homo
sapiens`, "but it would be incomplete without the smallest transmicroscopic
creature that dwells beyond our conceitful eyes and knowledge". Only now as
our ecologically blind society tears away the microscopic firmament of the
web of life, are the top scientists proving the remarkable accuracy of
Muir`s insight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone doesn't have web access I can email some text files from these.
State of the Environment Norway website (loads about ozone depletion)is at
http://www.grida.no/soeno95/
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/boards/phytoplankton_board/2.html
is another useful page
Australian Antarctic Division (for info on krill and ozone and other stuff)
is:
http://www.antdiv.gov.au/
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 15:19:23 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
> Ethanol is not the only motor fuel. Various vegetable oils can be used
> as diesel fuel.
Were going to have to eat everything, probably the diesel fuel
and tires too. ^^^^^^^^^^
Mike sent me a note and asked for more on Ethanol from Odum:
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS EMERGY?
"The literature on evaluation of nature is extensive, much of it
reporting ways of estimating market values of the storehouses and
flows in environmental systems. In recent approaches to
environmental evaluation (Repetto 1992), monetary measures were
sought for the storages of nature. Others have used the simple
physical measures of stored resources, especially energy.
"Shown in Figure 12.1 a is a storage of environmentally generated
resources. Energy sources from the left are indicated with the
circular symbol. Energies from sources are used in energy
transformation processes to produce the quantities stored in the
tank. Following the second law, some of the energy is degraded in
the process and is shown as 'used energy' leaving through the
heat sink, incapable of further work. Also due to the second law
the stored quantity tends to disperse, losing its concentration.
It depreciates, with some of its energy passing down the
depreciation pathway and out through the used energy heat sink.
"To build and maintain the storage of available resources, work
requiring energy use and transformation has to be done. Work is
measured by the energy that is used up, but energy of one kind
cannot be regarded as equivalent to energy of another kind. For
example, one joule of solar energy has a smaller ability to do
work then one joule of energy contained in coal, since the coal
energy is more concentrated than the solar energy. A relationship
between solar and coal energy could be calculated by determining
the number of joules of solar energy required to produce one
joule of coal energy. The different kinds of energy on earth are
hierarchically organized with many joules of energy of one kind
required to generate one joule of another type. To evaluate all
flows and storages on a common basis, we use solar emergy (Odum
1986; Scienceman 1987) defined as follows:
"Solar emergy is the solar energy availability used up directly
and indirectly to make a service or product. Its unit is the
solar emjoule.
"Although energy is conserved according to the first law,
according to the second law, the ability of energy to do work is
used up and cannot be reused. By definition, solar emergy is only
conserved along a pathway of transformations until the ability to
do work of the final energy remaining from its sources is used up
(usually in interactive feedbacks).
"Solar transformity is defined as follows:
"Solar transformity is the solar emergy required to make one
joule of a service or product. Its unit is solar emjoules per
joule." [p.p. 201-203]
INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL, ISBN 1-55963-316-6
published by The International Society for Ecological Economics
and Island Press, 1994. Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432;
FAX: 707-983-6164
=================================================================
Some selected table entries:
Net emergy for Imported Oil: 13.6 to 1
Net emergy for Methanol from Gas: 4 to 1
Net emergy for Ethanol from Corn: 1.2 to 1,
for Ethanol from Sugarcane 1.1 to 1
SECTION VI: Conclusions
From this study we would generally draw the conclusion that
natural gas and fuels produced from natural gas are likely to
play an increasing role in the economy generally. In addition, it
would appear that compressed natural gas and methanol made from
natural gas have the greatest near-term potential for use in the
transportation sector. On the other hand, cheap sources of
foreign oil prevent natural gas and methanol from having a
greater market impact now. Unless a major change in current trade
practices affects this fact, it is likely that oil-based fuels,
perhaps fuels reformulated to improve their direct emissions
qualities, will dominate the transportation sector for some time
to come.
The largest barriers to the use of natural gas-based
transportation fuels is the required investment in
infrastructure. There is a huge emergy investment in the
gasoline/diesel fuel oriented transportation sector, and this
represents a significant amount of momentum in the system. The
investment is not only in filling stations and existing
automobiles; it is also in the psyche of the car buyer, in the
education of automotive engineers, even in the regulatory
institutions that control various aspects of transportation.
These are difficult to measure, but the relatively high net
emergy value of natural gas suggests that these will slowly be
overcome, and current trends indicate this is already happening.
In addition to the alternatives we have considered for methanol,
it seems likely that it will find other markets through which to
expand. In fact, the rapid rise in its production is actually due
largely to its immediate market as methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether
(MTBE), a methanol derivative. MTBE is being used to replace
other, more toxic additives in reformulated gasoline fuels, and
this should continue because its net emergy is higher than the
petroleum components and the basic gasoline it replaces, to the
extent these come from domestic sources. Even cheap sources of
methanol made from remote sources of natural gas seem to have the
potential in the relatively near future for replacing sources of
foreign oil and diversifying our fuels mix or, at least, of
effectively putting a ceiling on oil prices.
Regarding ethanol, it must be said that there really would appear
to be no benefit to the country at this point in turning toward
ethanol production from energy crops. The value of corn, for
example, is much too high and net emergy value too low to justify
putting it into automobile fuel tanks when other alternatives
exist. Because the net emergy of the feedstock is so low relative
to other sources available, potential improvements in conversion
technology are irrelevant. An investment in construction and
operation of a farming and industrial ethanol production system
of 60 million gal/yr would cost the overall economy about $20
million annually in lost opportunities in investments with higher
net emergy. In addition, given the current nature of agriculture
and the economy generally, there is really no economy-wide
benefit in air quality when indirect impacts are considered.
At the same time, it must also be recognized that although a
major commitment to ethanol may not make sense today, it may have
a market niche. Spoiled corn or other crops that are lost to
their original purpose may well be better used if they are
converted to alcohol than wasted altogether, although we would
want to investigate the relative value of this periodic waste as
compost, as well. It should also be noted that ethanol or its
near derivative, ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (ETBE), in mixture
with gasoline, offers some potential benefits. But these benefits
are largely offered by methanol and MTBE at less total energy
cost. It is unlikely that the market would demand as much as is
being produced today without major federal and state subsidies.
There is insufficient land in this country to produce enough
ethanol to have a major impact on the transportation sector in
any event. And this situation will no doubt worsen, because
declining net emergy of the fuels available to the economy
generally are also forcing all farmers to decrease the energy
intensity of their operations. Ultimately, more land will be
needed to produce the same amount of food for human consumption,
and it is unlikely, therefore, that more land would become
available for energy crops. Although it is true that more land is
available for the production of lignocellulosic crops, such as
trees and grasses, we also calculated the net emergy of ethanol
production from these sources. Although the feedstock represents
less energy intensity, the greater energy demand of the
conversion process overwhelms any benefit achieved. This same
drawback would apply to municipal waste as a source for cellulose
as well.
[p. 299]
MAXIMUM POWER: The Ideas and Applications of H. T. Odum,
Charles A. S. Hall, Editor, Univ. Press Colorado 303-530-5337
Subject: Major problem with climate predictions
From: geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Wind Torque Ltd)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 00:40:08 GMT
In article <327b2104.121141642@news.primenet.com>,
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote in reply to my posting:
>Last time I checked, solar cell efficiency was poor, and costs high,
>leading to a cost of $5-$10 per peak kilowatt. This is about 10 times
>the cost of conventional power, which should tell you that solar
>technology is nowhere close to being efficient....
The example I quoted was solar thermal electric (like Solar One at
Barstow and the Luz project), not PV, which I agree is still more
expensive per kWh than solar thermal.
>Wind power today is a laugh, as evidenced by dead wind farms all over
>the countries.
Not so - wind power installation and annual energy production continues
to increase globally. Check the facts.
>Biomass produces just as much CO2 as petroleum, if not more, so that
>isn't going to do a lot of good on the global warming front.
That's already been answered several times by others - true
sustainability takes a bit of getting used to as a concept.
>I find it amusing that you fail to list nuclear power. You list
>biomass, which will do ZIP for CO2 and its alleged global warming
>impact. But you ignore nuclear which is minimally polluting.
>
>Do I smell an agenda here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Nuclear is inherently too expensive and could not compete with
wood-fired power as I have explained in another recent posting.
>>This ignores technologies like:
>>· passive solar architecture for space heating - zero land use
>>· solar water heaters - zero land use (rooftop application)
>>· photovoltaic solar - zero land use (rooftop application, e.g. for
>>battery charging for commuter electric/hybrid vehicles)
>
>Hmmm... 15 years ago everyone was buying solar water heaters around
here. They're mostly gone, due to their high cost and the pain of
keeping them working and replacing them when they corrode.
Gosh - corrosion protection - now that sounds like a tricky engineering
problem.
>>So biomass on its own could meet present energy requirements (just as
>it provides our food requirements) but probably cannot meet projected
>energy demand (which will more than treble in the next fity years).
>But combined with wind power in the windy places, solar power and hot
>water in the sunny places, hydro in the wet, mountainous countries,
the
>solar economy is actually quite feasible.
>Sure... if we divert most of our GDP into it.
Nonsense - how much of our GDP is spent on energy? 10% typically? I'm
guessing but I'd be surprised if it's more. Think about the dynamics
and you might come to the conclusion that it can't vary much from what
it is. Energy will always be an infrastructural component
underpinning, not dominating GDP. Of course the physical technologies
and consumption patterns that make up GDP will change, but change is
normal.
>>The problem is not a shortage of solar energy - it is an economic
>laziness and addiction to the unsustainable use of fossil fuels (which
>themselves are nothing more than stored solar energy).
>This is the old mythical thinking I keep seeing on this issue.
Nothing mythical about it - it's fundamental - you just need to realise
that CO2 emissions are an economic problem.
>Sure, there is tons of solar power available - about 1KW/square meter.
But turning it into usable energy is a much different situation.
Did you know there are sites in New Zealand where you can get nearly 1
kWe/sq. m from wind power? I'm playing with the units a little but the
economically important end result is valid, 0.85 kW year-round average
electricity from 1 sqare meter of land area! It comes about as
follows:
a) the mean wind resource can average 500-1000 W/sq.m of vertical
area (normal to the wind flow)
b) conversion efficiency can be 45% peak or 10-20% year round
average
c) windmills take up only a fraction of their rotor swept area as
land area taken out of agricultural production.
Thus for example 170 units of 500 kW rated could fit on a 200 hectare
block of land, only 2% of which is actually taken out of agricultural
production by the windmills. At windy sites they can achieve 40%
capacity factor (200 kW year round average each). Thus the average
power per land area becomes:
200 E3 * 170/(200 E4 * 2%) =850 W/sq.m
This is quite a startling result which may give pause for thought to
the solar-skeptics (I use lower, more conservative figures in my
calculations of global land area requirements).
>If *only* we just get less economically lazy... your desire
obviously... really means (whether you realize it or not)... if only
we would hobble our economy for decades.
Not at all - it is just a question of pay now or pay later (for
dangerous anthropogenic climate change).
>I say that until the evidence is better, both of the effect of CO2
increeases, and the effect of ameliorative measures, we should wait.
The computer models agree.
Well, no they don't, which brings us back to the original subject of
this thread. Nor do most policy makers who are advocating (if not yet
having the guts to adopt) a precautionary approach.
>>Once we have a level playing field (by requiring zero net CO2
>emissions, i.e. massive tree-planting funded by the fossil fuel
>companies as a transitional measure), the solar options will find
their
>niches. But until then fossil fuels will always seem "cheaper" so
>solar options will seem "not quite economic yet". It's an inherent
>economic Catch-22 that we must face up to.
>You are really talking about the issue of externalities. What is
cheap? If we could attach a realistic cost to the emission of a
certain quantity of greenhouse gas, then we could use government to
force those costs and let the free market sort it out.
My suggestion is to use the knowable cost of avoidance (by
tree-planting) rather than the unknowable cost of dealing with the
damage.
>>We need to adopt a very low technology option - "plant one tree for
>(approximately) every tonne of carbon you emit - and plant one tree
for
>every one you chop down, do not chop down more than you can replant".
>Yeah, right. Where are you going to plant all these trees? What makes
you think that the carbon in the trees will not be released back into
the atmosphere? The carbon cycle is complex... termites emit methane
when they eat those trees, for example.
I and others have already answered this one. I've done the land area
calculation also. Just about all countries have substantial areas of
marginal land that's no good for agriculture but good for forestry.
>>Administratively this will be simplest if the fossil fuel companies
pay for massive planting and pass the cost onto the consumer. In the
future biomass will be able to phase in while fossil fuels phase out.
>Why in the world do you think biomass is going to solve the problem?
Because it enables the externalities to be internalised (through paying
the cost of avoidance rather than reparation). This is prudent,
least-regrets (we need more trees), and readily quantifiable.
>Are you implying that we burn ONLY the trees that we plant?
Yes, of course.
>>If nuclear can compete with the solar economy, then it might have a
>future also. But I doubt it.
>Well, nuclear is far future (sic - cheaper?) than solar is today,
that's for sure.
Is it cheaper than solar thermal electric? I doubt it - not if you
factor in the R&D; and waste-disposal costs properly. And what about
insurance?
>it could be made a lot cheaper by:
> -standardizing the systems
> -going to highly stable (dynamically stable) reactors
> -greatly reducing the paperwork, delays and government meddling with
the operation of the reactors.
> -admitting the obvious: we can bury nuclear waste with adequate
safety today
Well, go to it, nuke advocates! But I'd give odds that you still
couldn't compete with sustainably forested wood-fired power in North or
South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa or most of Asia. (That
only leaves densely populated Japan and Europe where nuclear power
might have a future).
Geoff Henderson